Prev Contents Next
    68 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 68

WALL-PAINTINGS

 

PERUGIA, Collegio del Cambio

Allegory of Fortitude

The fact that Raphael as a young man was brought to work on Perugino’s extensive cycle of paintings has led scholars to try to identify specifically the work carried out by him and to overlook the degree to which his teacher, who was then at the height of his powers, set the tone in matters of execution, figuretypes and expression. The result can be seen in the exaggerated lengths to which A. Venturi went in trying to decide the extent of the assistance given by the developing genius; Gnoli on the other hand limited Raphael’s contribution to the figure of ‘Fortezza’, while Fischel claimed that the figures of both Solomon and Horatius Cocles should be added to the latter. These attributions have gained only qualified acceptance among recent scholars and in the present author’s opinion rightly so, especially as repeated restoration has left no clear possibility of distinguishing the hands of individual painters. The latest renovation of the wall and ceiling paintings was carried out with great thoroughness and care by Mauro Pellicioli in 1940.

Cr.-Cav. I, p. 66 f. (a.); Bombe 1911, p. 302 (d.); Venturi, Storia VII/2, p. 761 ff. (a.); Gnoli 1913, p. 75 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 2 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 29 (d.); Fischel 1935, p. 434 (a.); Ortolani, p. 17 (d.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 21, 357 (a.); Venturi-Carandente 1955 (a.); Camesasca 1959, Plates 124-5 (by Perugino); Wittkower 1963, p. 157 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 222 (d.); Dussler 1966, p. 78 (d.).


PERUGIA, San Severo

The Holy Trinity and Six Seated Saints    Plate 112

The Saints on the left, reading from the inside outwards are: St. Benedict, St. Placidus and St. Maurus, and those on the right, reading similarly, are St. Romualdus, St. Benedict the Martyr and St. John the Martyr. The names of the saints are included on the strip below the cloud-bank.

Below the fresco and to the left is the inscription:
RAFAEL DE VRBINO DOMINO OCTAVIANO STEPHANI VOLATERANO PRIORE SANCTAM TRINITATEM ANGELOS ASTANTES SANCTOSQVE PINXIT. A.D. MDV.

In the composition of this painting Raphael must have been stimulated by Fra Bartolommeo’s Last Judgement then in S. Maria Nuova, a work whose persistent influence is also evident, second only to that of Leonardo, in the formal structure of each individual figure. The two tendencies are most clearly shown in the sheet of studies at Oxford (R.Z. IV, No. 210), in which the profile head of the old man representing St. Maurus at the left edge of the picture has all the characteristics of Leonardo, while the youthful, outward-looking head and the two studies of hands for the saint on the extreme right (whose head is destroyed) would certainly have been impossible without Bartolommeo’s art. The sketches of hands in the former Heseltine Collection, London (R.Z. IV, No. 208/9), the drawing of the reading monk in Lille (R.Z. IV, No. 211) and the beardless elderly man represented full-face in Chantilly (R.Z. IV, No. 212), are so close to the S. Severo fresco in subject and in form that they must be considered studies for the planning of this work.
Apart from the representations of Christ and the two angels on either side of Him, the fresco is in very poor condition. The figure of God the Father has been reduced to a fragment showing His sleeve and hand on the open book in which appear the initials alpha and omega, the companion to the cherub on the left has been destroyed with the exception of the legs, and the head of the saint nearest to the front on the right is missing. Repeated reworking and attempts at restoration were undertaken during the nineteenth century, by Carattoli around 1840 and by Consoni in 1872. As a result the original brushwork in the figures of the saints has been largely ruined and it is difficult to decide whether Raphael finished the work as early as 1505, as stated in the inscription, or a few years later. The inscription has frequently been thought to be of more recent date and the evidence seems to support this view; however, it is not impossible that the date 1505 refers to the beginning of the work, and that it reached completion in 1507 or 1508. This supposition is also adopted by Fischel. The six standing saints in the lower part of the picture are by Perugino and were painted around 1520, during the artist’s final period (Camesasca, Perugino, Figs. 202-3).

Vasari (ed. Milanesi), p. 323 f. (a.); Rumohr, pp. 523, 524, 525 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 46 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 218 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, pp. 182 f., 255 (by Perugino and Raphael); Bombe 1911, p. 308 (a.); Gronau 1923, pp. 41, 42 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 41 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 20 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 67, 359 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 2, 3 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 49 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 f. (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 78 (a.); Schug 1967, pp. 479 ff. (a.).

68

    69 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 69

ROME, Accademia di San Luca

Standing Putto

114 x 42 cm.

PROVENANCE: J. B. Wicar, Lille.

Since the publication of Pungileoni’s Elogio storico di Raffaello Santi da Urbino, Urbino, 1829 (pp. 128 ff.), it has traditionally been accepted that the putto and its lost companion served as bearers for Pope Julius II’s coat of arms, a fresco which was situated, until its removal in 1772, above the fire-place in the so-called Room of Innocent VIII in the Vatican. However, the most recent investigation by Salerno has demonstrated the impossibility of this theory, for the little mural in question is preserved complete in the Museo Pio-Clementino in the Vatican, and clearly shows the entirely dissimilar posture and purpose of the two little boys (see Salerno, quoted below, and also Pietrangeli, ‘Il Museo Clementino Vaticano’ in Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia, XXVII, 1951/2, p. 100). As the provenance has been proved incorrect the question remains whether this putto fragment, which repeats the figure to the left of Isaiah in the church of Sant’ Agostino in Rome, should be considered a contemporary replica from Raphael’s workshop or possibly a copy made in the early nineteenth century, perhaps by J. B. Wicar, who owned the work before it passed to the Accademia di San Luca. The painting is at present being restored by Pico Cellini and a proper decision must wait on the results of this undertaking; the extremely valuable investigations carried out by Salerno, however, already suggest that it is of a very late date. Both Passavant and Cavalcaselle were sceptical about this work because of its poor condition, but surprisingly enough later scholars have been almost unanimous in accepting it as authentic, Dehio even going so far as to consider it Raphael’s original while attributing the fresco in the church of Sant’ Agostino to a lesser artist.

Passavant II, p. 138 f. (r.); Müntz 1882, p. 386 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 144 Note (r.); Dehio 1914, p. 215 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 106 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 71 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Fischel 1935, p. 438 (a.); Ortolani, p. 44 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 91 (a.); Salerno 1960, p. 81 ff. (d.); Dussler 1966, p. 79 (d.).


ROME, Church of Sant’ Agostino

Isaiah

205 x 155 cm.
Commissioned by Protonotary Johannes Goritz.

This fresco, which is to be found on the third pillar of the central nave of the church, shows the prophet seated within a frame formed at the top of the picture by two garlanded putti and an inscribed panel. The scroll held by the prophet bears a Hebrew text taken from Isaiah XXVI, 2: ‘Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in.’ The Greek inscription on the panel above is in praise of St. Anne, the mother of the Virgin: ‘To St. Anne, mother of the Virgin: to the Holy Virgin, mother of God, to Jesus the Saviour: Jo(hannes) Goritz.’ This painting was originally linked with the sculptured group of St. Anne with the Virgin and Child which Goritz commissioned at the same time from Andrea Sansovino and which is dated 1512; however, the sculpture was moved to a chapel in the church in 1760 and since then the painting has been isolated. Although repeated restoration about 1555-60 and in 1814 had caused such severe damage (at least, in certain parts) that the stylistic quality of the picture was sometimes misjudged (see Dehio’s article), careful renovation carried out in recent years by P. Cellini (whose report on the restoration was published in Boll. d’A. 1960, p. 93 ff.) has revealed that here, as in the Stanza d’Eliodoro (and specifically in the Mass of Bolsena) Raphael was receptive to Venetian influences. The extent to which this figure is indebted to Michelangelo’s Prophets in the Sistine Chapel has been all too strongly emphasized by Vasari, and despite the obvious influence visible in the subject’s posture Raphael’s personal conception of form is evident throughout.
COPIES: Dresden, Gallery, No. 95: by G. B. Casanova; Milan, Ambrosiana: end of the 16th century; Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum? (formerly Belvedere): attributed to Annibale Carracci.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 340 (a.); Rumohr, p. 550 (a.); Passavant II, p. 136 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 400 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 141 ff. (a.); Dehio 1914, p. 213 ff. (r.); Gronau 1923, p. 106 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 70 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Ortolani, p. 44 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 90 (a.); Biermann, p. 153 (r.); Salerno 1960, p. 81 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 133 f. (a.); Oberhuber 1962, p. 33 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 224 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 235 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 79 (a.).


ROME, Palazzo Vaticano

I. STANZA DELLA SEGNATURA

(View 1 and View 2)

Plates 113, 114

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

69

    70 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 70

papal Court of Justice - i.e. the room in which the sessions of the Signatura Gratiae and the Signatura Justitiae took place under the direction of the Pope himself; Wickhoff and Schlosser, amongst others, had claimed that it was Julius II’s private library. However, the use to which the chamber was eventually put does not exclude the latter theory and Pastor may have been right in supposing that the Stanza, although probably originally intended as the Pope’s library, was in fact used as his work and business room and was thus the scene of the application of the ‘segnature’ (signatures). Schlosser’s thorough investigation of the programme of themes used in the Stanza and its predecessors leaves no doubt as to their nature: they are representations of the four Faculties, theology, philosophy, jurisprudence and medicine (replaced here by poetry), subdivisions which were traditional in the organization of libraries. However, one should not overlook the great importance attached in the ceiling paintings to the idea of Justice, a feature evident even in the tituli, which go back to Justinian’s Corpus Juris. The present author does not agree, however, with Gutman’s theory that the wall-paintings are also based on the subject of Justice, nor is he convinced that the passages from the writings of Bonaventura adduced by Gutman were more than a general source of inspiration. From the testimony of Paolo Giovio in his Life of Raphael, it may be regarded as certain that Julius II personally took part in the choice of the subject matter: ‘pinxit (R.) in Vaticano nec adhuc stabili authoritate cubicula duo ad praescriptum Julii Pontificis’ (Golzio, p. 192), but it is not known who in fact acted as the artist’s immediate theological adviser. The intensive researches now in progress can be expected to produce interesting results on this point.
Assuming that Raphael is hardly likely to have come to Rome earlier than the autumn of 1508, he cannot have started work on the ceiling before the end of the year. For the dating, see the analysis by Hoogewerff (1945-6, p. 253 ff.) and more recently, Shearman (1965, p. 160 and Notes 12 and 13).


A. THE CEILING PAINTINGS

For a detailed interpretation of the ceiling paintings see C. G. Stridbeck (I, 1960, pp. 14 ff.). P. Künzle (1964, pp. 533 ff.), in some very valuable observations, explains T. Inghirami’s part in the conception of the programme.

1. Medallions

(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.
The motto is drawn from Justinian’s Corpus juris civilis I, Institutiones, ed. Krüger, p. 3 (Weizsäcker 1937, p. 61). There is a preliminary sketch of the female figure in Oxford (R.Z. V, No. 225) and the drawing for the putto on the right is in Lille (R.Z. V, No. 226).

(b) Philosophy - 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

(a) Adam and Eve    Plate 117
Studies for the motif of Adam in Paris (R.Z. V, No. 224).

(b) Apollo and Marsyas    Plate 118
E. Wind (1958, p. 142 ff.) has pointed out that this scene, which simultaneously treats the two actions of the crowning of Apollo and the flaying of Marsyas, is based on an antique Roman sarcophagus, of which there was formerly a fragment in the Villa Borghese; now, however, it survives only in an eighteenth-century drawing in Eton College (Wind, Fig. 1). Wind also draws attention to the fact that the profile figure of Marsyas is almost identical with the statue in the Museo Capitolino, Rome.

(c) The Judgement of Solomon    Plate 121
An oblong sketch for the composition is preserved in Oxford (R.Z. V, No. 230) and there are individual studies for the figures of the executioner and the kneeling mother in Vienna (R.Z. V, Nos. 231 and 232).

(d) The Universe (Urania)    Plate 122
A sketch for the composition is in Vienna (R.Z. V, No. 237).

70

    71 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 71

The four medallions depicting the faculties are not only related vertically to the wall-paintings below them, but they are also part of a ceiling scheme which links them in a twofold relation with the rectangular works which they flank; i.e. each rectangular painting is associated with the medallions to its right and left. Thus the Fall of Man is related both to the medallion of Justice and to that of Theology; and the Judgement of Solomon between Justice and Philosophy refers both to the idea of righteous judgement and to that of wisdom. The picture of Urania, placed between Philosophy and Poetry, personifies the power of the intellect and also the divine harmony of the universal order; and the Marsyas scene, between Poetry and Theology, refers to art and to the flouting of divine authority. This interrelation was early pointed out by Mosler, Düsseldorf (see Passavant I, p. 139); noteworthy contributions have more recently been made by Wind (1938-9, p. 78) and Shearman (1965, p. 161).
The following suggestions have been made as to authorship: Adam and Eve, according to Arslan, by Sodoma: Apollo and Marsyas, according to Arslan and Ortolani, by Sodoma, according to Gombosi and Hoogewerff by Peruzzi; Redig de Campos attributes the execution to Peruzzi or Sodoma’s assistants; Urania: Gombosi attributes the two putti to Peruzzi. The present author considers none of these theories tenable: even if one accepts that the workshop may have participated to a certain extent, taken as a whole the pictures bear witness to Raphael’s personality and command of form. Certain differences in the treatment of the nude, e.g. in Apollo and Marsyas by comparison with Adam and Eve and the Judgement of Solomon (the latter being the most mature conception) - are due to the artist’s emancipation from the academicism of his Florentine period.
The small two-part pictures situated above the four rectangular paintings and between the medallions have been thoroughly analysed by E. Wind (1938-9, p. 75 ff.), who shows that the upper works (painted in grisaille) represent scenes from Roman antiquity, while the pictures below them, which are somewhat larger and painted in colour, are devoted to mythological subjects. According to Wind’s interpretation these pictures, which are executed in pairs, are related to each other in content and represent the four elements, Fire, Water, Earth and Air. His associated interpretation of these works as allegories of the Virtues: Justice, Patience, Fortitude and Peace, seems less convincing. And his assumption that Raphael was responsible for the invention of these scenes seems no more tenable than Hoogewerff’s attribution to Peruzzi (Rendiconti 1941, p. 321). Reference to the better reproductions accompanying Tozzi’s article leaves little doubt that these scenes were painted by Sodoma; they have clearly a close formal affinity with the figures which surround the coat of arms of Nicholas V in the central octagon (which A. Venturi, Grandi artisti italiani, Bologna 1925, p. 66, wrongly attributed to Bramantino).

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 332 ff., VI, p. 385 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 5 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 553 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 111 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 358 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 13 ff. (a.); Grimm 1890, p. 272 ff.; Gronau 1923, pp. 55-9 (a.); Tozzi 1927, p. 171 ff. (by Sodoma); Coppier 1928, p. 13 ff. (by Sodoma); Arslan 1928-9, p. 525 (in part a.); Gombosi 1930, p. 14 ff. (in part a.); Gamba 1932, p. 57 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Fischel 1935, p. 436 (a.); Hauptmann, p. 254 f. (a.); Ortolani, p. 30 f. (a.); Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 317 ff.; Fischel 1948, I, pp. 74 ff., 360 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 33 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 4-7 (a.); Putscher, p. 240 ff. (in part a.); Biermann, pp. 27 f., 135 f. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 14 f. (a.); Gutman 1958, p. 28 f.; Stridbeck I, 1960 (interpretation); Freedberg, p. 115 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 55 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 230 (partly a.); Shearman 1965, p. 160 f.; Dussler 1966, p. 81 (partly a.).


B. THE WALL PAINTINGS

1. The Lunette Pictures

(a) The ‘Disputa’    Plate 123

For an interpretation of the subject, see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 1003 ff., who also refers to the earlier literature, of which Friedrich Schneider, Theologisches zu Raffael, Mainz 1896, and Fr. X. Krauss, Geschichte der christlichen Kunst, are outstandingly important; Cl. Sommer 1945, p. 289 ff.; Fischel 1948, I, p. 81 ff., and 1962, p. 59 ff.; Redig de Campos, Le Stanze, p. 7 ff.; H. Gutman, Franciscan Studies, St. Bonaventura, N.Y., XXIII, 1942, ZfKstg. XXI, 1958, p. 30 ff. and Ph. Böhner, Franciscan Studies, St. Bonaventura XXIII, 1942, p. 14 ff.; Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 334 ff.; Bandmann 1952, p. 20 f., and Biermann, p. 33 ff. Father Heinrich Pfeiffer, S. J., is at present working on a dissertation dealing with the theological programme of the Disputa and its relation to the ideas of Giles da Viterbo. His researches may lead to important results.
The centre of the picture is occupied by the Trinity. At the top is God the Father in the act of blessing, accompanied to the left and right by a trio of angels; below, at the centre of a disc, Christ is enthroned between the Madonna and John the Baptist (on the analogy of the medieval Deësis) and directly below Him is the Dove of the Holy Ghost, attended on either side by a pair of angels carrying open volumes of the four Gospels. The Elect are also seated in this celestial region, on a cloud-bank somewhat below the Rex Gloriae. Those on the left, reading from the outside inwards, are St. Peter, Adam, St. John the Evangelist, David, St. Lawrence and a sixth figure, which is largely concealed by the group forming the Deësis and hardly identifiable; those on the right, again starting from the outside, are St. Paul, Abraham, St. James the Less, Moses, St. Stephen and another half-concealed figure, possibly Joshua. In the middle of the earthly sector stands an altar, on which rests a simple monstrance containing the Holy Sacrament.

