RAPHAEL - The Holy Family with the Lamb of 1504
Prev Catalogue Next

Catalogue

 

Cat. No. 1
Raphael (1483-1520)
The Holy Family with the Lamb

Signed and dated below the neckline of Mary’s bodice:
RAPHAEL Symbol VRBINAS Symbol AD Symbol MDIV
Poplar, 32.2 x 22 cm
Private Collection

Colour Plate IV
Colour Plate IV
Click to enlarge
Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1504, Private Collection


In the 19th century Conestabile della Staffa Collection, Perugia; Gobet Collection, Avenches (CH); 1933 Viscount Lee of Fareham Collection, Richmond (G.B.); Lady Ruth Viscountess of Fareham Collection; Private Collection Germany; Private Collection Switzerland; Private Collection Vaduz, Liechtenstein.

The Lee painting is one of a series of devotional and commemorative pictures of small format (c. 30 x 25 cm) painted on (poplar) wood, which Raphael produced from c. 1503/04 onwards for private patrons. To this series belong the St. Michael and St. George in Paris; Christ the Redeemer in Brescia; the St. George in Washington; the Orléans Madonna in Chantilly; the Esterhazy Madonna in Budapest and the Holy Family with the Lamb in Madrid. If taking a wider view, also the smaller Conestabile Madonna in St. Petersburg (not a tondo, but a square, 17,8 x 17,8 cm, c. 1502) forms part of the series, as Mary’s head and facial features bear a close resemblance to the Mary in the Lee painting (fig. 12).

The support consists of a 10 mm wide poplar panel with vertical grain and two rebated bracing strips inserted in the reverse (fig. 19). From Hermann Kühn’s reports of 1986 and 1991 and from the detailed analytical discussion by J. Meyer zur Capellen it is evident that the results concerning the support (poplar), the ground (gesso) and successive layers of colour are characteristic of a panel painting done in Italy in about 1500. Many parallels are found in H. von Sonnenburg’s tests of the Canigiani Holy Family in Munich (1983, pp. 48-60). These include the support, the first layer of lime, the ground with gesso and the transfer of the cartoon. The processes following the completion of the underdrawing can only be inferred from the painting processes of the Canigiani Holy Family: thin, light-brown wash used for figures and landscape (cf. the Esterhazy Madonna, Budapest); underpainting of garments and landscape; laying on of flesh tints and after that, applying the dark colours (garments, landscape) and the light colours. The ornaments on the dress, the inscription below the neckline of Mary’s bodice and the execution of the fine haloes, all done in gold, may have been the last work process. However, the fact that this was not always the case is proved by the signed but unfinished Canigiani Holy Family (cf. Exh. Cat. Munich 1983, p.56). Detailed tests of the small format devotional pictures (Paris, Chantilly, Budapest et al) are still missing.

Bibl.: Viscount Lee of Fareham, 1934, pp. 3-19 (with contributions from R. Fry, K. Clark, O. Fischel and A. P. Laurie) – A. L. Maer, 1934, pp. 146-7 – F. Saxl, 1935, passim – O. Fischel, 1948, vol. 1, pp. 51, 359 – K. T. Parker, 1956, vol. II, p. 269, No. 520 – O. Fischel, 1962, p. 37 – F. J. Sanchez Canton, Museo del Prado, Catalogo de las Pinturas, Madrid 1963, p. 524 – L. Dussler, 1966, pp. 43-5, No. 73 – A. Schug, 1967, pp. 470-82 – A. Schug, 1969, p. 24 f. – J. Pope-Hennessy, 1970, p. 287 note 50 – L. Dussler, 1971, pp. 11-13 – J. M. Lehmann, 1980, p. 212 – W. Braunfels, L. Dussler, W. Sauerländer, Museo del Prado, Pintura extranjera, Guia ilustrada, Madrid 1980, p. 118 f. – P. De Vecchi, 1981, German edition 1983, No. 40 – Exh. Cat. Munich 1983, p. 24 notes 1, 29, 50 note 15 – Exh. Cat. Paris 1983, pp. 114-117 (J. P. Cuzin) – E. Ullmann, Raffael, Leipzig 1983, pp. 64, 70 – R. Jones, N. Penny, Munich 1983, p. 28 note 13 – Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, pp. 90-5 (M. del Carmen Garrido) and p. 137 – J. M. Lehmann, 1986, (2nd edition Kassel 1991) pp.15-17 notes 31-6 – L. D. Ettlinger, H. S. Ettlinger, 1987, pp. 58, 62 – J. M. Lehmann, 1987, pp. 12-13 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, pp. 98-113 – J. Meyer zur Capellen. Wenig beachtet, aber bedeutend. Raffaels Versionen der ‘Heiligen Familie mit dem Lamm’ in einer Privatsammlung und im Prado, in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 19.8.1989 – C. Pedretti, 1989 pp. 28, 90 – S. Ferino-Pagden, M. A. Zancan, 1989, p. 66 – A. Schug, Die 100 schönsten Gemälde der Welt, Cologne 1990, p. 157 – P. L. De Vecchi, Madonnen aus Florenz und Rom, Landshut 1990, p. 42 – E. Ullmann, 1991, pp. 64, 74 f. – A. Vezzosi, Exh. Cat. Leonardo da Vinci. Attualità e mito, Budapest 1991, VAR 018 – P. L. De Vecchi, Raffaello - La mimesi, l’armonia e l’invenzione, Florence 1995 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, Raffael in Florenz, London-München 1996 (in preparation)