71

    72 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 72

Beside the altar are seated the four Roman Fathers of the Church, on the left Gregory and Jerome, on the right Augustine and Ambrose. The figures behind them on either side, pointing to the Host, cannot be identified. The three standing saints next to Augustine are the Dominican Thomas Aquinas (full-face), the Franciscan Cardinal Bonaventura (reading) and an old man, Pope and martyr, who is probably Julius I represented with the features of Julius II (cf. P. Künzle, ‘Zur obersten der drei Tiaren auf Raphael’s Disputa,’ in: Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Archäologie und Kirchengeschichte, LVII, 1962, pp. 226 ff.). Next comes the powerful profile figure of a blessing Pope, who must be identified with Sixtus IV, and behind him is Dante. The identifications suggested for the remaining figures on the far right of the picture cannot stand up to close investigation. The monk at the back peering out from beneath his hood may be Savonarola. Apart from the two Fathers of the Church none of the figures on the left of the altar is identifiable except the man at the rail whose face is turned in profile towards the young man pointing at the Host and the monk looking upwards at the edge of the picture: the first has the face of Bramante, the second can justifiably be claimed to be Fra Angelico. The two Bishops to the left of the standing man seen from the back are believed by R. De Maio (in Archivium Fratrum Praedicatarium XXXVIII, 1968, pp. 119 ff.) to represent Olivero Carafa of Naples and Tommaso de Vio.
Without going into the various interpretations proposed for the mural, one can see that its basic purpose is the visible presentation of the Christian faith: in Heaven the Trinity and the throng of the Chosen represented by prophets, apostles and saints, in the earthly region the participation of mankind in the divine presence through the mystery of the Eucharist. The title ‘Disputa’, which was not used until the end of the seventeenth century, is derived from Vasari’s text (ed. Milanesi IV, p. 335 f.): ‘scrivono la messa, e sopra l’ostia che è sullo altare disputano’. The term ‘disputare’ as it is used here means not a dispute in the sense of a conflict of opinion, a battle of reasoning and counter-reasoning, but unequivocally ‘affirmare’ - a fact which is not only made clear by the attitude of the believers, but is also proved by the presence of the transcendental world. - Which pictorial traditions may have determined, or rather inspired, the final conception of the fresco can only be conjectured but not proved. Early Christian apse-mosaics in Rome must have played a large part in transmitting these traditions, and before his move to Rome Raphael may also have been inspired in many ways by Fra Bartolommeo’s fresco of the Last Judgement (in the Museo San Marco, Florence), which had already influenced his mural in San Severo, Perugia.
Drawings: The first stage of the composition is at Windsor (R.Z. VI, No. 258); closely connected are the concetti for the arrangement of the figures of the upper region (Oxford, R.Z. VI, No. 259) and for the terrestrial section (Chantilly, R.Z. VI, No. 260, and Windsor, R.Z. VI, No. 261). For a detailed discussion of whether the Windsor concetto (R.Z. VI, No. 258) was the first version, see Shearman 1965, pp. 158 f., 162 f. - Parts of the lower left section are to be found at an advanced stage in London (R.Z. VI, No. 267) and in the Paris copy (R.Z. VI, No. 268), where the composition of the Church Fathers and their surroundings has nearly reached its final form and includes the altar with the Sacrament (a motif which was not planned in R.Z. VI, No. 258). The Frankfurt drawing, R.Z. VI, No. 269, preserves studies of the nude for this version. In the drawing in the Albertina (R.Z. VI, No. 273) the last stage in the composition of this left section has been reached, and this version served as the sketch for the cartoon. Even in the first sketch (R.Z. VI, No. 258) the youth on the left near the balustrade, shown turning back and pointing to the altar with his right hand, was a floating figure and a series of studies were devoted to him (Uffizi, R.Z. VI, No. 264; Lille, R.Z. VI, No. 265; Oxford, R.Z. VI, Nos. 274, 275, 276). Detailed studies for the so-called heretic at the balustrade are in Paris (R.Z. VI, No. 282) and profile studies for the heads of the young men kneeling to the left of the old man who stands by Gregory, his back to the beholder, are in Oxford (R.Z. VI, No. 278). The drapery of this pensive old man seen from the back is the subject of the magnificent study in Oxford, R.Z. VI, No. 281. Among the surviving sketches for the lower right of the picture are two which show St. Ambrose: seated in both, in one (Vienna, R.Z. VI, No. 283) he is accompanied by the bearded bishop who points upwards (he appears without a mitre in the fresco); in the other (Munich, R.Z. VI, No. 284) he is accompanied by a Church Father very similar to the figure in the fresco. It seems from the sketches in London (R.Z. VI, No. 286) that a much more intriguing conversazione was planned for the two figures above the door by the right edge of the picture than the group which was finally executed. Detail studies exist in Montpellier (R.Z. VI, Nos. 287, 288) for one of the two, the young man leaning forwards. In Milan (R.Z. VI, No. 292) there is a cursory sketch for the general arrangement of the celestial regions showing the figures nude in simple outline. The most remarkable feature of the sketch is that the Virgin’s right hand is pointing downwards, a detail taken up again in Giulio Romano’s composition in Paris, No. 3867 (Hartt I, No. 6, II, Fig. 1). The Madonna in Milan (R.Z. VI, No. 291) with her gesture of supplication, and the Christ in Lille (R.Z. VI, No. 289) are already close to the fresco. There is a study for Adam in the Uffizi (R.Z. VI, No. 293). Of the figures of the right-hand row, quick sketches for Abraham and Paul exist in Lille (R.Z. VI, No. 290), but the study for St. Paul (Oxford, R.Z. VI, No. 296) is very close to the figure in the painting. There is a study for St. Stephen in the Uffizi (R.Z. VI, No. 295) but in the fresco the figure did not attain the same excitement and impetus as in the original con-

72

    73 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 73

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.).

(b) The School of Athens    Plate 124

For an interpretation of the theme see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 995 ff., who also refers to the earlier literature; Grimme 1926, p. 94 ff.; von Simson, Zur Genealogie der weltlichen Apotheose im Barock, Strasbourg 1936, p. 146 f.; Fischel 1948, I, p. 85 ff. and 1962, p. 63 ff.; Gutman, Journal of the History of Ideas, New York 1941 and ZfKstg. XXI, 1958, p. 34 ff.; Hoogewerff, 1947-9, p. 348 ff.; Redig de Campos 1950, p. 15 ff.; Biermann, p. 44 ff.; and Stridbeck I, 1960.
The name of ‘School of Athens’ originated with G. P. Bellori, 1695, who entitled his detailed account of this mural: ‘Ginnasio di Atene, ovvero la Filosofia’. Since then the name has been generally and correctly retained, although even in recent years H. Grimme’s erroneous interpretation of the picture as ‘St. Paul’s speech before the Greek philosophers on the Areopagus’ has led to renewed attempts at justifying the confused description given by Vasari, who considered the foremost group on the left (Pythagoras and surrounding figures) to represent the Evangelists. Neither this theory, which indicates a complete misunderstanding of the theme, nor an interpretation based on the writings of St. Bonaventura, put forward by Gutman, requires refutation. It has also been suggested that the subject matter was derived entirely from Dante’s Divina Commedia and that the identities of the main figures could be established by reference to the poet. This hypothesis does not seem tenable either, for although H. Grimme is correct in emphasizing Raphael’s knowledge of Dante (which is also recognized by Fischel), the scheme drawn up by Raphael’s humanistic adviser cannot be explained in relation to the ‘poeta altissimo’ alone. Ever since J. Springer there have been repeated attempts to find names for as many as possible of the numerous figures, but Wölfflin was right in protesting against this tendency in his sound and penetrating analysis, and in fact only a few of the representatives of the scientific disciplines can be identified with certainty. In the centre of the vaulted hall are Plato and Aristotle, the former carrying in his left hand a book with the title TIMEO, the latter holding the ETICA; on the same level, to the left, is the profile figure of Socrates and below him Pythagoras, depicted as an old man kneeling and writing in a book while a boy holds before him a tablet of the theory of harmony. Bending over a pair of compasses in the right foreground is Euclid, whose tunic bears an inscription on the collar; R.V.S.M. (Raphael Vrbinas Sua Manu). Two men are standing behind him: one, shown in back-view, with a crown and a globe in his left hand, is thought to be Ptolemy; the other, a bearded man depicted facing the onlooker and holding the celestial sphere in his right hand, is the astronomer Zoroaster. Next to the latter are two young men (neither of whom is to be found in the Ambrosiana cartoon): the man in the dark skull-cap looking towards the front has the features of Raphael himself, a fact which, in spite of Vasari’s statement (IV, p. 332) was doubted by recent writers (H. Grimm, Benkard, Putscher) on account of the supposed bad state of preservation. The most recent investigations, however, have shown that this head never suffered real damage (see H. Wagner, 1969, pp. 51 ff.). The same is true of the head next to it, which as Morelli rightly pointed out (1890, p. 192 note 1), is a portrait of G. A. Sodoma, whom Raphael here immortalized as the artist who worked in this room before him (see H. Wagner 1969, pp. 54 f.) and who had been responsible for the original planning of the decoration and for the painting of the ceiling. Lastly, the man lying on the steps has always been believed to represent Diogenes. - All other identifications are more or less speculative. Whether the group around Socrates includes Alcibiades - the young warrior and the man listening with upturned face at the philosopher’s right hand have been suggested - is uncertain and so is the identity of the ivy-crowned humanist writing in a book at the left edge of the painting. Two other persons also remain unidentified: the very striking figure (believed by Redig de Campos to be Epicurus) standing, book in hand, with his head turned towards Pythagoras, and the old man with the turban standing behind the latter (for whom Averroes has been suggested). Attempts to identify the bearded old man beneath the niche of Athena as Bessarion are also unfounded.
According to Vasari, a likeness of Federigo II, Duke of Mantua, can be found in the young man bending over with arms outstretched behind the figure of Euclid (see Golzio, p. 24: letter from Grossino to Isabella d’Este, 16 August 1511); Luzio, however, suggests that this prince may be portrayed in the head of the young boy looking from behind the old oriental on the left, a supposition which is not to be ruled out (Luzio-Renier, Mantova e Urbino, Turin 1893, p. 189, Note, and p. 200, Note). There is much less justification for identifying the young man in white (behind the

73

    74 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 74

philosopher standing to write) as Francesco Maria della Rovere, for the head has none of the characteristics of a portrait.
The man sitting alone in the left foreground is generally thought to represent Heraclitus; Redig de Campos, however, suggests that he may be a portrait of Michelangelo - a theory supported by the fact that the figure shows not only the ‘Pensieroso’ or ‘poeta’ in Buonarroti, but also the ‘scultore’ in the remarkable prominence given to the block of stone. From the position of the head and arms it is clear that Raphael must have known Michelangelo’s Isaiah and Jeremiah when he conceived this motif; this means that the figure can only have originated after the unveiling of the first section of the Sistine chapel ceiling (14 August 1511), a circumstance also confirmed by technical analysis of the figure and by the way in which the construction of the fresco itself was planned. On this point see the detailed arguments given by Putscher (p. 237 ff.); Fischel, on the other hand, includes the figure in the final plan for the composition. An excellent study of this subject was recently published by H. Klotz (1968).
The invention of the long-admired architecture in this scene has been attributed to Bramante (on the basis of the account given by Vasari IV, p. 159). The most thorough investigation of this problem has been provided by M. Ermers in: Die Architektur Raffaels in seinen Fresken, Tafelbildern und Teppichen (Strasbourg 1909, p. 38 ff.) in which the author, although not denying the influence of the architect of St. Peter’s, nevertheless draws a precise distinction between the elements inspired by Bramante and those characteristic of Raphael himself. Another factor which should not be ignored is the relationship, first noticed by Charles Blanc, with Ghiberti’s relief depicting the meeting of Solomon with the Queen of Sheba on the Porta del Paradiso of the Baptistery in Florence. Hülsen (1911) has pointed out the surprising structural similarity to the ‘Janus quadrifrons’ at S. Giorgio in Velabro. In his monograph on Bramante (Vienna 1956, p. 194 ff.) O. Förster took no account of Ermers’s investigations and still supports Vasari’s statement.
Drawings exist for: the group around Pythagoras and the philosopher standing on his right (Vienna, R.Z. VII, No. 305), the recumbent figure of Diogenes (Frankfurt, R.Z. VII, No. 306), the two men talking on the steps to the right above Diogenes, and the Medusa on Athena’s shield (Oxford, R.Z. VII, No. 307); the figure of Athena in the niche and the three male niche-statues in the vaulted hall and the right crossing (Oxford, R.Z. VII, No. 308); the battle-scene in the relief on the left below Apollo’s niche (Oxford, R.Z. VII, No. 309); the group of geometricians, including Euclid and the back-view figure of Ptolemy (Oxford, R.Z. VII, Nos. 311 or 312). The cartoon for the figures is in Milan, Ambrosiana (R.Z. VII, Nos. 313-44).

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 330 ff. (a.); Bellori, p. 25 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 101 ff. (a.); Grimm 1882, p. 61 ff.; Müntz 1882, p. 341 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 46 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, pp. 69-76 (a.); Grimme 1926, p. 94 ff. (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 60 ff. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 34 ff. (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 47 ff. (a.); Wölfflin, p. 106 ff. (a.); Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 348 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 85 ff., 144, 361 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 15 ff. (a.); Putscher, pp. 53, 237 ff., 243 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1946, II, Plates 24-39 (a.); Biermann, p. 44 f. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 12 f. (a.); Chastel 1959, p. 476 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 123 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 63 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 228 f. (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 83 f. (a.); Prinz 1966, No. 115.

(c) Parnassus    Plate 125

On the underside of the window-embrasure is the inscription: JVLIVS II LIGVR. PONT. MAX. ANN. CHRIST. MDXI. PONTIFICAT. SVI. VIII (Golzio, p. 23). For an interpretation see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 993 ff.; also Meyer-Baer, ‘Musical Iconography in Raphael’s Parnassus’, in: Journal of Aesthetics, December 1949; Winternitz, Archeologia musicale del rinascimento nel Parnasso di Raffaelle in Rend. Pont. Acc. XXVII, 1952/4, p. 359 ff., and Gutman, ZfKstg. XXI, 1958, p. 32 ff.
On either side of Apollo are the nine Muses, some standing, some seated, some in pairs and some alone. Few of them can be recognized with certainty and Vasari mentions none by name. The Muse sitting to the right of Apollo (from the onlooker’s point of view) is identified by Bellori as Urania and her companion on the left as Calliope or Clio; the former, however, is more probably Erato and the latter can only be thought of as Euterpe. Framing the chorus on the left is a Muse with the mask of Tragedy, undoubtedly Melpomene, and her counterpart holding a mask on the other side is Thalia; the standing Muse, seen from the back, must be Urania. The woman with a musical instrument, reclining at the bottom left of the painting, is identified by an inscription as Sappho. Vasari gave names to eleven of the male poets, and of those Homer, Dante and Virgil are clearly recognizable on the hill on the left. Ennius, who is also mentioned, can only be the young man sitting beside Dante (referred to, but not named, by Vasari. The identification has, however, been convincingly proved by Redig de Campos in: Roma XI, 1935, p. 193 ff.). The poet to the right of Virgil, not identified by Vasari, is probably Statius; Bellori was certainly incorrect in considering this a self-portrait by Raphael. From this point on, one can no longer be sure of the identity of the figures. Of the four laurel-crowned personages near Sappho, only Petrarch is certain, being named by Vasari and Bellori, who do not, however, define his position. Petrarch’s long-haired young neighbour, who is pointing to Homer, was thought by Bellori to be the Theban poetess Corinna, and Hoogewerff suggested that the poet at the edge of the painting is Horace and that the other figure by the tree represents Pindar. Following Bellori, however, the latter poet is usually thought to be depicted in the old man seated opposite Sappho on the other side of the fresco, whose companion

74

    75 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 75

standing with outstretched arms was believed by Bellori to be Horace. Basing the identifications on his principle of the division into epic, lyric and dramatic poets, Hoogewerff considered this lower group (including the figure standing beside the so-called ‘Horace’) to represent the three Attic tragedians, and identified them according to age: the eldest as Aeschylus, not Pindar, and the other two as Sophocles and Euripides (Vasari and Bellori left the latter pair unnamed). Above this trio stand the remaining five poets, of whom only Boccaccio, the middle-aged, beardless man in front of the tree trunk can be identified with certainty (attested by Vasari and Bellori). The other four have been the subject of lively discussion over the last decades, a discussion centred largely on attempts to identify the poet Tebaldeo, a contemporary mentioned by Vasari. Bellori identified him with the bearded man standing on the right of Urania, looking out towards the onlooker, an opinion accepted by Fischel and others. However, this figure has also been identified as Castiglione, Ariosto (Hoogewerff) and, more recently, Michelangelo (Tolnay 1962, p. 167 ff.; this hypothesis had already been proposed by Gamba, p. 63). In the opinion of the present writer the two former theories are untenable, but the features are not entirely unlike those of Buonarroti. Redig de Campos (1952, p. 51 ff.) finds Tebaldeo in the bearded old man seen in left profile beside the youth looking out towards the onlooker (whom Hoogewerff named Theocritus), and refers to the copy of the poet’s portrait in the Uffizi. However, this full-face portrait does not seem to the present author to show any similarity which might permit an identification with the person portrayed in the fresco, and the theory is also disputed by Tolnay. Hoogewerff saw this old man as the poet Sannazaro, but Redig de Campos, like Bellori, sees the latter’s portrait in the person standing on the old man’s right at the edge of the picture, his face turned to the front. According to Gamba, however, this figure may be Anacreon. While Ariosto can hardly be represented in the standing figure next to Urania (see above), it is not impossible that he is portrayed, as Fischel suggested, in the man calling for silence with his finger on his lips, on the left of Sannazaro. This supposition is supported by the considerable facial similarity with Ariosto’s portrait by Titian in Ferrara, Casa Oriani, and with the woodcut in the 1532 edition of Orlando Furioso. Redig de Campos, however, does not accept this theory and Gamba suggests that this figure depicts the poet Benedetto Accolti.
The copy of a drawing in Oxford (R.Z. V, No. 237a, with an illustration in the text, Fig. 221, p. 256) and the engraving by Marcantonio (B. XIV, No. 247, reproduced R.Z. V, p. 257) afford an insight into Raphael’s earlier version of the composition. In the Oxford drawing the composition of the nudes on the hill is largely the same as that in the fresco. The left side, however, is of greater clarity, for the figure of Virgil has not yet been limited by his neighbour, the so-called Statius. The group of poets on the right, however, is merely hinted at in a single figure beside Urania. The two lower sections, on the right and left of the window bay, do not yet contain groups, but only a single standing figure each. However, at this stage only a temporary crystallization of the artist’s plans can have been involved, as other relevant drawings attest. On the one hand there is Raphael’s sketch of a fully clothed man (London, R.Z. V, No. 240) with the pointing gesture of the nude in the lower right of the Oxford drawing, and on the other there is the sketch copy in the Louvre (R.Z. V, No. 238), which preceded the above-mentioned work and which already established the connection between the old man pointing forwards and his two companions who then appear in the mural, above a sketch of the trio and beside a cursory concetto of the five poets. Marcantonio’s engraving, which cannot here be discussed in detail, combines earlier pictorial ideas with completed parts of the mural (landscape) and with extraneous additions (the flying putti with garlands derive from the fresco in S. Maria della Pace, as Fischel has already suggested). The position of Apollo alone shows that the sketch in Oxford did not serve as a direct basis for the engraving (his musical instrument and the absence of the motif used by Raphael to depict inspiration); moreover, Urania appears in the Oxford drawing and in the mural in back view, whereas Marcantonio shows her in profile. The slack line formed by the four laureates has no analogies in the drawing or the fresco. The lower side sections presuppose the Oxford concetto, but they also make it safe to assume that Raphael made an intermediate version, which probably preceded the detail copy in Paris (R.Z. V, No. 238). The groups standing vertically on either side render impossible the Sappho-Pindar composition which is rhythmically, structurally and spatially of equal significance. The preliminary sketch for the left section of the mural is preserved in a drawing in London (Pouncey-Gere Catalogue, 1962, No. 44 and Plate No. 47 - see also Addenda, p. XVI - where Raphael’s authorship is convincingly propounded).
Preparatory studies for the figures are to be found as follows: for Apollo, in Lille (R.Z. V, No. 245), for Homer in Lille and Windsor (R.Z. V, Nos. 243, 244 and 246), for Dante in Windsor (R.Z. V, Nos. 246 and 247), for Virgil in Oxford (R.Z. V, No. 248), for the poet Sappho in Windsor (R.Z. V, No. 246); there is also a study for the poet with outstretched arms at the lower right edge of the picture and another for the hand of the young poet standing in front of the tree on the right (in London; R.Z. V, No. 241); studies for the feet of the former figure are preserved in Lille (R.Z. V, No. 242). Studies for the Muse Melpomene are in Oxford (R.Z. V, No. 249), for Euterpe in Vienna (R.Z. V, No. 250), for Erato in Vienna (R.Z. V, No. 231), for Urania in Vienna (R.Z. V, No. 252), and a general view exists in a copy in the Uffizi (R.Z. V, text, Fig. 224); a study also exists for the profile head of the Muse to the left above Erato

75

    76 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 76

(Florence, Museo Horne; R.Z. V, No. 254), and another, now lost, showed the head of the Muse to the left of Urania (R.Z. V, No. 253).
Coppier considered the execution of the fresco to be the work of Sodoma alone, and Hoogewerff, with minor reservations, shared this opinion. By other writers, however, Parnassus is generally considered to be by Raphael himself, but in the opinion of the present author workshop assistants may have collaborated. The inscription has led to the general belief that this was the last of the pictures in the Stanza della Segnatura to be carried out. The style, however, indicates that it was painted before the School of Athens, very probably in 1510. Freedberg considers that this work followed the Disputa, an opinion in which the present author concurs.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 333 ff. (a.); Bellori, p. 43 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 98 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 354 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 60 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, pp. 66-8 (a.); Coppier 1928, p. 25 ff. (by Sodoma); Gamba 1932, p. 62 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 37 ff. (a.); Wölfflin, p. 111 ff. (a.); Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 322 ff. (partly by Sodoma); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 88 ff., 361 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 27 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 43-9 (a.); Putscher, pp. 51, 245 (a.); Biermann, p. 58 ff. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 13 (a.); Chastel 1959, p. 480 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 121 ff. (a.); Tolnay 1962, p. 167 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, pp. 65 ff., 222 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 229 (a.); Shearman 1965, pp. 159 f., 163 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 84 f. (a.).

(d) The Three Cardinal Virtues: Fortitude, Prudence, Temperance    Plate 126

On the underside of the window embrasure is the inscription: JVLIVS II LIGVR. PONT. MAX. ANN. CHRIST. MDXI. PONTIFICAT SVI. VIII. (Golzio, p. 23).
It is probable that a different pictorial project was originally envisaged for this wall, as has been emphasized by Putscher (pp. 83 and 225, Note 21), whose conclusions were endorsed by White-Shearman (1958, p. 306, Note 48) and more recently by Shearman (1965, p. 161 ff.). In this case, the subject would have been a scene from the Apocalypse (VIII, 3-5), which has survived in the copy drawing in Paris (Louvre No. 3866; Fischel 1898, No. 175; Putscher, Fig. 44). This supposition is confirmed by the applicability of the theme of ‘Justice’ to this particular position in the room and also by the style in the drawing, which corresponds with the sketches for the Disputa; moreover, the kneeling Pope on the left is a portrait of Julius II before he grew a beard (i.e. before Autumn 1511), and the date must therefore be 1509. The rejected concetto has been used again in the Mass of Bolsena in the Stanza d’Eliodoro. The absence of ‘Justice’ among the Cardinal Virtues, already noticed by earlier scholars, has been convincingly explained by E. Wind (1937-8, p. 69 f.), who refers to Plato, Republic IV, 432 ff., where the power of Justice is stated to be so fundamental that she lends her force to every other virtue. Wind’s interpretation of the putti as representations of the Theological Virtues is equally convincing. The little boy pointing upwards at the right edge of the picture symbolizes Hope and the putto carrying the torch behind Prudence is an embodiment of Faith; the little boy holding the mirror in front of Prudence is indeed her own traditional attribute, but if interpreted in the light of St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (XIII, 12) can also be seen as Fides. The putto picking fruit from the oak tree beside the figure of Fortitude is interpreted by Wind as Charity; this might appear somewhat doubtful, but he draws attention to a similar representation in a woodcut by Hans Holbein the Younger which bears the inscription ‘Caritas’, and a related example appears in Ripa’s Iconologia (ed. 1645, p. 201). The stem of the oak tree (robur), which Fortitude clasps with her hands, is doubtless intended as a homage to Julius II (Rovere). Gutman (ZfKstg. XXI, 1958, p. 36) traces the theme back to De virtutibus Cardinalibus by St. Bonaventura.
In formal structure this fresco is closest to the School of Athens. The figures show that Raphael had seen Michelangelo’s figures in the Sistine Chapel, and the fresco is therefore likely to have been painted during the second half of 1511.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 337 (a.); Bellori, p. 41 f. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 109 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 357 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 70 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 77 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 64 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Wind 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:

(a) Right: Augustus Preventing the Burning of Virgil’s ‘Aeneid’    Plate 128

(a) Left: Alexander the Great Depositing the Poems of Homer in the Tomb of Achilles    Plate 130

Hoogewerff’s interpretation of these two scenes can be regarded as definitive, and that propounded by Wickhoff (1893, pp. 60, 63), based on the memorabilia of Valerius Maximus, must therefore be discarded. Opinions vary as to the identity of the artist. Gamba upheld the attribution to Raphael and it is not impossible (in the present author’s opinion) that he had prepared concetti, even if the painting was not carried out until the twenties. Some scholars attribute the execution to Penni, others to Perino del Vaga; given the alternatives of this artist and Penni, however, the

76

    77 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 77

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:

(a) Right: Pope Gregory IX Handing the Decretals to St. Raimund of Peñaforte    Plate 127

This work, which depicts a historical ceremony, was lent contemporary character by the appearance of the Pope (a portrait of Julius II) and by the portrayal of members of the papal court.
Of the Cardinals mentioned by Vasari (IV, p. 334), the only ones who can be identified for certain are Giovanni de’ Medici (on the left of the Pope) and Alessandro Farnese (standing in front of the pilaster on the right). Less certain is the identification of the church dignitary at the left as a portrait of Antonio del Monte. Pastor (III, p. 993) doubts the validity of Vasari’s information, but Gronau, Fischel and Redig de Campos are right in considering it reliable. As Julius is shown with a beard, his portrait must have been executed after 16 August 1511 (see the letter of that date from the Ferrarese envoy to Isabella d’Este; Golzio, p. 24); in fact this work, like its companion (see (b) below) can hardly have been painted before the end of 1512. A detailed drawing for the kneeling jurist and his colleagues is in Frankfurt (R.Z. V, No. 256). It has often been doubted whether Raphael himself played any part in the execution of this painting, and its present state - the result of several restorations - reveals no traces of his own hand, however, no convincing case can be made for any of the assistants whose participation has been suggested (Penni and Marcillat).

(b) Left: The Emperor Justinian Handing the Pandects to Trebonianus    Plate 129

This scene is based on a sketch by Raphael himself (in Frankfurt, R.Z. V, No. 255). Nowhere, however, does the execution of the much-damaged fresco show the work of his own hand. Palluchini’s hypothetical suggestion (p. 123) that the painting may have been restored by Sebastiano del Piombo cannot be accepted; equally erroneous is Coppier’s attribution to Sodoma. A. Venturi and others attributed the execution to G. de Marcillat. The work has remained unfinished.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 334, 337 (a.); Bellori, p. 42 f. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 109 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 358 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 74 f. (a.); Filangieri di Candida 1901, pp. 128 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 78 (a.); Baumgart 1931, p. 52, Note 2 (by Penni?); Gamba 1932, p. 64 f. (workshop); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Ortolani, p. 39 f. (a by Raphael, b workshop); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 92 ff., 361 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 25 ff. (in part a.); Putscher, p. 254 f. (workshop); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 58, 59 (workshop); Biermann, p. 60 f. (a.); Chastel, p. 484 (workshop); Freedberg, p. 129 (by Penni); Fischel 1962, p. 68 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 230 (a by Raphael, b invention by Raphael); Dussler 1966, pp. 86-7 (invention by Raphael).


3. The grisailles in the window embrasures of the Cardinal Virtues wall.

(a) The Judgement of Zaleucus

The subject is taken from the Memorabilia of Valerius Maximus (Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri IX, ed. C. Kempf, Leipzig 1888, p. 301).The fragmentary sketch in Windsor (Popham 1949, Cat. No. 797v.) is the work of Raphael, but the execution may have been left to pupils (Penni?). Unlike its companion, this fresco is in a good state of preservation.

(b) The Doctrine of the Two Swords

This scene is based on Luke XXII, 38: ‘And they (the disciples) said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.’ As Steinmann has pointed out, the picture differs from the text of the Gospel: it shows Christ walking among his disciples and pointing with his right hand to two crossed swords which lie on the ground. He is therefore depicted as offering the swords to the disciples. The first proclamation of this doctrine on the part of the Church was embodied in the Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’ of Pope Boniface VIII on 18 November 1302. The sketch in Windsor is by Raphael (Popham 1949, Cat. No. 797r.); the execution of the fresco is by the workshop (Penni?).
The lower part of the wall in the Stanza was originally decorated with panelling by the distinguished intarsia artist, Fra Giovanni da Verona (as reported by Vasari, ed. Milanesi, IV, p. 337). His work was badly damaged during the Sack of Rome in 1527 and was replaced by the painted ornamentation of Perino del Vaga during the reign of Pope Paul III (Vasari, ed. Milanesi, V, p. 623).

Passavant II, p. 116 (a.); Steinmann 1899, p. 169 ff. (workshop); Gronau 1923, p. 80 (a.); Baumgart 1931, p. 62 f. (by Penni); Fischel 1935, p. 436 under A (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 87 (invention by Raphael).

77

    78 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 78

II. STANZA D’ELIODORO

We have no information as to the purpose of this room, but the programme of the paintings on the ceiling and walls must go back to Julius II, for the individual scenes containing the Pope’s portrait refer to historical events paralleled in his life. The paintings are not primarily concerned with representing concrete facts, however; more important is the representation of higher ideal qualities of the Papacy: the divinity of its institution and hence its leadership and freedom, the triumph of righteousness, faith and trust. Fateful isolated events become symbols and through their transcendental nature acquire a lastingly expressive character. Opinions differ as to when the paintings in this room were begun. A letter from the Ferrarese ambassador to Isabella d’Este (12 July 1511) reports that Julius ‘fa depenzer due camere a Raffaello’, and this has long been taken to mean that Raphael was already active in this room early in the summer of 1511 while continuing work in the Camera della Segnatura. However, the report shows only that the commission had been given and tells us nothing about the date of its execution (referred to by D. Redig de Campos 1961, p. 194, Note 26). It is more likely that work started early in 1512; towards the end of that year the Mass of Bolsena was completed, according to the inscription. When Raphael received the remainder of his payment, after the middle of 1514, all the frescoes were completed (Golzio, p. 33). The date 1514 below the Liberation of St. Peter provides additional evidence as to the date of completion. According to a letter from the artist to his uncle Ciarla, dated 1 July 1514, work had then already commenced in the Stanza dell’lncendio (Golzio, p. 31 ff.).


A. CEILING PAINTINGS

(a) God Appearing to Noah (above the wall-painting of the Meeting of Leo I and Attila).    Plate 131

(b) The Burning Bush (above the wall-painting of the Expulsion of Heliodorus).    Plate 132

(c) The Sacrifice of Abraham (above the wall-painting of the Mass of Bolsena).    Plate 133

(d) Jacob’s Ladder (above the wall-painting of the Liberation of St. Peter).    Plate 134

The surviving evidence suggests that the ceiling was originally divided into eight sections, like that of the Stanza 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.
A feature clearly apparent in the motifs and the type of the figures (despite the very poor state of preservation) is the influence of the forms used by Michelangelo on the Sistine Chapel ceiling which Raphael must have seen in its entirety after the unveiling at the end of October 1512. This influence is also to be found in the murals of the Mass of Bolsena and Leo’s Meeting with Attila in the same room, which were executed after the Heliodorus scene. Fischel’s attribution of the ceiling paintings to Raphael himself is supported by Oberhuber, who has brought forward convincing examples showing the change in style of the figures and draperies by comparison with the last frescoes in the Stanza della Segnatura. At the same time, he has also pointed out the weakness in Freedberg’s hypothetical attribution to Peruzzi - i.e. the fact that the paintings by the Sienese artist show a speedy return to the earlier style. If the ceiling paintings had been the work of Peruzzi it is highly improbable that the ‘maniera michelangelesca’, which is so marked in these paintings, could have disappeared again without trace in his subsequent productions. Dollmayr, in his attribution to Peruzzi, was quite wrong in ascribing to him (like Parker, Cat. Oxford II, No. 462) the sketch of God the Father for the composition of the Burning Bush; a cartoon for the same figure, in Naples, Museo Nazionale, is in the opinion of the present author (and also of Hartt and Oberhuber) from Raphael’s own hand. According to Oberhuber the drawing in Oxford is a copy, but Raphael’s style is clearly discernible and the original can be assumed to have been his work. The sketch in Oxford (Parker, Cat. II, No. 583) showing Abraham and Isaac is indubitably based on a concetto by Raphael for the ceiling, but can hardly be original (as suggested by Shearman 1965, p. 175).
The present condition of the frescoes makes it impossible to decide whether they were painted by Raphael or not; A. Venturi, Redig de Campos, Camesasca and Donati believe that the execution was due to G. de Marcillat; Baumgart suggested Penni, although there is nothing to support this assumption. The style indicates that the ceiling paintings were not the first paintings carried out in the Stanza, and that work on them did not start until 1513; Oberhuber and Shearman also date the execution of the ceiling paintings to this period.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 346 (a.); Bellori, p. 83 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 153 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 385 f. (partly by

78

    79 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 79

Giulio Romano); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 109 ff. (in part a.); Dollmayr 1890, p. 292 ff., and 1895, p. 244 f. (by Peruzzi); Steinmann 1899, p. 172 (by Peruzzi); Kristeller 1907, p. 207 (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 89 (a.); Venturi, Storia IX/2, p. 336 ff. (by G. de Marcillat); Baumgart 1931, p. 49 f. (sketch by Raphael, execution by Penni); Gamba 1932, p. 75 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (by Peruzzi); Ortolani, p. 40 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 99 f., 362 (a.); Hartt 1950, p. 124 ff. (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 52 (sketch a.); Donati 1951 p. 267 ff. (by G. de Marcillat); Putscher, p. 242 f. (sketch a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 65-7 (by G. de Marcillat); Biermann pp. 69, 162 f. (d.); Freedberg, p. 148 ff. (by Peruzzi); Oberhuber 1962, p. 35 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 74 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 231 (invention by Raphael, execution probably by G. de Marcillat); Shearman 1965, p. 173 f. (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 88 (invention by Raphael).