Illustration 19
Illustration 19
Click to enlarge

 

Illustration 20
Illustration 20
Click to enlarge

 

Illustration 21
Illustration 21
Click to enlarge

 

Illustration 21a
Illustration 21a
Click to enlarge

Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Private Collection. Reverse   Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Private Collection. X-ray photograph   Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Private Collection. Infrared photograph   Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Private Collection. UV photograph


Report on Analysis by Dr. Herrmann Kühn,
Munich, 2 April 1986

The Holy Family with the Lamb, signed and dated RAPHAEL URBINAS AD MDIV, panel (poplar), 32.2 x 22.0 cm, thickness 10 mm, rebated bracing strips on reverse. Ground and paint sample sectioned and examined (microphotography, normal light and UV fluorescence). Constituents analysed using physical methods (spectroanalysis, Debye-Scherrer photography), microchemistry and microscopy. Samples taken by the author of this report on 19 March 1986.

Sample 1: Ground under edge t.r. = 0/5.1 cm
Layers in cross-section from bottom to top:
a)





b)







c)
Thin transparent brown layer with
scattered dark grains
bluish UV fluorescence



Thick layer of colourless
crystalline constituents in a
yellow-brown matrix (colouring
irregular)
Under UV light, matrix displays bluish
fluorescence together with yellowish
fluorescence immediately above
crystalline constituents
Thin, largely transparent
layer, appearing brown in cross-section
UV fluorescence
Proteins

Few particles of
charcoal, grains of
iron oxides and
calcium carbonate
Hydrated calcium
sulphate (gypsum)


Proteins (size)
Oil (presumably
from the paint layers)

Varnish

Sample 2: Ground upper edge t.r. = 32.1/20.2 cm
Layers in cross-section from bottom to top:
a) Dark, partly semitransparent
deposit or mass
Bluish fluorescence in binding
medium
As 1 a), plus some oil

Sample 3: Ground left-hand edge t.r. = 19.4/0 cm
Layers in cross-section from bottom to top:
a)

b)





c)
d)
e)
Yellow-brown, semitransparent
layer with scattered black particles
Thick white layer with crystalline
components, lower part discoloured
yellow-brown, possibly two layers
In upper part bluish UV fluorescence
In lower, yellow-brown part,
yellowish UV fluorescence
Very thin, dark deposit
Paint layer; UV fluorescence
Dark glazes or varnish layers; UV fluorescence
As 1 a), plus some oil

Hydrated calcium sul-
phate (gypsum)

Proteins
Oil

Sample 4: Blue from the sky, right-hand edge t.t. = 26.3/22.1 cm
Layers in cross-section from bottom to top:
a)





b)
Blue paint layer with
coarse, angular or splintered particles
of pigment and white vegetable
pigment in nodule form
Yellow UV fluorescence

At one point dark-coloured to black
deposit, above which (as in places
without the black deposit) glazes or varnish layers
White lead
Natural ultramarine
Small quantities of
vegetable charcoal
Oil

Analysis Report
The paint surface lies on a white gesso ground, with gypsum as filler and size as binding medium. Such gesso grounds were in general use in Italy until approximately the mid-sixteenth century; in Northern Europe chalk was generally used instead of gypsum. Detailed instructions are given by Cennino Cennini in his Trattato della pittura (c. 1400), chapters 117-21 (German edition, Das Buch von der Kunst, tr. A. Ilg, Quellenschriften fur Kunstgeschichte, 1, Vienna 1888).
The yellowish-brown discolouration of the ground in some places may be ascribed to seepage of oil from the outer paint layers or laterally from the edge, possibly due to the use of oil varnish (the samples examined were all taken from the edge). Beneath the ground is another thin, brownish yellow layer, which seems somewhat darker in section. Its principal constituents were found to be proteins (size), along with small quantities of calcium carbonate, iron oxide pigment, and grains of wood charcoal. This layer presumably represents the preliminary sizing of the panel to take the ground. The other ingredients incorporated in the size may well be accidental admixtures. The source of the oil found in this layer in Sample 2 is unclear; since the sample is taken from the edge, it could possibly stem from lateral seepage of oil varnish.
In the only paint sample taken, in the blue of the sky (the vestigial traces of paint in Sample 2 are accidental), the pigments present were found to be white lead, natural ultramarine, and vegetable black (pulverized charcoal), together with oil as a medium. The presence of white lead in the form of nodules tallies with an early production technique; the distribution of trace elements (the relative concentration of copper and silver) is that of the white lead in customary use in Italy. The microscopic features of the natural ultramarine suggest a good, strongly pigmented variety. Ultramarine made from the precious stone lapis lazuli has always been an extremely costly pigment.