B. THE WALL-PAINTINGS

(a) The Expulsion of Heliodorus    Plate 135

This work is based on the Second Book of Maccabees (III, 15 ff.) and shows Heliodorus the Syrian being driven out of the Temple in Jerusalem when he attempted to plunder its treasures. The high priest in the centre prays for divine aid while the deliverance takes place on the right, a rider from Heaven throwing the guilty man to the ground while two young men rush forward at his side. The group of women on the left and the majestic figure of Julius II, seated on his litter, witness this miraculous punishment. No agreement has been reached as to the identity of the Pope’s companions - the man at the front in the official dress of the Curia and the two litter-bearers. The courtier is named in the inscription as Giovanni Pietro de Foliariis from Cremona, an identification which is generally accepted; however, C. Ricci has shown (Rass. d’Arte XX, 1920, p. 89 ff.) that this inscription is executed on an oil ground and is not contemporary; the results of the most recent restoration confirm this observation. Moreover, there was no Breve Secretary of that name at the court of Julius II. Ricci, Gamba and Wagner (1969, p. 69) found in this head Raphael’s own features, and comparison with the portrait behind the figure of St. Luke in the Accademia di San Luca (p. 64) in Rome does not completely contradict this suggestion; however, it is doubtful whether the artist would have portrayed himself in such a prominent position. Fischel regarded the farther litter-bearer as a self-portrait and this is very probably nearer the truth than the assumption that this is a portrait of B. Peruzzi or of Giulio Romano. Wagner’s attempt to identify this portrait as Sebastiano del Piombo fails because of the lack of comparable portraits. The foremost litter-bearer, who looks out of the picture, was called Marcantonio by Vasari (ed. Milanesi V, p. 442) and this identification has been accepted ever since.
According to Giovio’s Life of Raphael, the subject was chosen by the Pope himself, who had already owned tapestries depicting the same story when he was a Cardinal (Müntz 1882, p. 276 and Note 2). G. P. Bellori, the first to point out that this event of the Old Testament had relevance to events in the life of Julius II, saw in this work an allusion to the usurpers of the Church States under Louis XII and to their expulsion in 1512. This interpretation was rightly questioned by Pastor (Geschichte der Päpste III/2, p. 1037, Note 3), who pointed out that a more obvious allusion to this event is provided in the same Stanza by the Attila fresco. It is much more probable that the Heliodorus scene refers to the crises within the Church - the rebellion by schismatic Cardinals and their attempt, in alliance with the French, to call a Council in Pisa, whose miserable failure at the end of the year 1511 helped to restore the Papal authority to new respect.
Original studies are to be found as follows: (a) for the kneeling woman seen from the back on the left - Oxford; Parker 1956, II, No. 557v.; (b) for the mother shielding her child in her lap and a woman standing behind her - Zürich, Kunsthaus (Fischel 1925, p. 134 ff. and plate 1a). Shearman first regarded this as a study for the Fire in the Borgo (1959, p. 457), but lately revised this opinion (1965, p. 168); (c) cartoons for the profile heads of the two young men behind the horseman on the right are preserved in Paris (G. Rouchès, Musée du Louvre, Les Dessins de Raphaël, pls. 18 and 19); (d) a cartoon fragment showing the head of the horse is in Oxford (Parker 1956, II, No. 556, Pl. CXXXV).
Shearman has recently pointed out that an early sketch for the whole composition (1956, p. 167 ff.; and Fig. 9) is reflected in Beccafumi’s copy in pen and wash in Vienna (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 203; hardly identical with that from the von Savigny Collection, Berlin, mentioned by Rumohr, p. 557, and Passavant II, p. 157 and No. 526). The group with the Pope on the left is not yet included in this scheme and although the interior in which the high priest is praying already contains elements found in the fresco, the colonnades adjoining it on either side bear witness to a conception which is still reminiscent of the late Quattrocento. Shearman correctly points to similar formal motifs in Ghirlandaio’s murals in S. Maria Novella and S. Trinita in Florence, and also demonstrates (p. 169) how quickly Raphael’s tectonic ability overcame this tradition, pressing onwards in the spatial design of his mural towards a formal intensity which was not fully realized until the coming of the baroque.
The present author agrees with Fischel in considering that the execution of the mural was largely undertaken by Raphael himself. There is no foundation for the idea that Giulio Romano was brought to work (on the right especially) on this painting; this idea, first voiced by Crowe and Cavalcaselle and still maintained quite recently (Bertini), is untenable if only because the young assistant was no more than thirteen years old at the time (see Hartt 1958, I, p.

79

    80 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 80

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.).

(b) The Mass of Bolsena    Plate 136

For an interpretation of the subject, see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 1030 ff., Hartt 1950, p. 120 f., Lazzarini 1952, and Biermann, p. 71.
The inscription beneath the mural: JVLIVS II LIGVR. PONT. MAX. ANN. CHRIST. MDXII. PONTIFICAT. SVI. VIII (i.e. before 26 November 1512) refers to the date of completion (Golzio, p. 26).

This scene represents the miracle, said to have occurred in Bolsena in the time of Pope Urban IV (1263), in which blood appeared to a German priest who doubted the Transubstantiation. The blood-soaked cloth on which the chalice stood was taken to Orvieto and placed inside a precious reliquary, and in 1477 and 1481 the uncle of Julius II, Sixtus IV, granted indulgences to those who venerated it. On 7 September 1506, on his march against Bologna, Julius stopped at the cathedral in Orvieto to pay homage to the relic; his memory of the visit and the success of his entry into Bologna in 1510 under the protection of the Blessed Sacrament, both showing his deep faith in the Eucharist, may have determined his choice of the subject. The scene does not appear to be directly related to ecclesiastical affairs (such as the Lateran Council).
Here, as in the case of the Heliodorus fresco, we have a record of the original conception: the workshop copy in Oxford (Parker 1956, II, No. 641 and two other examples, 642 and 643, in the same museum). In its overall composition this already indicates many features of the fresco, but the detail variations show clearly that it represents the first version: the architectural design does not yet possess the taut, compact quality it has in the fresco, and the monumental effect is weakened by the complicated detail which appears in the apse balustrade, in the delicate articulation of the pair of towering candlesticks and in the trio of acolytes behind the altar to the left of the priest. The Pope at worship (in the same posture as in the abandoned project for the apocalyptic scene (Paris, No. 3866) intended for the Stanza della Segnatura) occupies, with his entourage, the left part of the picture; in the fresco, however, the kneeling pontiff is raised to the position due to his rank, opposite the officiating priest, becoming the closest witness of the miracle. The picture cannot have been planned before the middle of August 1511, for the Pope is portrayed with a beard.
For the question whether an apocalyptic scene (reproduced in a copy drawing in Paris, No. 3866 - Fischel 1898, No. 175) was originally intended for this wall in place of the Bolsena miracle, see the entry on the Three Virtues in the Stanza della Segnatura.
No original sheet of studies for the fresco has survived. The drawing of a nude kneeling girl (in Chatsworth, No. 56) which Fischel formerly connected (1898, No. 197) with the group of women on the left can hardly belong in this context (Shearman 1964, p. 90, Note 136, also denies that it has any connection with the Bolsena picture). The detail study for the Pope kneeling at his prayer stool (Le Dessin italien dans les collections hollandaises 1962, No. 65), championed by Jaffé (Burl. Mag. CIV, 1962, p. 233), does not seem to the present author to be from the hand of Raphael, especially as the recto, with studies of horsemen, can hardly be autograph (see note to the tapestry of the Conversion of St. Paul). The figures of the four prelates accompanying the Pope excited Vasari’s praise of the artist’s genius for portraiture, but he only mentioned one by name - the Cardinal of San Giorgio (Raffaello Riario); this is the figure with crossed arms in the back row. Fischel suggested that the other prince of the Church is a portrait of Cardinal Gabrielli, but this identification can hardly be considered to be more than a hypothesis. M. Wackernagel’s suggestion (1909, p. 319 ff.) that Sebastiano del Piombo might have participated in the painting of the Swiss Guards has already been refuted by the present author in his monograph on the Venetian artist (1942, p. 112, No. 39), nor is there any evidence for the collaboration of Lorenzo Lotto, which has been postulated by Longhi and Zampetti (Mostra di L. Lotto, 1953, p. XVIII). Palluchini (1944, p. 123), Ortolani and Redig de Campos (1956, p. 259 ff.) have also denied participation. - Most scholars date the Bolsena mural after the fresco of Heliodorus; Freedberg’s recent inversion of this order does not seem convincing.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 342 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 75 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 556 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 157 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 376 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 124 ff. (in part by Giovanni da Udine); Gronau 1923, p. 93 ff. (a.); Gamba 1932, p.

80

    81 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 81

76 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Ortolani, p. 46 ff. (a.); Hartt 1944, p. 68, Note 7 (in part a.); v. Salis, ‘Klassische Komposition’, in Concinnitas, Basel 1944, pp. 184 ff. Wölfflin 1948, p. 119 f. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 104 ff., 362 (a.); Putscher, 28, pp. 54 f. (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 43 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 72 ff. (a.); Biermann, p. 77 f. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 15 (a.); White-Shearman, p. 299 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 155 ff. (a.); Oberhuber 1962, p. 33, Note 45, p. 34, Note 54 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 78 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 231/2 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 90 (a.).

(c) The Liberation of St. Peter    Plate 137

On the architrave of the window below the fresco is the inscription:
LEO X. PONT. MAX. ANN. CHRIST. MDXIIII PONTIFICAT. SVI. II. (Golzio, p. 31).

For an interpretation of the subject, see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 1038 f.; Hartt 1950, p. 121 ff., and Biermann, p. 70 f.
The theme of the miraculous deliverance of the Apostle Peter from prison is drawn from the Acts of the Apostles (XII, 6 ff.) and the early Christian basilica of San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome was dedicated to the memory of this legend. While still a cardinal, Julius II had been in charge of this church and even as Pope he felt a lasting attachment to it. On 23 June 1512 he made a papal pilgrimage to the basilica to give thanks for the liberation of the Pontifical State from the oppression of the French and followed this visit with a triumphal return to the Vatican. The picture thus combines the rescue of Christ’s first successor with the contemporary event, and the reference to the latter is reinforced by the fact that, both in prison and after his release, St. Peter bears the unmistakable features of Julius II. This disposes of Bellori’s supposition, made already by Giovio in his Vita of Raphael and still supported by as recent a scholar as Rumohr, that the allusion is to Giovanni Medici (Leo X) and the battle of Ravenna (1512).
A study by Raphael for the fleeing soldier on the left is preserved in Windsor, Royal Library (Popham 1949, Cat. No. 799r.). The authenticity of the poorly preserved drawing for the whole composition in Florence, Uffizi, was first denied (1898, No. 178), and later recognized (1948, I, Fig. 111; 1962, Fig. 130), by Fischel. This concetto gives an idea of the preliminary design and is very similar in construction to the first scheme for the Mass of Bolsena; for as in the latter sketch the verticals of the window frame are continued in the candlesticks, so they are here continued in the prison walls. Whereas the fresco contains a flight of steps beginning right in the foreground of the picture, the drawing has an introductory horizontal plane, and the rising string-boards, like the pillars above, bear too much individual emphasis. The arrangement of the light, which differs from that in the fresco, has been analysed by Shearman (1965, p. 170). Redig de Campos has drawn attention to a drawing of the whole composition by Penni (?) in Rio de Janeiro, National Library (1946, p. 75 ff. and pl. 31).
The execution was partly entrusted to Raphael’s pupils, and especially, it seems, on the left side of the picture; however, it is not likely that Giulio Romano was engaged on this work, as is assumed by Cavalcaselle and Camesasca. Freedberg’s dating after the ‘Attila’ fresco does not seem justified.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 343 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 79 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 160 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 383 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 154 f. (in part r.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 245 f. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 97 ff. (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 84 f. (in part r.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (in part a.); Ortolani, p. 53 f. (a.); Wölfflin, p. 117 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 106 f., 362 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 47 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 84-9 (in part a.); Putscher, p. 54 f. (a.); White-Shearman, p. 302 f. (a.); Freedberg, p. 164 ff. (a.); Biermann, p. 79 ff. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 15 (a.); Oberhuber 1962, p. 34 and Note 54; Fischel 1962, p. 79 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 232 (a.); Shearman 1965, p. 170 (a); Dussler 1966, pp. 90-1 (a.).

(d) The Repulse of Attila    Plate 138

For an interpretation of the subject see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 1037 f.; Hartt 1950, p. 119, and Biermann, p. 72.

This picture depicts the encounter between Pope Leo I and King Attila on the river Mincio near Mantua in A.D. 452. It differs from the original design (see the sketch in Oxford) in that the scene has been transposed to Rome, which is clearly visible in the background. The change was made because the Huns’ threatened invasion of Rome was averted by Leo’s intervention. The apparition of SS. Peter and Paul as armed envoys from Heaven is a legendary incident. The subject was certainly chosen by Julius II in order that his successful resistance against French invasions during his Pontificate should be commemorated through the representation of the ‘liberator Romae’.
A Raphaelesque concetto for the first version of this composition (analogous to the preliminary sketches for the Expulsion of Heliodorus, the Liberation of St. Peter and the Mass of Bolsena) has been preserved in the copy in Oxford (Parker 1956, II, No. 645; a duplicate in London, Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 71). The composition in the drawing is more evenly balanced than in the highly dramatized fresco, as can be seen in the clear-cut confrontation of the two protagonists - the Pope in the sedia gestatoria on the left and King Attila on horseback in the right foreground - and in the equilibrium of both halves of the picture. As the Pope is shown bearded, the figure can refer only to Julius II and the concetto cannot have been executed before the summer of 1511. The copy of another design in Paris, No. 3873, differs from the Oxford sketch in that it shows only the events on Attila’s side of the picture, while the Pope’s group is so far in the background on the left that it has no function as a formal or thematic balance. Only the

81

    82 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 82

flying apostles remain, but St. Peter differs from his counterpart in Oxford in that, apart from the key, he also holds a sword (in his right hand), as in the fresco. The drawing in the Louvre also corresponds with the mural in the composition of the right side, whose dynamic effect and narrative complexity are not yet hinted at in the Oxford sketch; Shearman’s supposition that the Paris project should be dated after the Oxford sketch seems thus to be justified, although Freedberg and Pouncey-Cere reverse the dating. Nevertheless, the version in the Louvre must be considered merely as Raphael’s modello for a pictorial idea; he could never have intended to carry it out as a complete composition in view of the fact that the drawing contains no portraits of the Pope and his entourage (such as appear in the other three frescoes in the Stanza) and would therefore never have obtained his patron’s approval. Julius II, whose features still appear in the Oxford concetto, died while the fresco was still being planned and after a start had been made, and his successor Pope Leo X was therefore portrayed as Leo I, Attila’s historical adversary. The identification with the Medici Pope is beyond doubt, but Fischel’s suggestion that the two cardinals in Leo’s entourage are portraits of Amadeo Berrutti, Governor of Rome, and Francesco della Rovere, Commander of the Castel Sant’Angelo seem unfounded, and the opinion of Redig de Campos that the man leading the Pope’s horse should be identified as the steward Serapica (Giovanni Lazzaro de Magistris) cannot be considered to be more than a hypothesis. There are better grounds for the identification of the elderly ecclesiastic in the middle of the three riders on the Pope’s right as the master of ceremonies, Paris de Grassis (suggested by Fischel and Redig de Campos). The herald next to him is a portrait of Andrea da Toledo; this has been shown convincingly by Redig de Campos (1959-60, pp. 163 ff.), and the identification is confirmed by a comparison with the inscribed tombstone in the courtyard of the Casa dei Cappellani of S. Luigi de’ Francesi in Rome.
Close inspection of this fresco in recent years (during the progress of restoration) has led to the conclusion that only a much smaller part of the execution should be attributed to the workshop than had previously been thought. This is especially true of the right half of the fresco, which Freedberg considered to be largely by Penni (see the objections raised by Oberhuber, who refers to the masterly foreshortening of the heads of the warriors in the background). The landscape has recently been ascribed to Lorenzo Lotto (by Longhi), but the present author sees no features which testify convincingly in favour of this suggestion. - The only remaining original drawing is the study of a horseman in Frankfurt, Staedel Institute, No. 1797, whose authenticity is rightly accepted by Parker (1956, Oxford II, No. 645), Oberhuber and Shearman, whereas Schwarzweller, according to a written communication, considers it a German copy of the late sixteenth century.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 347 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 65 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 159 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 379 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 149 ff. (in part r.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 246 (r.); Gronau 1923, pp. 101, 102 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 82 ff. (in part a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (in part a.); Ortolani, p. 53 (a.); Wölfflin, p. 120 f. and Note 1 (r.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 107 f., 194, 363 (in part a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 49 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 80-3 (in part a.); Biermann, p. 82 (in part a.); Schöne 1958, p. 16 (a.); White-Shearman, p. 304 ff. (a.); Freedberg I, p. 161 ff. (in part a.); Oberhuber 1962, pp. 24, 34 and Note 54 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 80 f. (in part a.); Brizio 1963, col. 232/3 (a.); Shearman 1965, p. 170 ff. (a.); Dussler 1966, pp. 91-2 (a.).


III. STANZA DELL’INCENDIO
(Stanza di Torre Borgia)

This room, whose purpose is unknown, is called after Raphael’s mural of the fire (Incendio) in the Borgo of the Quartiere Vaticano. The decoration seems to have been planned already under Julius II, for the four surviving ceiling paintings - tondi depicting allegorical scenes (Vasari, ed. Milanesi, IV, p. 361; Camesasca 1959, Figs. 187-9) were painted by Perugino at the same time as Raphael was working on the ceiling of the Stanze della Segnatura (1508-10). The fact that Perugino’s decoration was left untouched despite its old-fashioned style is perhaps due to Raphael’s respect for his teacher; however, it is not impossible that redecoration of the ceiling was not carried out owing to lack of time, or because there was not the same interest in continuing an integrated thematic scheme as in the two previous rooms.
Raphael’s work in this room began in the middle of 1514, for in a letter to his uncle Simone Ciarla dated 1 July 1514, he writes: ‘ho cominciato un altra stantia per S. Sta a dipignere’ (Golzio, p. 31 ff.). Evidence that completion was reached before 19 March 1517 is provided by the inscription on the fresco of the Oath of Pope Leo III and also by the report of 16 June 1517 from the Ferrarese envoy to Alfonso d’Este (Golzio, p. 54) and the letter of 19 July 1517 from Bembo to Bibbiena (Golzio, p. 57).


1. The Lunette Pictures

(a) The Fire in the Borgo    Plate 139

The theme of the picture is based on a story in the Liber Pontificalis which relates how a fire that had broken out in the Borgo of St. Peter’s in 847 was extinguished when Pope Leo IV made the sign of the Cross. Whether the scene has symbolic meaning remains an open question: Pastor (Geschichte der Päpste, 13th ed., vol. IV/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

82

    83 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 83

Campos (whose interpretation is followed by Oberhuber) suggests that it may allude to the coming of general peace in Italy on Leo X’s accession to the papal throne, by contrast with the warlike events during the pontificate of Julius II. Pastor was certainly incorrect in assuming that the artist, as architect of St. Peter’s, wished to express in this work his ‘homage and thanks’ to his patron. Recent research - and especially Oberhuber’s penetrating investigation - has left no doubt that the invention of the composition as a whole was Raphael’s own. This also rules out the suggestion, made by K. Badt, that the architecture was painted by Peruzzi, firstly because of the harmonious relationship between the figure arrangement and tile buildings and secondly, because the architecture lacks any structural element which would accord with Peruzzi’s individual approach (on this point see Oberhuber, p. 38 and also the conclusions reached by Ch. L. Frommel, 1961, p. 156 f.). With regard to the execution of the mural, most scholars consider it the work of Giulio Romano and Penni; Shearman (1959, p. 458) and Oberhuber believe that, apart from the group escaping on the left wall and a few of the central figures, the painting was largely carried out by Raphael himself. In my opinion the quality of the three groups of figures in the foreground indicates that Raphael was responsible for their execution and there are also unmistakable signs that he was partially involved in painting the figures on the steps and in the background.
Drawings: the study of the aged Anchises being carried by Aeneas, in Vienna, Albertina (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 75; Fischel, 1898, No. 195: copy) was attributed to Giulio Romano by Hartt (1958, I, No. 7 and II, Fig. 18) and Freedberg, but has been proved - to my mind, convincingly - by Shearman (1959, p. 457) and Oberhuber (1962, p. 40) to be by Raphael himself. The sketch for the two kneeling women with the child, in Vienna, Albertina (Sc. R. 274; Fischel, 1898, No. 189: copy) and the sheet with the back view of a kneeling woman with uplifted hands, in Paris (Louvre, No. 4008) were ascribed by Hartt (1958, I, Nos. 8 and 8a and II, Figs. 16 and 17) to Giulio Romano, but tentatively given to Penni by Oberhuber (1962, p. 41). It is difficult to decide between the two assistants, but more important is the unequivocal influence of the master’s original design, which appears also in the nude study for the girl carrying water (Oxford; Parker 1956, II, No. 652: workshop copy); the latter is technically closely connected with the two sheets just mentioned (see Oberhuber 1962, Fig. 29). The study for the nude figure of the young man hanging on the wall, in Vienna, Albertina, Inv. No. 4882 (Fischel 1898, No. 190: copy) shows considerable defects and is attributed by Oberhuber (1962, p. 40 and Fig. 33) to Giulio Romano.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 359, V, p. 524 (in part a.); Bellori, p. 85 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 193 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 443 ff. (a.); Cr-.Cav. II, p. 204 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Dollmayr 1895, p. 251 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Gronau 1923, pp. 119-22 (by Giulio Romano); Hetzer 1929, p. 95 f. (invention a.); Gamba 1932, p. 91 f. (in part by Giulio Romano and Penni); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1935, p. 441 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Biagetti 1939, p. 230 f. (discusses the condition of the wall-painting); Hartt 1944, p. 68 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 53 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 100-4 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Biermann, p. 91 ff. (sketch a.); Hartt 1958, p. 21 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Badt 1959, p. 35 ff.; Freedberg, pp. 295, 302 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Oberhuber, 1962, p. 23 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 238 (invention by Raphael); Shearman 1965, p. 175 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 92 f. (a.).

(b) The Sea Victory at Ostia    Plate 140

This scene is based on the Liber Pontificalis and depicts the naval victory won in A.D. 849 by Pope Leo IV against the Saracens before the gates of the citadel of Ostia. The choice of theme reflects the contemporary preoccupations of the Medici Pope Leo X, who was planning a crusade against the Mohammedans following their repeated threats to the coasts of the Papal State about this time (see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 13th ed., vol. IV/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.

83

    84 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 84

The sea-fight in the background has repeatedly been attributed to Penni, and the participation of Giovanni da Udine has also been suggested, but neither of these assumptions can be checked in the present state of preservation. The same applies to the suggestion, made by Fischel and Gamba, that the picture had been restored by Sebastiano del Piombo (see also Oberhuber, p. 50, Note 106).
Drawings: (a) a drawing in the Albertina (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 74) of a head and two standing nude men, of whom the one in front, with outstretched arm, served as a study for the soldier to the left of the enthroned Pope in the fresco. This drawing has been the centre of much discussion, for it bears an inscription by Dürer, which indicates that it was a gift from Raphael to the great German artist. Hartt (1958, I, No. 9) and Freedberg ascribed the drawing to Giulio Romano; however, this view has been disproved by Shearman, whose arguments carry unqualified conviction (1959, p. 458), and by Oberhuber (p. 46 f.), who, in a thorough analysis, made the important point that there is no evidence of two artists being involved, and as a result there can be no doubt that the drawing is by Raphael himself. Fischel, too, declared (verbally) that he had revised his earlier opinion (1898, No. 199) which denied Raphael’s authorship, and Redig de Campos also supports the attribution to the master.
(b) a single study showing the nude figure of the man kneeling bound at the feet of the Pope (in Paris, Louvre No. 4011). This drawing, classified in the Louvre as a copy after Raphael, has lately been given back to Raphael by Oberhuber (p. 47 and Fig. 44). The present author has not seen the drawing, but judging from the reproduction, he is inclined to doubt the attribution. Shearman (1964, p. 93, Note 145) considers this sketch to be a copy from the fresco made by Vasari.
(c) A contemporary copy of the presumed modello, showing the overall composition, but with differences in the background scene, is in London, British Museum (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 49); replicas at Chatsworth (No. 68) and in Florence, Uffizi (No. 1377F). By comparison with the completed fresco, some parts of the group of figures in the foreground reveal an earlier and superior design (this has been shown by Oberhuber, p. 48).
The date ‘1515’ inscribed by Dürer on the drawing in the Albertina suggests that Raphael was occupied with the planning of the fresco during that year. Its execution is therefore likely to have taken place about the end of 1515, a date which Oberhuber considers probable, as does the present author, whereas Camesasca sets it between the end of 1514 and the first months of 1515. Freedberg believes that the Battle of Ostia was the first mural executed in the Stanza and dates it therefore from the beginning of 1515 - that is, from the same time as the first sketches for the tapestry cartoons.
With regard to the possible identification of the cartoon sent by Raphael to Alfonso d’Este (Golzio, p. 62 f.) see the entry on The Oath of Leo III, p. 85.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 360 (workshop); Bellori p. 95 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 197 f. (workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 443 (in part a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 211 ff. (sketch a.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 251 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Gronau 1923, p. 118 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Gamba 1932, p. 92 f. (in part a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (by Giulio Romano); Biagetti 1934, p. 90 ff. (the condition of the wall-painting is discussed); Fischel, 1935, p. 441 (by Giulio Romano); Hartt 1944, p. 71 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 59 (invention a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 105 (in part a., and Giulio Romano with Giovanni da Udine); Biermann 1957, p. 88 f., 96 (a.); Hartt 1958, p. 22 f. (sketch and execution by Giulio Romano with Penni) ; Freedberg pp. 294; 299 ff. (sketch a.); Oberhuber 1962, pp. 24, 46 ff. (sketch a.); Brizio 1963, col. 238 (invention by Raphael); Shearman 1965, p. 175 f. (sketch a.); Dussler 1966, p. 93 f. (invention by Raphael).

(c) The Coronation of Charlemagne    Plate 141

This scene, which shows the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III in St. Peter’s (A.D. 800), alludes to an event of Raphael’s time - namely the treaty between Leo X and King Francis I, in which the French king followed the example of Charlemagne and pledged himself to defend the Church (Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 13th ed., vol. IV/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.
Fischel had already suggested that the composition of the picture was based on instructions by Raphael, and as the great artistry and complexity apparent in the arrangement of the figures and in the spatial structure cannot be attributed to the inventive powers of either Penni or the youthful Giulio Romano, the present writer agrees with Fischel. Freedberg’s brilliant analysis of the structure of the painting transforms this supposition into a certainty; Redig de Campos shares the same opinion, as does Oberhuber, whose penetrating conclusions, supported by references to

84

    85 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 85

similar compositional motifs in the Loggie, serve to strengthen the American scholar’s arguments. Dollmayr, Gronau, Fischel and Freedberg were right in stating that the execution is mostly the work of Penni. Oberhuber assumes that Giulio Romano was engaged on parts of the left half and ascribes the rest to Penni. Passavant and Cavalcaselle thought that Raphael himself intervened in the portrait heads, but this is certainly incorrect, nor are there any signs of the participation of Giovanni da Udine, suggested by Gamba. According to Hartt, neither Giulio Romano nor Penni played any part in the painting of this fresco, which he ascribes to Raffaellino dal Colle; the present author, like Freedberg and Oberhuber, can see no basis for this attribution.
Drawings: (a) For the whole composition: in Venice, Biblioteca Querini-Stampalia. Gamba regarded this as Raphael’s design, but technique and style suggest that it is the work of Penni. (During close scrutiny Oberhuber noticed charcoal sketches in a few places beneath Penni’s lines, and therefore, while he agrees with the attribution to Penni, believes that the original design was by Raphael himself. See Shearman’s observations, 1965, p. 176, Note 84.) (b) Detail sketches for the two rows of bishops shown seated in the right foreground of the fresco (recto) and a front view of a seated bishop in the left background and the two deacons taking part in the coronation ceremony (verso) : in Düsseldorf (I. Budde, Beschreibender Katalog der Handzeichnungen in der Staatlichen Kunstakademie, Düsseldorf 1930, No. 12). By Penni. (c) A nude study for the man carrying a bench in the left foreground: in Chantilly, Musée Condé, F.R. 48 bis. Although Oberhuber (Fig. 58) thinks that this sketch is possibly by Raphael, the execution at least seems to show the hand of Penni; the same is true of (d), a study for the head of the second bishop in the left background, Paris, Louvre, No. 3983), which Oberhuber (Fig. 59) attributes, with reservations, to Raphael. (e) A drawing supposed by Gamba to be a study for the head of Leo X (pl. 75), in Florence, Museo Horne, cannot be by the hand of Raphael nor is it a portrait of that Pope.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 360 f. (workshop); Bellon, p. 99 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 191 ff. (in part a.); Müntz 1882, p. 446 (workshop); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 290 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 267 (by Penni); Gronau 1923, p. 123 (by Penni); Biagetti 1926-7, p. 238 ff. (the condition of the wall-painting is discussed); Gamba 1932, p. 93 f. (by Penni and Giovanni da Udine); Fischel 1935, p. 441 (by Penni); Hartt 1944, p. 73 f. (by Raffaellino dal Colle); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 59 f. (sketch a.); Camesasca 1956, II, plate 106A (by Penni); Biermann 1957, pp. 89 f., 96 (r.); Hartt 1958, p. 22 (by Raffaellino dal Colle); Freedberg, p. 307 ff. (sketch a.); Oberhuber 1962, pp. 24, 26 ff. (sketch a.); Brizio 1963, col. 238 (invention by Raphael); Shearman 1965, p. 176 (by Penni); Dussler 1966, p. 94 f. (invention by Raphael).

(d) The Oath of Pope Leo III    Plate 142

Pastor (Geschichte der Päpste, 13th ed., vol. IV/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.
The composition goes back, to a large extent, to that of the Mass of Bolsena in the Stanza d’Eliodoro, and for this reason has been attributed, not to Raphael, but to Penni; in view of the very formal, ceremonial subject, however, it was surely natural to take the earlier framework as a model, although it was by no means slavishly repeated. The nuances pointed out by Freedberg, and especially the difference between the other scenes, which were designed to produce a dramatic impact, and the static quality of the present scene justify the assumption that Raphael himself may have been responsible for the design, although no trace of his hand can be found in the execution. There is no doubt that The Oath of Leo III was executed primarily by Penni, who was aided by other assistants. Earlier critics already considered that the most important participant in the work had been the ‘Fattore’, and Dollmayr, Gronau, Fischel, Freedberg and Oberhuber agree with this opinion. Redig de Campos and Hartt, however, suggest that the fresco was painted by a less prominent member of the workshop. Shearman finds it inconceivable that the invention could

85

    86 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 86

have been by Raphael (1965, p. 176 f.).
Drawings: (a) for the composition of the upper left section: in Florence, Museo Horne, Inv. dis. 5547. Attributed to Raphael by Gamba and Camesasca, but there can be no doubt that it is in fact by Penni, although Oberhuber is probably correct in suggesting (p. 64) that it derives from a concetto by Raphael. Oberhuber also regards this drawing as the final modello for the wall-painting; (b) for the head of a deacon: in Haarlem, Teyler Museum, Inv. K. I, No. 51, by Penni, to whom it was ascribed by Oberhuber; (c) for the courtier standing in the left foreground of the mural: in Zürich, Kunsthaus; the sketch of a draped male figure, attributed to Raphael by Shearman (1959, p. 457 and Fig. 57). Fischel’s statement (1935, p. 441) that the lost cartoon passed into the possession of Alfonso d’Este is incorrect, for the letter of November 1517 from the envoy, Costabili, to his prince makes explicit mention of ‘una historia di papa Leone IIII’ (Golzio, p. 62 f.), while the subject of the scene under discussion is Pope Leo III. Costabili must therefore have been referring to a cartoon for one of the other wall-paintings.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 360 (workshop); Bellori, p. 98 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 190 f. (workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 446 (workshop); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 294 ff. (workshop); Dollmayr 1895, p. 267 (by Penni); Gronau 1923, p. 124 (by Penni); Biagetti 1927-9, p. 141 (the condition of this wall-painting is discussed); Gamba 1932, p. 94 (workshop); Fischel 1935, p. 441 (by Penni); Hartt 1944, p. 74 f. (by Giovanni da Lione or Pellegrino da Modena ?); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 61 ff. (sketch by Raphael); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 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).


IV. SALA DI COSTANTINO

The Wall-Paintings

(a) Constantine Addressing His Troops (Adlocutio)    Plate 143

(b) The Battle of Constantine at the Milvian Bridge    Plate 144

(c) St. Peter Enthroned between Allegorical Figures of the Church and Eternity. - Pope Clement I (depicted with the Features of Leo X) between Moderation and Kindliness (Comitas). These two sections flank Constantine’s Address.

(d) Pope Alexander I Enthroned, with the Allegorical Figures of Faith and Religion. - Pope Urban I 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-

86

    87 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 87

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:
(a) ‘Giulio intanto e Gianfrancesco [Penni] diedero fine a molte cose di Raffaello ch’erano rimase imperfette, e s’apparecchiavano a mettere in opera parte che’ cartoni che egli avea fatto per le pitture della sala grande del palazzo, nella quale aveva Raffaello cominciato a dipignere quattro storie de’ fatti di Costantino imperatore’; (b) ‘ed aveva quando mori, coperta una facciata di mistura per lavorarvi sopra a olio’; (c) ‘Era il partimento di questa sala, perchè era bassa, stato con molto giudizio disegnato da Raffaello, il quale aveva messo ne’ canti di quella . . . alcune nicchie grandi . . . e dentro alle nicchie sedevano alcuni papi in pontificale . . .’
Vasari’s reports, which were certainly based on information from Giulio Romano, and were thus compiled some decades after the completion of the paintings, disagree with the information contained in letters from Sebastiano del Piombo to Michelangelo; these begin a few days after Raphael’s death and cease at the end of 1520. Their value as documentary evidence can be seen from the fact that the Venetian artist, who himself tried to obtain the commission, records the progress of the work on the individual sections and the pictorial programme as a whole. His letter of 12 April 1520 (Golzio, p. 125) states that the pupils from Raphael’s workshop were intending to execute the paintings in oil, and on 3 July (Golzio, p. 129) he mentions a trial figure painted by them using the oil technique. Sebastiano’s report of 6 September (Golzio, p. 131) is of special importance, for he deals here with the subjects for the paintings: (a) Constantine’s vision assuring him of victory (i.e. the scene depicting the Emperor’s address to his troops, with the secondary incident of the Cross in the sky; this is the painting known as the ‘Adlocutio’); (b) the battle-scene. Neither of the two other scenes from the life of Constantine which are described by Sebastiano ever reached execution. His letter also contains the information that Leo X intended to commission the paintings from the dead master’s workshop because Raphael’s pupils were in possession of his drawings and, furthermore, that work was to commence with the battle-scene. According to Sebastiano’s report of 15 (?) October (Golzio, p. 134 ff.), work was then under way, but the Pope was so little pleased with the trial figures that he had still not made any definitive decision. Work continued none the less, as we learn from the note sent to Michelangelo by L. Sellaio on 15 December 1520 (Golzio, p. 140) in which the paintings are mentioned with unmitigated scorn. Between this date and the end of 1521 such good progress was made that Castiglione states in a letter of 16 December 1521, sent to Mantua (Golzio, p. 145 f.), that more than half the room had already been completed. Leo X died shortly afterwards and as his successor, Hadrian VI, had no interest in art, completion was held up during the latter’s pontificate. The decoration was only finished as a result of the assistance given by the next Pope, Clement VII (from 19 November 1523), a fact indicated in Castiglione’s letter of 5 September 1524 (Golzio, p. 151), and in the inscription in the room itself: CLEMENS VII. PONT. MAX. A. LEONE X. COEPTVM CONSVMAVIT MDXX IIII, and by the imprese of the two Popes in the painted framing. The work undertaken during this second stage (after 1521) will not be discussed here. - The letters from Sebastiano, the testimony of Vasari and the trustworthy remark in the first monograph on Raphael, written (before 1527) by Paolo Giovio, who mentions that the last work undertaken by the great artist was the beginning of the Battle of Constantine in this room (Golzio, p. 191 ff.), make the following conclusions appear likely:
(1) that Raphael determined the division of the walls of the room - i.e. he planned the arrangement of narrow compartments depicting enthroned Popes at the sides and pictures of historical subjects in the centre of each wall (the pattern decided on for the Battle of Constantine and the Adlocutio will also have served as a model for the arrangement of the paintings on the other two walls, whose subjects had not been decided at the time); (2) that Raphael made sketches for the history-paintings and for the pictures representing the individual Popes. Vasari mentions cartoons left behind at Raphael’s death (in his Life of Giulio Romano), but this seems to be a very general statement; there can only have been, at most, a few auxiliary cartoons (such as those for the Transfiguration) and certainly no large scale cartoons, as these were normally worked out by the workshop. The whole report must be considered of doubtful reliability, however, for elsewhere (in his Life of Penni) Vasari mentions only ‘schizzi delle storie’ and Sebastiano also refers only to drawings (6 September 1520). If cartoons had existed they would have been composed under Raphael’s supervision, and the formal and expressive character of the paintings would not have undergone so fundamental a change - even after his death - as is visible in the works which were executed. Had such designs existed, moreover, Leo X would very probably not have hesitated for several months before commissioning the workshop to carry out the scheme; (3) the fact that Raphael undertook the preparation of the wall (mistura) for oil painting is alluded to repeatedly by Sebastiano (12 April, 3 July, 15 (?) October) and is also mentioned by Vasari (Life of Giulio Romano); it is confirmed by the payment to Giuliano Leni (19 October 1519, Frey, JPK XXXI, add. section, p. 29) for scaffolding in the ‘Sala grande’. It is not known whether Raphael took any