Report on Analysis by Dr. Herrmann Kühn,
Munich, 31 October 1991

Painting, The Holy Family with the Lamb
Signed and dated on the hem around the neckline of Mary’s dress:
RAPHAEL URBINAS AD MDIV
Poplar Wood, 32.2 x 22.0 cm
Formerly Collection Viscount Lee of Fareham

An examination of this painting under ultraviolet light (fluorescence analysis) and with a stereoscopic magnifier leads to the following conclusions.
In places, the paint film displays signs of blistering; for instance in the earth beneath the Lamb, at the left-hand edge; in the Lamb itself; and approximately level with the Madonna’s head; and at several points in the sky at the right-hand edge. Since these major points of damage are at the edge and in the sky area, they do not affect any pictorially important areas. Most of them have been satisfactorily restored in the tratteggio technique, so that they do not affect the overall impression conveyed by the work but remain detectable as damaged areas on close inspection. In the sky, however, there are several retouches that need to be adjusted or replaced.
Minor areas of damage are to be found in various parts of the figures and the landscape. These have mostly been carefully retouched and can be detected only with the aid of a magnifying glass.
All the restored passages are visible under ultraviolet light (quartz lamp) as darker areas in contrast with the fluorescent areas around them. The painting thus shows no sign of any manipulation that might conceal its true state of preservation.
The painting displays a marked craquelure, i.e., a network of cracks in the paint film and the ground, caused by age. Horizontal cracks are more in evidence than vertical ones. This may be ascribed partly to specific anatomical factors in the wood (tree growth) and partly to the two rebated horizontal bracing strips on the reverse. A natural phenomenon of aging, craquelure is not now regarded as a flaw but valued as a sign of genuine antiquity. It is consequently pleasing to find that the cracks have not been touched out.
The reverse of the painting displays the original wood surface, with all the signs of aging. This is almost an exceptional feature in a painting of this period. The rebated bracing strips on the reverse, too, are most probably original.
Although the painting has suffered blistering in peripheral areas, and shows minor areas of damage and retouching over the whole surface, its state of preservation may be regarded as good - indeed, better than average for a painting five hundred years old.

Illustration 20a
Illustration 20a
Click to enlarge
Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Private Collection. X-ray photograph


Cat. No. 2
Studio of Raphael
The Holy Family with the Lamb

Wood, 29 x 21 cm
On the upper rebated bracing strip written in ink:
GALLERIA GERINI
Wax seal, oval with initials: NT
Angers, Musée des Beaux Arts, Inv. No. 272

Colour Plate V
Colour Plate V
Click to enlarge
Studio of Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Musée des Beaux Arts, Angers


Marchesi Andrea and Giovanni Gerini Collection, Florence (engraving by Carlo Gregori, 1759 in the publication on the Galleria Gerini); Niccolo Tacchinardi Collection, Florence; Prince Anatole Demidoff Collection, Paris; 8.2.1851 sale to M. Robin, Paris; 1864 Legacy from M. Robin to the Museum of Angers.