87

    88 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 88

part in the painting of the wall, for neither the two historical scenes nor the four pictures representing the Popes show any sign of his hand.
The single figures representing Justice and Comity, the first to be painted on the wall, were used as a test of the oil technique (Vasari, Life of Giulio Romano, p. 527 f.; Sebastiano’s report of 3 July 1520), and date from the period after Raphael’s death, although the designs suggest his authorship. (Shearman, 1965, agrees with Gamba in considering the figure of Justice to be of higher quality than that of Comity, and is inclined to ascribe it to Raphael. Cavalcaselle II, p. 364, attributes Justice to Giulio Romano and thinks it inferior to Comity. Passavant mentioned a sketch for the figure of Justice (II, p. 527) in the von Savigny Collection, Berlin; this was listed as a drawing by Penni, but is now lost.) Of Raphael’s original designs only the following are known: (a) a seated female figure holding a staff in her right hand, her head slightly inclined in the other direction; a dog is lying at her feet; this is probably an allegory of Fidelity, i.e. one of the Virtues placed on either side of the enthroned Popes. (Wind’s interpretation of this figure as ‘Fortuna’ has been convincingly disproved by Shearman.) The sketch is illustrated in: Oxford Report 1956, Plate XV and Festschrift W. Friedlaender, plate on p. 37, No. 16; (b) Frankfurt, Staedel, No. 421. A drawing of the youthful caryatid above ‘Charity’ in the picture of Pope Urban I. This sheet is of extraordinarily high quality and has been tentatively ascribed to Raphael by Oberhuber (Berliner Jb. IV, 1962, p. 138 and Fig. 15), although he also suggests that it might be by Penni. Shearman attributes the sketch, with reservations, to Giulio Romano (1965, p. 180, Note 103), which seems more likely. (c) Of Raphael’s own sketches for the battle-picture we have only the two nude studies in Oxford, No. 569: a young man crouching down with his right leg raised and another man, seen from the back, who is bending forwards; both were used in the scene with the boat at the extreme right of the fresco. The attribution to Raphael is, as Parker (Oxford Cat. No. 569) admits, not quite certain but comparison with similar figures such as the nude study of the watchman in Oxford, No. 559 (R.Z., VIII, No. 390) tends to favour the master rather than Giulio Romano, to whom the sheet is ascribed by Hartt (I, No. 38, II, Fig. 84). - The cartoon fragment of the warriors fighting on the bridge, in Milan, Ambrosiana (Hartt 1958, I, No. 36, II, Fig. 81), and another of the soldier in the on-guard position with his sword in his right hand (Hartt 1958, I, No. 36, II, Fig. 81) are certainly by Giulio Romano.
Although the number of surviving studies is so small, it can be assumed that the composition of the battlescene, which has always excited great admiration, and was never surpassed in the whole of the Cinquecento, was founded on definitive concetti by Raphael. This is especially true of the group of horsemen in the centre with Constantine and of the group on the left, which clearly reveals Raphael’s knowledge of Leonardo’s cartoon for the Battle of Anghiari in the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. Von Salis (p. 74 ff.) has given a detailed analysis of the decisive influences from the antique, especially from the related motifs on the Arch of Constantine, and it is hardly conceivable that the task of selecting and arranging elements from this material for the composition of the painting could have been carried out without Raphael himself. He played no part in the execution, however, which is the work of Giulio Romano - and not only in the actual brushwork, but equally in the stylistic conception; i.e. it displays his ‘anti-classical repertoire of forms’, which has been so brilliantly described by Freedberg (I, p. 568 ff.) that this reference to his analysis is sufficient. This is also true of the scene of the Adlocutio, the definitive version of which was created by Giulio Romano on the basis of sketches by Raphael. The only surviving preparatory drawing is that of a nude warrior with a lance (Uffizi, No. 542E; Hartt 1958, I, No. 38a, II, Fig. 83). An auxiliary cartoon for the head of the general behind Constantine is in London (Pouncey-Gere Cat. No. 72; Hartt 1958, I, No. 38b), for which Penni served as a model. The execution of this mural was largely entrusted to Giulio’s assistant, Raffaellino dal Colle, who was also responsible for large areas of the niches allotted to the Popes.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 369 (in part a.); p. 645 (invention in part a.); V, p. 527 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Bellori, p. 105 ff. (sketch by Raphael; execution by Giulio Romano); Passavant II, p. 365 ff. (sketch by Raphael; execution by Giulio Romano and workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 447 f. (workshop); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 361 ff. (workshop); Dollmayr 1895, p. 347 f. (by Giulio Romano); Gronau 1923, p. 204 (sketch for the battle picture by Raphael); Gamba 1932, p. 115 ff. (invention by Raphael; execution by Giulio Romano); Berenson 1932, p. 261 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1935, p. 443 (workshop); Hartt 1944, p. 77 ff. (sketch by Giulio Romano, execution by Raffaellino dal Colle); Salis 1947, p. 75 ff. (in part a.); Hess 1947, p. 73 ff. (in part a.); Hartt 1949, p. 300 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Hess 1950, p. 130 ff.; Redig de Campos 1950, p. 65 f. (by Giulio Romano); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 152-9 (invention by Raphael; executed by Giulio Romano with assistants); Biermann 1957, p. 99 f. (sketch by Raphael); Hartt 1958, p. 42 ff. (by Giulio Romano with Raffaellino dal Colle); Freedberg, p. 568 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Oberhuber 1962, pp. 40, 56, 58, 65 (workshop); Shearman 1965, p. 177 ff. (sketch by Raphael; execution by Giulio Romano); Dussler 1966, p. 98 (invention by Raphael).


ROME, Palazzo Vaticano

The Loggie (General View)    Plate 145

After the death of Bramante in 1514 Raphael continued building in the Vatican Palace. On the second floor of the

88

    89 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 89

Damasus courtyard west wing he constructed an open loggia with 13 bays, each of which has a somewhat flattened vault containing four small frescoes of scenes from the Old Testament (Arcades 1-12 in the arcade); only the last bay (No. 13) contains representations taken from the New Testament. The pilasters and walls are embellished with decorative paintings and stucco reliefs. Since 1813 the arcades have been protected by glass. The architecture and decoration of the Loggie were commissioned by Pope Leo X, whose coat of arms can be seen in the cupola above the central arcade.


I    THE CREATION

Plate 146  

(a) God separating Light and Darkness

A drawing for the figure of the Creator, in London (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 64) was attributed by Fischel to Raphael, but in my opinion it shows all the characteristics of Penni’s style and technique. Oberhuber (op. cit., p. 60, Note 141) shares this opinion, and the work is classified under Penni’s name in the British Museum.

(b) God separating Land and Waters
(c) God creating the Sun and the Moon
(d) God creating the Animals

II

(a) The Creation of Eve
(b) The Fall
(c) The Expulsion of Adam and Eve

Popham and Freedberg attribute the preliminary drawing in Windsor (Popham Cat., No. 806) to Penni, whereas Oberhuber (op. cit., p. 60) believes it to be by Raphael; the present author supports the latter opinion. (See Oberhuber’s observations and his Figs. 52 and 53, which show the condition of the drawing before and after restoration).

(d) Adam and Eve toiling (badly damaged)

III

(a) The Building of the Ark
(b) The Deluge
(c) Noah leaving the Ark (badly damaged)
(d) Noah’s Sacrifice

IV    THE STORY OF ABRAHAM

Plate 147  

(a) Abraham and Melchizedech
(b) God’s Promise to Abraham (in poor condition)
(c) Abraham and the Angels

The composition is reminiscent of Cavallini’s fresco in San Paolo fuori le mura, as Wilpert (Die römischen Mosaiken . . . 1916, II, p. 684) and Hetzer (Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, 1923, p. 204) have already pointed out (see also Stridbeck II, p. 73 f. and Fig. 59). Raphael’s original sketch for the angel in the centre is in Lille, No. 439 (see Collection J. B. Wicar au Musée de Lille. Cat. Exposition Dessins de Raphaël, 1961, No. 53 and Fig. XXVII). Fischel had intended to include this example in his corpus of Raphael’s drawings. In the Albertina there is a sketch for the composition by Penni (Cat. 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).

V    THE STORY OF ISAAC

Plate 148  

(a) God appearing to Isaac
(b) Isaac and Rebecca spied upon by Abimelech
(c) Isaac blessing Jacob
(d) Isaac and Esau

The sketch by Penni is in Oxford (Parker, Cat. II, No. 574).

VI    THE STORY OF JACOB

Plate 149

(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).

(c) Jacob wooing Rachel
(d) Jacob fleeing to Canaan

VII    THE STORY OF JOSEPH

Plate 150

(a) Joseph’s Dream
(b) Joseph sold by his Brethren
(c) Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife

Stridbeck (II, p. 74 and Fig. 61) finds this composition similar to that of Cavallini’s fresco formerly in San Paolo fuori le mura. The present author considers a dependence as most unlikely.

(d) Pharaoh’s Dream

VIII    THE STORY OF MOSES

Plate 151

(a) The Finding of Moses

A sketch by Penni in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (Dyce, No. 185), is illustrated in Reidinger, A Selection of Drawings by Old Masters in the Museum Collections, London 1921, Fig. IV (Oberhuber, 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).

(c) The Crossing of the Red Sea

A sketch by Penni is in Paris, Louvre, No. 3850 (see Windsor, Popham Cat. under No. 848, and Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 141).

89

    90 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 90

(d) Moses striking the Rock

The drawing in Florence, Uffizi, No. 509E, is by Penni (see London, Pouncey-Cere Cat. under No. 66, and Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 141).

IX    THE STORY OF MOSES

Plate 152

(a) Moses receiving the Tablets of the Law

There is a preliminary drawing in Paris, Louvre, No. 3849. Oberhuber (p. 62, Note 143 and p. 68) attributes this and the finished fresco to Raphael.

(b) The Golden Calf

The drawing for the composition preserved in Florence, Uffizi, No. 510E is correctly attributed to Penni by Freedberg (II, p. 414, Fig. 524) and by Pouncey-Cere (Cat., London, p. 51); Oberhuber (op. cit., p. 62 and Note 144) favours an attribution to Giulio Romano.

(c) The Pillar of Smoke
(d) Moses displaying the Tablets of the Law

X

(a) The Crossing of the Jordan
(b) The Fall of Jericho
(c) Joshua arresting the Course of the Sun and the Moon
(d) The Allotment of the Promised Land

The sketch for the composition in Windsor (Popham 1948, Cat., No. 807) is not by Perino del Vaga as Freedberg (I, p. 415 and II, Fig. 525) assumes, but has all the characteristics of Penni’s pen-drawings (see London, Pouncey-Cere Cat. under No. 67).

XI

(a) Samuel anointing David
(b) David and Goliath

The studies in Vienna, Albertina (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 114), there attributed to Penni, are thought by Pouncey and Cere to be possibly by Raphael.

(c) The Triumph of David
(d) David and Bathsheba

Penni’s sketch for this composition (in London, Pouncey-Cere Cat., No. 66) has a rounded top whereas the fresco is rectangular. The sketch can be regarded as reflecting an earlier stage of the composition and is not, therefore, a copy, as has usually been believed (Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 144: by Penni).

XII

(a) The Anointing of Solomon
(b) The Judgement of Solomon

The drawing in Paris, Louvre, No. 3921, is by Penni (Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 141: by Penni).

(c) The Queen of Sheba
(d) The Building of the Temple

XIII

(a) The Adoration of the Shepherds
(b) The Adoration of the Kings
(c) The Baptism of Christ

The sketch for the composition in London (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 67), attributed by Hartt to Giulio Romano (1958, I, No. 21, II, Fig. 37), is by Penni; Freedberg (I, p. 415) ascribes it to Perino del Vaga.

(d) The Last Supper

The extent of Raphael’s participation in the execution of the paintings is given by Vasari in the following three passages: (1) ed. Milanesi IV, p. 362 f.: ‘Raffaello fece i disegni degli ornamenti di stucchi e delle storie’; (2) ed. Milanesi V, p. 524: ‘Raffaello si servi sempre di lui [Giulio Romano] nell’opere di maggiore importanza e particolarmente nel lavorare le loggie papali. . . . Perché avendo esso Raffaello fatto i disegni dell’architettura, degli ornamenti e delle storie fece condurre a Giulio molte di quelle pitture . . .’; (3) ed. Milanesi V, p. 594: ‘ed i festoni e le storie di sua mano (Perino del Vaga); le quali, oltre l’avanzar le altre, son dai disegni e schizzi che faceva lor Raffaello . . .’. In all these reports, as well as in an entry in the diary of Marcantonio Michiel (27 December 1519) ‘vi erano pitture di gran precio et di gran gratia, el disegno delle quali viene da Raffaello d’Urbino’ (Golzio, p. 104), Raphael’s controlling part in the planning of the works is clearly stressed.
The number of known sketches by Raphael for the Loggie - and thus the amount of direct proof of his control, is very small - see sketches IIc, IXa (?) and XIb (?). Nevertheless, one can hardly doubt that he prepared a number of these concetti for his assistants, for Penni’s extant ‘modelli’ are stamped to a greater or lesser extent, both in the composition and in the figure style, with the marks of Raphael’s creative inspiration. The great artist did indeed give his assistants considerable freedom in the execution of the pictures, as is attested by the figure types, the landscape, the addition of animals and not least by the overall narrative tone, but the ideas for the majority of the compositions must have been his own. Any attempt to define the extent of his participation in the painting of these works is a highly problematical undertaking, if only because the extant preliminary sketch for Ia is by Penni, a circumstance which does not suggest that Raphael was personally involved in the execution of this compartment. Scholars from the time of Cavalcaselle to the present day, and especially F. Hartt, Freedberg and Camesasca, have also tried to establish more exactly how the work was divided between Penni and Giulio Romano and have come across equal difficulties. This is because in many cases where individual scholars have attributed paintings to Giulio Romano, preliminary drawings from the hand of Penni militate against such an assumption, while the claim that Penni’s sketches merely reproduce conceptions by Giulio Romano is no more than a hypothesis, since they can equally well be regarded as the expres- sion of Raphael’s own inspiration. Vasari’s (ed. Milanesi V, p. 524) summary account of the scenes by Giulio

90

    91 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 91

Romano - mentioning Nos. Id, IIa, IIIa, IIId and VIIIa - provides no definite point of departure for attributing other works in the series of this artist; for it can be proved that the preliminary drawing for No. VIIIa is by Penni, who also made the sketches for the other three scenes in this compartment.
Perino del Vaga’s participation is stated by Vasari (ed. Milanesi V, p. 594), whose Life of this artist seems to be generally reliable, to have consisted of scenes Xa, b and c (presumably also d) and XIIIa, c and d. Hartt and Freedberg, on the other hand, believe that Perino’s activities were considerably more extensive: the former attributes scenes IVc and d, Va and b, VIb-d, VIIa and b, and VIIIc to him and also considers him responsible for Loggie Nos. X-XIII while the latter specifies scenes VIb and d, VIIa and b and Loggie No. Xa-d, XIb and d and XIIIa-d. B. Davidson (Master Drawings I, 1963, No. 4, p. 20) also attributes Xd to this artist, and she has shown that he received payment for painting and stucco works in the years 1546-7. She assumes (ib., No. 3, p. 6) that he was engaged on restoration activities, which may well have entailed going over many of the scenes in the last compartments (XIIIa, for example).
In my opinion there is a difference between Loggie IV-IX and the later scenes in Loggie X-XIII which extends to figure types, composition and conception. The pictures in the earlier group show no close affinity to the later creations, but accord with the surrounding compositions and in some cases (e.g. IVc and d, Va and b, VIb) they have a marked Raphaelesque stamp, which is lacking in Perino’s scenes and which rules out an attribution to him. Oberhuber is opposed to such expansionist tendencies; he believes that Perino’s participation was limited to scenes Xc and d, XIb-d and XIIIa and refers to a fresco by Perino, formerly in the Palazzo Baldassini in Rome, which has been detached and is now in Florence, Uffizi (Pl. VIII in: R. U. Montini - R. Averini, Pallazo Baldassini e l’arte di Giovanni da Udine, Rome 1957). Scenes Xa and b, which Vasari specified as works by Perino, are ascribed by Oberhuber to Polidoro, with reference to another wall-painting in the Palazzo Baldassini (Montini, Pl. XI, Fig. 2 and Pl. XIII, Fig. 2). The fact that Polidoro was engaged to work on the Loggie paintings is attested by Vasari (ed. Milanesi V, p. 142), but without further details. Freedberg attributes pictures XIIc and d to the Lombard artist and suggests that he assisted with scenes VIb and VIIId, but this theory is weakened by the fact that there are no ascertainable analogies with undoubted early works by Polidoro. But Freedberg is right insofar as the landscapes in VIb and VIIId differ from those in the other scenes (as was also emphasized by Oberhuber - p. 68); fresco No. XIId is in very bad condition. Also mentioned by Vasari (ed. Milanesi IV, p. 363) were the following artists: Vincenzo Tamagni (see also ed. Milanesi IV, p. 490), Pellegrino da Modena (see also ed. Milanesi IV, p. 650) and the Bolognese painter Tommaso Vincidor. There is, however, no evidence relating with any degree of certainty to the part specifically played by these men and it is probable that their collaboration with the workshop was of little significance. In view of our lack of stylistic criteria Freedberg’s attempt to show that paintings VIId, XIa and XIIa and b are by Pellegrino remains unprovable, although it must be admitted that these scenes are of considerably lower quality than most of the others. Filippini (1928-9, p. 318) attributes scenes XIIb and d to Tommaso Vincidor, but this hypothesis does not stand up to close investigation. - It is quite a different matter when it comes to Giovanni da Udine, a painter whose participation was emphasized by Vasari (ed. Milanesi IV, p. 362, VI, p. 549 ff.). His inventiveness appears in the cupolas above the compartments and his powers as an ornamental artist and stucco worker never cease to surprise the onlooker with new motifs on the walls and pilasters. Vasari also praised him as a painter of animals, so it can be assumed that he assisted in scenes such as Id, IIIc and d, VIb, c and d, and VIIb, whereas attempts to discover his hand in some of the landscapes seem to be of much more doubtful validity. Whether he was also responsible for the four trompe-l’œil architectural motifs in the corners of the cupola decorations, as has hitherto been supposed, is an open question. K. Lanckoronska (1935, p. 111 ff.) has attributed the invention to Peruzzi, who often employed this technique in his work (Sala delle Prospettive in the Villa Farnesina, about 1516), whereas it never appears in Giovanni da Udine’s productions outside the Loggia decorations. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the plan was drawn up in a style dictated by Raphael himself, and this consideration makes it improbable that Peruzzi was responsible for the solutions used in its invention, for, as Frommel has recently demonstrated (1961, p. 158) the construction of the loggia arcades is founded on a spatial and architectonic conception very different from that used by Peruzzi in the Sala delle Prospettive.
The work was carried out between the spring of 1518 and the early summer of 1519. In March 1518 Raphael received a payment of 32 ducats for his work on the loggie (Golzio, p. 68) and on 4 May 1519 M. A. Michiel reported that they were completed (Golzio, p. 98); this information is also contained in a letter of 16 June 1519 from Castiglione to Isabella d’Este (Golzio, p. 100). On 11 June 1519, 25 ducats were paid to Raphael’s pupils (Golzio, p. 99) and this date can be considered to mark the end of the painting operations.

Passavant II, p. 202 ff. (workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 447 ff. (some sketches by Raphael); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 405 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 283 ff. (workshop); Gronau 1923, pp. 175-201 (workshop); Gamba 1932, p. 111 f. (workshop); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (workshop); Ortolani, p. 63 (mainly by Perino); Fischel 1937, p. 23 ff. (angelic hierarchies); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 153 ff., 367 (in part by Raphael); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 128-53 (workshop); Hartt

91

    92 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 92

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

La Loggetta

This rectangular chamber, length 49 ft. 5½ ins. (15.74 m.), width 10 ft. 2½ ins. (3.12 m.) and height 13 ft. 6 ins. (4.64 m.), adjoins the third Loggia. Until 1906, when the two partitions were removed, it was used as a prelate’s living quarters; later it served as an ante-chamber for the State Secretariat. The first reference to the decoration of the loggetta was made by E. Steinmann, but it was only during the restoration operations which commenced in the summer of 1943 that the significance of the room was understood. Scholars are indebted to Redig de Campos for a thorough report on the restoration, which includes a detailed description of the chamber and convincing identification of the artists from Raphael’s workshop who collaborated on the decoration. The design of the room is by Raphael himself, and he probably also established the guidelines followed by the decorators, but the invention and execution of the pictorial scheme were undertaken by the members of his workshop - the same artists who carried out most of the painting of Raphael’s Loggias: Penni, Giulio Romano, Giovanni da Udine and Perino del Vaga. To Penni, Redig de Campos attributes the four grisaille paintings of female statues in fictive niches, which he regards as allegories of the Seasons (the figure of Winter has been destroyed), and also the scene depicting Vulcan’s forge (in one of the lunettes). To Giulio Romano he ascribes the mythological stories of the ‘Contest between Apollo and Marsyas’ and ‘Olympus pleading with Apollo’ (the third scene, the ‘Flaying of Marsyas’, is now lost), and also probably the smaller ceiling pictures of dancing women. The figures of a seated ‘Woman Spinning’ and a ‘Woman with a Distaff’, next to ‘Summer’, are given by Redig de Campos to Perino del Vaga, as well as two small scenes depicting pagan rites, while the extensive decorations on the ceiling and walls, with their widely varying motifs, are by Giovanni da Udine. - The entire decoration of this room was probably carried out in 1519, for the final passage in the letter from Marcantonio Michiel to Antonio di Marsilio (4 May 1519; Golzio, p. 98) must refer to the decoration of the Loggetta; this runs: ‘raphaele di Urbino ha dipinto impalazo dil pontefice et una loggia longissima; et va drieto dipingendo due 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

Cardinal Bibbiena’s Bathroom (La Stuffetta)

This room, which measures 8 ft. 3 ins. (2.52 m.) along each wall, is situated on the third floor above Raphael’s Loggie. The painted decoration is mentioned by Bembo in three letters to Bibbiena, dated 19 April, 6 May and 20 June 1516 (Golzio, pp. 43 f., 45 and 48); the last of these dates may be considered to mark the completion of the project. The lunettes and the grotesques on the ceiling are by Giovanni da Udine, who worked under the influence of the ‘Domus aurea’, but doubtless under the direction of Raphael, and proved himself an outstanding decorator. The wall scenes, which are framed by aediculae, are largely taken from the Metamorphoses of Ovid and were executed by Penni and the young Giulio Romano. They depict the following subjects: on the east wall: (1) the Birth of Erichthonius, (2) the Birth of Venus; on the south wall: (3) Venus and Cupid riding on Dolphins, (4) Venus wounded by Cupid’s Dart; on the west wall: (5) Pan and Syrinx, (6) Venus removing the thorn; on the north wall: (7) Venus and Adonis, (8) (destroyed). The dados on the individual wall sections are decorated with Cupids, which are depicted driving teams of snakes, turtles, dolphins and snails. Presumably Raphael prepared cursory sketches for scenes 1-8, but the immediate preparatory drawings were the work of Penni and Giulio Romano (as already suggested by Dollmayr). Giulio’s original drawing for scene No. 7 is preserved in Vienna, Albertina (Cat. 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.

92

    93 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 93

Passavant II, p. 277 (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 466 ff. (in part by Raphael); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 266 ff. (a.); Dollmayr 1890, p. 272 ff. and 1895, p. 269 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); De Vito Battaglia 1926, p. 203 ff. (by Giovanni da Udine); Gamba 1932, p. 110 (a.); Fischel 1935, p. 442 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 107 (by Giulio Romano); Hartt 1958, p. 31 f. (by Giulio Romano) ; Fischel 1962, p. 223; Brizio 1963, col. 242; Dussler 1966, p. 102 (by Penni and Giulio Romano).


ROME, S. Maria della Pace, Cappella Chigi

Sibyls and Prophets    Plates 153, 154a, 154b

Commissioned by Agostino Chigi.

(a) The four Sibyls are situated above the arch of the chapel. The figure at the left, representing the Cumaean Sibyl (?), holds in her raised right hand a parchment on which there is an inscription in Greek signifying: ‘The Resurrection of the Dead’. The putto on her right leans on a tablet which also bears a Greek text; ‘It will come to the light’. The Sibyl turning to the right (the Persica?) inscribes the following motto on a tablet held by a seated angel: ‘The destiny of Death shall overcome him’. At the crown of the arch a winged putto holding a torch crouches on a socle on which are the initials C.H. Next comes a sitting angel bearing a tablet inscribed: ‘The heavens surround the vessel of the earth’ and the seated figure of the Phrygian (?) Sibyl. Between the latter and the Sibyl of Tibur (?) - a figure looking towards the centre of the picture - is a putto with a panel inscribed in Latin with the words: JAM NO (VA) PROGE (NIES) (Vergil, 4th Eclogue, line 7). The angel hovering at the right of the picture (a pendant to the angel on the left) holds a parchment scroll with the inscription ‘I shall open and resurrect’. Apart from the one phrase in Latin, the quotations are given in Greek and are taken from Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones, Books 4 and 7. This has been shown by Ettlinger, who also shows that the names assigned to the Sibyls date from the eighteenth century, and that there is thus no guarantee of their correctness. In Oxford (Parker 1956, II, No. 562) there is an early sketch for the Phrygian (?) Sibyl and in London a study for the same figure (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 36) which is already close to the fresco. On the back of the latter drawing is a drapery study which was probably intended, at an early stage, for the Cumana (?). Parker (1956, II, No. 562) considered the authenticity of the London drawing an open question, but in view of the high quality (especially of the recto) there seems to be no reason to doubt that it is by Raphael. The study of the model for the flying angel on the left and the arm of the Cumana (?) in Vienna, Albertina (Stix-Fröhlich, Cat. III, No. 73) was formerly regarded by Fischel (1898, No. 279) as a copy, but he later declared it an original (in my opinion correctly), and planned to include it in his corpus of the drawings (there is a copy in Oxford, Parker 1956, II, No. 646). The same is true of the crouching Sibyl facing left (the Sibyl of Tibur?) in Vienna, Albertina (Stix-Fröhlich, Cat. III, No. 73) which Fischel has verbally accepted as by Raphael although he had formerly denied its authenticity (1898, No. 280).
(b) The four prophets are painted on either side of the central window of this bay, above the Sibyls. On the left is Hosea, seated and holding a tablet inscribed: SVSCITABIT EVM DEVS POST BIDVVM DIE TERTIA (Hosea VI, 2; I Corinthians XV, 4). This prophet is named HABACVC on the dado beneath, which is certainly incorrect (all the dado-inscriptions have been renewed). Jonah is standing beside him, while an angel hovers between them, pointing upwards. In the right half are David (standing with a tablet bearing the Easter introit: RESURREXI ET ADHVC SVM TECVM) and the seated figure of Daniel; hovering between these two is an angel, whose arms point to the right. A pair of putti hovers, on either side of the arched top of the window.
An original study for Daniel and the angels is in Florence, Uffizi (Fischel 1898, No. 278). A copy by Rubens in the Regteren Altena Collection, Amsterdam (Fischel 1948, II, Fig. 191, 1962, Fig. 202) depicts the entire Daniel-David group.
An early stage in Raphael’s planning of this work is illustrated in a drawing in Oxford (Parker 1956, II, No. 553v) which went unrecognized until it was correctly identified and evaluated by Hirst (1961, p. 167 f. and Plate 28a). This shows the right side of the wall, with the Daniel-David group at the top, the two Sibyls below, and the right half of the middle arch, with the seated putto carrying two blazing torches at the crown. These hurriedly jotted-down pen sketches already show many of the basic features of the later version, but some elements (such as the Sibyls group) proclaim more strongly that it is a first draft, which clearly originated as a series of ideas following each other in quick succession. In the corner of a sketch in Oxford (Parker 1958, II, No. 557v) Shearman discovered a variant in which the position of the two prophets is reversed - i.e. David is drawn standing on the right, while Daniel is seated on the left (Hirst, pl. 28b). The main drawings on the latter sheet are two studies for the kneeling women in the fresco of the Expulsion of Heliodorus, which was executed early in the year 1512; this concetto thus provides an important piece of evidence for the dating of the Chigi chapel commission (see below). Information going beyond that given by the cursory sketches in Oxford, No. 553v and No. 557v, is provided by a copyist’s drawing (in Stockholm, National Museum) undoubtedly based on Raphael; attention was first drawn to this sheet by Fischel (Fischel 1948, II, Fig. 193; 1962, Fig. 200). Here the entire group of figures is reproduced, but the composition of the Prophets in relation to the position of the angels shows that this was an intermediate stage, and the group of the Sibyls, which is much more simply composed than in the wall-painting, demonstrates the considerable distance from the finished work.

93

    94 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 94

The copy in Stockholm is especially interesting, however, because it includes two tondi, one on either side of the altar niche, in the wall sections below the Sibyls. Fischel realized, moreover, that it was intended to decorate these with reliefs - for which sketches by Raphael are still preserved: these are ‘Christ in Limbo’: Uffizi, No. 1475r (Hartt 1958, I, No. 22, II, Fig. 35, as Giulio Romano) and ‘The Incredulity of St. Thomas’: Cambridge, formerly in the Dr. Louis Claree Collection (Fig. III, Warburg Journal XXIV, 1961, on p. 176, Pl. 32a). The composition of the laker drawing retains the frieze style and Hirst’s view that it was the very first concetto of this subject should therefore be accepted. The later form, apparently based on a later sketch of the old composition, transposed into the tondo format, can be seen in the engraved reproduction in B. Picart’s Impostures innocentes, ou Recueil d’estampes d’après divers peintres illustres . . ., Amsterdam, 1734; moreover, the resulting bronze tondi have been identified in the abbey at Chiaravalle (G. Frizzoni, I disegni della Reale Galleria degli Uffizi, III serie, fasc. 2) and except for a few variations (the standing patriarch on the right and the two angels above, in ‘Christ in Limbo’) these works clearly correspond to Raphael’s models. There can be no doubt that the completed tondi never reached their intended places and that the wall sections did not bear the relief decorations for which provision had been made until, much later, marble rectangles containing putti were added in the baroque period. In view of the stylistic similarity between these two bronzes and the bronze relief of ‘Christ and the Samaritan woman’ in S. Maria del Popolo, Chigi Chapel, the artist responsible for them can only have been Lorenzetto, who, according to Vasari (ed. Milanesi IV, p. 577), was closely connected with Raphael.
The wall paintings are in very poor condition. Even by the first quarter of the seventeenth century the frescoes had so deteriorated that restoration was needed, and this was repeated between 1656 and 1661. Further restoration, undertaken at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the painter Palmaroli (see C. Fea, Prodromo delle scoperte della antichità di Roma, 1816, p. 43), was not very successful. Raphael originally provided both registers of this picture with a spatial background, which is reproduced in Giovanni B. Volpato’s engravings of 1772 (see Fischel 1948, II, Figs. 194a, b and c, and diagram, Note 192; 1962, Figs. 201a, band c, and p. 135); and it is likely that this was an effective part of the picture until the recent renovation, but in the present state of the work the visible traces of this feature are very few. Despite the repeated activities of restorers, scholars are generally agreed that the Sibyls were probably painted by Raphael himself, while no decision is possible with regard to his participation in the execution of the Prophets because of the condition of this part of the fresco. The attribution of the latter area is already beset with confusion as a result of the unclear report in Vasari, who at first (ed. Milanesi, IV, p. 340) gives high praise to the execution of the upper part, but later (ed. Milanesi, IV p. 495) stresses, the assistance given by Timoteo Viti. There is no longer any means of deciding whether this statement is correct, but the evidence of the study mentioned above (for Daniel and the angels; in the Uffizi) leaves no doubt that Raphael was also responsible for the composition of the Prophet groups. Indirect support for this assumption is also provided by a squared pen drawing with wash, which represents the left side of the picture, Hosea, the angel and Isaiah (formerly in the de Triqueti Collection, Paris; see Fig. 12 in Burl. Mag. XX, 1912, p. 298 f.) and in its technique seems to bear all the marks of the Roman workshop, although it is not characteristic of Giulio Romano himself. The angel is still depicted nude in this sketch, which served as a preparatory drawing for the cartoon, so it is probable that this work is a transcription of Raphael’s concetto.
Since Passavant scholars have almost unanimously dated these frescoes 1514, although Vasari dated them 1511-12 - i.e. before the final unveiling of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling (31 October 1512). The earlier date has lately found a champion in Oberhuber (op. cit., p. 32 f.), who draws attention to important formal parallels with the Stanze. These correspondences can be found in the Stanza della Segnatura (Parnassus) and in the Stanza d’Eliodoro, where the left half of the Expulsion of Heliodorus shows the same fresco style as the Sibyls. The presence of studies for the School of Athens and the Heliodorus fresco (R.Z. VII, No. 311) on the recto of the sheet in Oxford, above Raphael’s sketches for the group of the Sibyls and Prophets (Parker, Cat. II, No. 553v) and the Prophets alone, leaves hardly any doubt that the latest possible date for the work is about 1512. Another important piece of evidence is also to be found in Raphael’s fresco of Isaiah in S. Agostino, Rome; the style and expression in this figure, which was executed before the riddle of 1512, are much more emphatically products of the ‘maniera nuova’ stemming from Michelangelo’s influence than are the figures in the Pace Chapel.
An altar-piece, which had been planned, had not been started when Agostino Chigi died; his will contains instructions regarding the completion of the chapel (Golzio, p. 102). Light is thrown on the project, however, by the contract signed by Filippo Sergardi and Sebastiano del Piombo on 1 August 1530 (published by Hirst, 1961, p. 183 ff.), in which the Venetian artist undertook to provide a picture of the ‘Resurrection of Christ’ for this chapel (see below). The theme chosen suggests that this may have been a subject which Raphael had prepared - especially as there are a number of original drawings and single studies by him, stylistically contemporary with the drawings for the Sibyls and Prophets, which indicate that he was planning a Resurrection - a project for which there is no evidence from any other source. These sketches are as follows: overall composition with rounded top: Bayonne, No. 132 (R.Z. VIII,

94

    95 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 95

No. 387); composition showing the lower section only: Oxford (Parker Cat. II, No. 558 - R.Z. VIII, No. 388) ; Soldiers: Oxford (Parker Cat. II, No. 559r - R.Z. VIII, No. 389) and detail studies for soldiers in Chatsworth, No. 20 (R.Z. VIII, No. 394), London (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 34 - R.Z. VIII, No. 395), Oxford (Parker Cat. II, Nos. 559v and 560 - R.Z. VIII, Nos. 390, 391) and Windsor (Popham-Wilde Cat., Nos. 789 and 799r - R.Z. VIII, Nos. 392, 393). Although Fischel investigated this group of drawings without relating them to the plan for the altar-piece in the Pace chapel (he assumed that a ‘Lamentation for Christ’ had been intended for this position), Hirst was emphatic - and, I think, convincing - in connecting these sheets with the projected altar-piece of the Resurrection. This supposition is confirmed not only by the texts of the scrolls beside the Prophets and Sibyls (see above), which refer without exception to the Resurrection, but also by Raphael’s 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

Elevation of the Cappella Chigi
God the Father and the Celestial Universe. Cupola mosaic
   Plates 155, 156

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;

95

    96 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 96

the sequence continues with Venus, Apollo (Helios), Mars and Jupiter and ends with Saturn. This scene was traditionally thought to represent the creation of the stars, an interpretation based on the scroll - then regarded as genuine - which appears on the sphere of the fixed stars and bears the following words from Genesis 1, 14: FIANT LVMINARIA IN FIRMAMENTO COELI. This interpretation has recently been challenged by Shearman, who points out that such a theme is not suited to the idea of a funerary chapel. A much more probable theory is that proposed by Müntz and Fischel, who had suggested that this work may have been partly inspired by the world of Dante (Paradiso II, 127; Convivio II, Chapters 4 and 6). However the most convincing identification of the source seems to be that given by Shearman, who draws attention to the statement in Plato’s Timaeus (42B) that the human soul originates in the region of the stars and returns to its home in the celestial spheres. It can hardly be disputed that these concepts were very common in Renaissance thought and will have been familiar to Raphael and Agostino Chigi through the writings of Bembo and Castiglione; it is well known that they had great influence on Michelangelo. The zodiac can also be fitted easily into this symbolic region and represents a sign of the transition from the earthly world to immortality; moreover, later on the four Seasons were depicted in the pillar spandrels below, and the choice of this subject emphasizes the idea that the works are concerned with a symbolic representation of Time. If this interpretation of the star-pictures is, as I believe, entirely correct, then the gesture of the Almighty in the crown of the cupola also becomes comprehensible: He is shown receiving the souls returning into eternity. In his excellent study Shearman has shown that the gesture of the Almighty is also connected, both in form and in content, with the altar-piece of the Assumption, which was originally intended for this chapel. The following sketches from Raphael’s own hand are still preserved: in Oxford a drawing for God the Father (Parker 1956, II, No. 566) and another for the angel above the planet Jupiter (Parker 1956, II, No. 567); in Lille, Musée Wicar, a drawing for Mars and the angel (Fischel, Versuch, No. 285). No documents exist which might give information about the altar-piece planned for this chapel, although the hypothesis that Raphael himself had planned an Assumption (proposed with all due caution by Shearman) may be considered largely justified. The sketches in Oxford (R.Z. VIII, No. 380) and Stockholm (R.Z. VIII, No. 381) contain plans for an ‘Assumption’ and a further stage in Raphael’s development of this theme appears in the engraving of the ‘Master of the Dice’ (B. XIV, No. 7). This theory receives support from the drawing of the Assumption in Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, by Sebastiano del Piombo, which dates from between 1525 and 1530 (J. Q. van Regteren-Altena in: Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum III, 1955, IV, p. 75) and is probably connected with the contract agreed in 1526 between Chigi’s executor, Filippo Sergardi, and the Venetian artist. This is especially convincing, firstly, because Sebastiano is not known to have received any other commission for an Assumption of the Virgin, and secondly, because the general disposition of the Amsterdam ‘modello’ agrees in its proportions with those of the altar wall (as convincingly proved by Shearman, 1961, p. 149). Under the terms of the contract of 1 August 1530 (given in Hirst, 1961, p. 183 ff.), which superseded the 1526 agreement, Sebastiano undertook to provide his picture of the Birth of the Virgin as an altar-piece. A drawing for this work, which is still in situ, had already been provided for inspection. This choice of subject matter is surprising, for it lacks connection with Raphael’s whole conception of the chapel, especially with the figure of God the Father in the cupola. It was, however, a decision not completely at variance with the founder’s wishes, for in his Will he had specified an annual memorial mass to be celebrated on the feast of the Birth of the Virgin, 8 September (see Shearman, p. 148, Note 88). When Agostino Chigi died in 1520, the decoration of the chapel had not been finished, and his widow made a contract with Luigi de Pace on 31 May 1520 (Golzio, p. 126 ff.) in which provision was made for further mosaic pictures (eight between the windows and four tondi in the pendentives ‘secondo li disegni’ in her possession); but the document does not disclose whether these drawings were left by Raphael at his death. The mosaics were not carried out and instead frescoes were provided by F. Salviati shortly after 1550.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 368 f., 578, V, p. 571 (a.); Passavant II, p. 446 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 514 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 271 ff. (a.); D. Gnoli 1889, p. 317 ff. (a.); Fischel 1920, p. 18 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 152 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 108 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (invention by Raphael); Ortolani, p. 62 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 149 ff., 365 (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 24 f. (a.); Freedberg, p. 314 ff. (a.); Shearman 1961, p. 129 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 111 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 237 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 106 (a.).


ROME, Villa Farnesina, ground floor loggia

The fable of Cupid and Psyche (Apuleius, Metamorphoses, IV, 28-VI, 24)    Plate 158

Commissioned by Agostino Chigi.


A. THE TWO CEILING PAINTINGS

   Plates 159, 160

(a) The Council of the Gods

A red chalk drawing for the composition of the right section, in Paris, F. Lugt Collection, is certainly based on a concetto by Raphael, but both technique and formal motifs (the draperies) are far more characteristic of Giulio Romano than of his teacher. The work is ascribed to Raphael by Jaffé (Burl. Mag. CIV, 1962, p. 233 and Fig. 7) and Oberhuber (Wiener Jb., 1962, p. 52), while Shearman (1964, p. 94 f.) tends to favour Giulio Romano. Another

96

    97 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 97

sketch which may be based on Raphael is that depicting the group on the left - Mercury handing the cup of nectar to Psyche, in Chatsworth, No. 55 (Fischel 1898, No. 262: copy; 1948, Fig. 212: study by a pupil); the present version, however, is probably a workshop production. Shearman (1964, p. 96) ascribes this drawing to Penni, an opinion with which the present author concurs.

(b) The Wedding of Cupid and Psyche

Three of the existing drawings for this work are certainly by Raphael - the three female nudes in Windsor, Royal Library (Popham, Cat., No. 804); Fischel (1898, No. 266) presumed that the sheet was merely worked over by Raphael later, but Freedberg (p. 326) and Shearman (1964, p. 90) agree with an unqualified attribution to the master. There are two other sketches which must have originally been drawn by Raphael in stylus and then executed in red chalk by Giulio Romano: (1) the kneeling figure of Ganymede, in Paris, Louvre, No. 4019 (Hartt 1958, I, No. 24 and II, Fig. 42); (2) the seated female nude seen from the back (Omphale) and the female figure sitting at table beside Jupiter, in Haarlem, Teyler-Museum, A62 (Hartt 1958, I, No. 25 and II, Fig. 43). In Le Dessin italien dans les collections hollandaises, 1962, No. 70, Lugt claims that the latter sheet is entirely by Raphael. An excellent drawing for the figure of Apollo, on the left side of the fresco, is in Vienna, Albertina; it is ascribed by the Stix-Fröhlich catalogue (III, No. 113) to Penni, and was formerly ascribed to Penni by Fischel also (1898, No. 263), but he seems to have changed his opinion, for later he planned to include the sketch in his corpus of the drawings. In my opinion this drawing is undoubtedly based on Raphael, but can hardly be claimed to be autograph; Shearman (1964, p. 96) also attributes the execution to Penni.
Red chalk studies for the group of the three Hours scattering flowers are preserved in Chantilly, Musée Condé. They were ascribed to Penni by Dollmayr and by Fischel (1898, No. 265), but the latter subsequently intended to include them in his corpus of Raphael’s drawings and must therefore have considered them originals. Shearman attributes this sheet to Penni. In my opinion the drawing is better than the execution in the fresco. - Shearman (1964, p. 91 f. and Fig. 92) has recently drawn attention to a pen drawing in Vienna (Albertina, Garnitur No. 2 W 122) incorrectly inscribed at a later date with the name of Timoteo Viti. Very little attention had previously been paid to this sheet, which shows Cupid and Psyche in the same recumbent position as in the right section of the fresco. It cannot be a copy after the fresco, however, as both figures are depicted full-length - i.e. their legs and feet are not concealed - and the drapery worn by Psyche in the fresco is missing. Shearman leaves it an open question to whether this sketch is by Raphael or at least a repetition of a Raphael original. The present author considers the latter supposition very probable. - According to Shearman (1964, p. 96, Note 157) there is an unpublished original drawing for the figure of Pluto in Berlin, Print Room.


B. THE FOURTEEN LUNETTE PAINTINGS

   Plates 169, 170

(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

   Plates 161-68

(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

97

    98 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 98

authenticity of this work is also supported by Gere (Burl. Mag. XCIX, 1957, p. 162), Oberhuber (Berliner Jb. IV, 1962, p. 124, Note 27) and Shearman (1964, p. 81 f.). Oberhuber correctly points out the formal affinity with the pen sketches for the fresco in S. Maria della Pace in Rome (Parker 1956, II, No. 553; Warburg Journal XXIV, 1961, Fig. 28a); these are on the back of the sheet, and have only recently been discovered. Fischel and Hartt (1958, I, No. 23, and II, Fig. 39) ascribe the sketch in Paris (Louvre, No. 3875) to Giulio Romano and consider that the figure of Psyche was later corrected by Raphael. The present author, however, agrees with Freedberg (p. 326), who attributes the sketch to Raphael himself. Psyche’s head and the gesture of her left hand are also found in a drawing in Haarlem (Le Dessin italien dans les collections hollandaises, 1962, No. 69), which certainly derives from Raphael, although Jaffé (Burl. Mag. CIV, 1962, p. 233) can hardly be correct in considering it original. (i) Jupiter fondling Cupid; a drawing in Paris (Louvre, No. 1120), which Fischel (1898, No. 272) considered a copy after the fresco, is regarded by Oberhuber (Wiener Jb. XXII, 1962, p. 52, Note 108) and Shearman (1964, p. 89) as original; the poor condition of the sheet at first prevents this theory from carrying conviction, but the marvellous figure of a nude girl on the verso (in my opinion certainly by Raphael) leaves hardly any doubt as to the attribution of the recto. (k) Mercury carrying Psyche to Olympus.

The question which edition of Apuleius Raphael used has been the subject of a detailed and comprehensive investigation by Shearman (1964, pp. 62 f., 71 ff.); he concludes that the main source was certainly the version published by Filippo Beroaldo the Elder (first ed. Bologna 1500; seventh ed. Venice 1516), which was the most widely read of contemporary editions. This theory is especially probable in view of the close acquaintance between the editor and his nephew Filippo il Giovane and Agostino Chigi. Certain scenes depicted in the frescoes, however, come neither from this source nor from the Italian edition by M. Boiardo (first published 1478, and later in 1508 and 1516), and it is likely that, as Shearman assumes, the artist had access to other editions, such as the poem ‘La Psyche’ by Niccolò da Correggio, which also passed through several editions (the first being published in 1507); other scenes may have been based on manuscript versions, which were also current. The persistent influence of classical models has been pointed out by Gruyer (Raphaël et l’Antiquité, Paris 1864), by P. G. Hübner (1909, p. 279 ff.), and by Fischel (1948, I, p. 191 f.; 1962, p. 143 f.); most recently, important additions were brought to this field by A. von Salis (p. 174 f.; who refers to the Belvedere torso, p. 199 ff.) and by I. Bergström (1957, p. 45 ff.). The investigations undertaken by Salis leave no doubt that Raphael was familiar with the ceiling paintings in the Domus aurea in Rome, and that he must also have known mural paintings similar in style to those in Pompeii. The similarities of the figure motifs in ‘Mercury’s flight to Olympus with Psyche’ (C, k) to Le pitture antiche d’Ercolano, V, 1779, pp. 31, 159 (which are conclusively shown by Bergström) clearly indicate that, although he in no way sacrified his personal sense of style, Raphael was nevertheless receptive to the stimulus of models of this sort. The above-mentioned edition of the Pitture also contains examples of amoretti with attributes of various divinities, similar to those here depicted in the lunettes (B); see vol III, pp. 171 and 175; IV, p. 101; V, pp. 35 and 45. It is remarkable that the connection between the genii in the lunettes and a Roman tripod in the Museum Maffeianum, Verona (Fig. 30, p. 203 in Salis’ book) was noticed by Goethe (Tagebücher und Briefe Goethes aus Italien, Vol. 2, Weimar 1886, p. 73). This subject has also been discussed by Shearman (1964, p. 79 ff.).
The scenes of the original story take place in the heavens and on earth, but it has long been noticed that Raphael depicts only the former, while the terrestrial episodes between Cupid and Psyche are missing. There is no lack of indications that scenes showing Psyche’s life on earth were planned as well, for the gesture with which Venus points down at Psyche (in the first spandrel - C, a) and Cupid’s similar pointing movement (in the next compartment - C, b) imply a continuation in a lower register. Steinmann and von Salis have therefore suggested that the walls nearer the ground, at present decorated with garlands, were originally intended to bear these scenes, and Hermanin thought that these were actually executed and were then ruined by later damage. There is no proof for these hypotheses, nor for Hoogewerff’s reconstruction, according to which a series of tapestries based on sketches by Raphael was planned. Moreover, the considerable distance between the walls and the ceiling spandrels makes it inconceivable that the scenes could have been placed here. It is therefore more probable that the continuation of the Psyche story was intended for the lunettes below the spandrels, especially as Sebastiano del Piombo had already painted a series of mythological paintings in the corresponding location in the Sala Galatea (1511-12) and Giulio Romano also chose the lunette sections above the ceiling spandrels for his cycle of related subjects in the Sala di Psiche of the Palazzo del Tè, after the death of Raphael. In his detailed examination of the whole problem Shearman has also managed to find, among the available mass of drawings, a few sheets of concetti which indicate that Raphael was planning the continuation of the Psyche series. Among these are a red chalk design (offset) in Chatsworth, No. 53: ‘Psyche carried by the breezes’ (Shearman 1964, pp. 67 f. and 88, and Fig. 71; the sheet is attributed by Popham, Old Master Drawings from Chatsworth, Arts Council, London 1949, No. 17, to Raphael; but by Gere, Burl. Mag. XCI, 1949, p. 73, to Giulio Romano. In my opinion it is certainly the work of Raphael. This design clearly shows a

98

    99 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 99

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.
Work on the frescoes was probably carried out mainly during the year 1518. They were finished at the end of December, for in his letter to Michelangelo at the beginning of 1519 (Golzio, p. 65) L. Sellaio describes them as ‘chosa vituperosa’. This criticism reflects the opinion of Sebastiano del Piombo and is certainly exaggerated, although a similar verdict was later given by Vasari (ed. Milanesi, IV, p. 377 f.) in less extreme terms. It is safe to assume that Raphael himself was responsible for planning the overall arrangement and very probably also provided his assistance with more than just the surviving single sketches. The execution was by Giulio Romano, Penni and Giovanni da Udine, and sometimes shows signs of a certain haste, which is especially noticeable in the painting of the two ceiling pictures (A, a and b), almost unanimously attributed to Penni. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that repeated later restorations, especially that undertaken by Maratta, have had a detrimental effect on the colouring, which even the careful renovation undertaken by Sertorio in 1930 could not make good. - The extent to which the various members of the workshop were involved is as follows: Penni, whose work was based on Raphael’s composition and on partial preparatory drawings by the latter and by Giulio Romano, was almost certainly responsible for the two ceiling paintings mentioned above (Vasari, ed. Milanesi, IV, p. 644) and for Nos. 5, 6 and 10 of the triangular scenes, while the remainder of these (Nos. 1-4 and 7-9) clearly show the hand of Giulio Romano. A very large majority of the amoretti in the lunettes were painted by members of Giulio Romano’s workshop, and in some cases (for example, Nos. 6, 9 and 12) Penni or his assistants must also have participated in the execution. Vasari (ed. Milanesi, VI, p. 558) claims that many of these decorative figures were the work of Giovanni da Udine, but there are no convincing examples which can be used for comparison in support of this attribution, whereas the figures accord perfectly with the products of the Roman studio. The Udine artist, was, however, entirely responsible for the invention and execution of the ornamental borders of leaves and fruit, which is the least damaged decoration in the room.

Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 366 ff. (a.), 377, 644 (with assistance from Penni); V, p. 524 (by Giulio Romano); VI, p. 558 (with assistance from Giovanni da Udine); Bellori pp. 126 ff., 153 f. (in part by Raphael, Giulio Romano and Penni); Passavant II, p. 342 ff. (workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 519 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 334 ff. (workshop); Dollmayr 1895, p. 310 ff. (workshop); Förster 1895, p. 215 ff.; Gronau 1923, pp. 158-64 (workshop); Gamba 1932, p. 109 (workshop); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (chiefly by Giulio Romano); Ortolani, p. 62 f. (workshop); Hartt 1944, p. 67 ff. (workshop); v. Salis 1947, p. 190 ff.; Fischel 1948, I, pp. 186, 364 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 108-27 (workshop); Bergstrom, 1957, p. 45 ff. (a.); Saxl 1957, I, p. 189 ff.; Hartt 1958, p. 32 f. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Gerlini 1959, p. 25 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Freedberg, p. 322 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Fischel 1962, p. 137 ff. (workshop); Hoogewerff 1963, p. 5 ff.; Shearman 1964, p. 59 ff. (in part by Raphael, Giulio Romano and Penni); Brizio 1963, col. 238 (invention by Raphael); Dussler 1966, p. 108 f. (in part by Raphael, Giulio Romano and Penni).


ROME, Villa Farnesina, garden room

The Triumph of Galatea    Plate 157

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-

99

   100 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 100

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

Seated Madonna with Sleeping Child

This heavily repainted fresco was formerly always regarded as the work of Giovanni Santi, but Longhi has recently attributed it to the youthful Raphael, referring specifically to the influence of Piero della Francesca. The picture is badly damaged, and I see no features which might justify its inclusion in Raphael’s juvenilia.

Müntz, p. 10 f. (by Giovanni Santi); Berenson 1932, p. 511 (by Giovanni Santi); Ragghianti 1947, p. 5 (a.); Longhi, Paragone 1955, May, p. 14 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 1 (a.); Volpe 1962, p. 82 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 222 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 110 (Giovanni Santi); Wagner 1969, p. 95 (r.).

100

Prev Contents Next