3.2 cm lower, 1 cm narrower than the Lee exemplar (32.2 x 22 cm), however, identical with the Prado picture in absolute dimensions (29 x 21 cm). The group of figures with the lamb is fully reproduced; the distance from the lamb and the foot of Joseph to the lower edge of the picture corresponds roughly to that in the Lee picture. The stretched-out front leg of the lamb nearly touches the lower edge of the picture, i.e. more than 1 cm of the foreground covered with flowers is missing at the bottom. Also the distance from Joseph’s head to the upper edge of the picture is shorter than in the Lee painting.
Noteworthy is the straight upright, slender tree trunk at the back of Joseph which forks at the top. We already know it from the infrared photograph of the Madrid picture (fig. 16), where it belonged to the original composition, but had been removed at a later date and painted over. Clearly recognizable are the two small trees to the right of Joseph which rise from the slope roughly in the middle of the picture and form transparent, leafy crowns. The tree on the right helps to reconstruct the shape of the corresponding tree in the Lee picture, which is partly lost. The tree on the left edge of the picture corresponds roughly in the shape of its crown to the Lee painting, if one takes into account the diminution of the height of the picture.
The abundance of flowers in the narrow foreground is based on the Lee example without being a copy. There are violets, dandelions, narcissi and other less clearly defined flowers. To the right of Joseph’s leg traces of a tall, white flowering plant are visible.
The landscape in the background follows the schemes of the Lee and Prado pictures quite closely, though it is less precise in detail and very summary in the central and right-hand sections. For example, the house between the heads of Mary and Joseph situated by the river and surrounded with spherical shrubs is barely visible.
The figures correspond to those of the Lee picture with minor differences in the treatment of the heads of the main figures. Mary’s face seems more severe and wooden, ‘plus mince et leonardesque que sur le tableau du Prado’ (J. P. Cuzin), her left eye is over-emphasized. Only a weak echo remains of the solemn seriousness of Joseph’s facial expression: less modelling of the head, less incisive the lines in his face, etc. All this results in a diminution and weakening of the intense expression of the original. The same applies to the treatment of the garments: schematic rendering of folds, little plasticity, simplified linear design. All these observations imply the work of an efficient assistant in Raphael’s studio.
In the use of colour the painting at Angers shows some differences from the colours of the Lee picture, especially in the blue tones. Mary’s mantle has darkened considerably and seems nearly blue-black; the chest and sleeve of Joseph are in a lighter blue with an admixture of white, but without the red component which tends towards violet. The red of Mary’s dress is deeper than in the Lee picture and veers towards the red used in the Prado picture (Colour Plate III). The flesh tints and the colour scheme of the landscape seem darker, the blue of the sky less intense. This may, however, be partly due to the state of preservation of the painting.
One of the most important Florentine art collections of the 18th century was the Gerini Collection which had been considerably enlarged by the Marchese Andrea Gerini (died 1766). The first part of the volume of engravings ‘Raccolta di Ottanta Stampe rappresentanti i Quadri più scelti de’ Sig.ri Marchesi Gerini di Firenze’, already published in 1759, contained on plate 8 Carlo Gregori’s print after Raphael’s Holy Family with the Lamb (cf. Cat. No. C 2, fig. 24). His descendant Giovanni Gerini continued to enlarge the collection, so that it comprised several hundred pieces at its sale in 1825. In the sale catalogue of 1825 ‘Stima dei quadri esistenti nella Galleria del sig. Marchese Giovanni Gerini a Firenze’ the picture is entered as No. 288: ‘Raffaello da Urbino. La S. Famiglia in aperta campagna: figure sotto la grandezza media, B.al0 x B.a7 e 8 soldi (1000 zecchini)’.
Only a few years later the picture was acquired by the Russian Prince Anatole Demidoff, resident in Paris and Florence. In 1847 when he sent some of his Paris art treasures by ship on the Saone from Chalon to Lyon - and from there on to Florence - a steam boat sank off Tournus with a crate which contained 17 pictures, among them the picture by Raphael. In 1851, after restoration the damaged pictures, for which Prince Demidoff showed no further interest, were sold at auction in Paris. The Raphael entered the M. Robin Collection (1797-1864). Before his death, Monsieur Robin bequeathed his art collection to the museum at Angers. In the 1870 and 1881 catalogues of this museum the picture is entered as an original by the hand of Raphael. But apart from local connoisseurs and friends of the arts the Gerini picture was unknown in art historical circles owing to its provincial location. Neither J. D. Passavant, nor E. Muntz, nor later Raphael scholars like J. A. Crowe and G. B. Cavalcaselle mentioned the picture.
The picture in Angers only became known again to a wider public when it was shown at the ‘Raphael dans les collections françaises’ exhibition at the Grand Palais, Paris in 1983/84. Jean-Pierre Cuzin wrote a detailed catalogue report in which he came to the conclusion that the exemplar in Madrid (Colour Plate III) was the original by Raphael’s own hand, whereas the painting at Angers was a replica from Raphael’s studio.

Illustration 22
Illustration 22
Click to enlarge

 

Illustration 24
Illustration 24
Click to enlarge

Studio of Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Musée des Beaux Arts, Angers. UV photograph   Carlo Gregori, The Holy Family with the Lamb (after Raphael), Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg

Illustration 23
Illustration 23
Click to enlarge
Studio of Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb,
Musée des Beaux Arts, Angers. Infrared photograph


Bibl.: J. D. Passavant, 1839, II, p. 91 – J. D. Passavant, 1860, II p. 55 – F. A. Gruyer, Les Vierges de Raphael et l’iconographie de la Vierge, Paris 1869, III, p. 304 – H. Jouin, Le Raphael du Musée d’ Angers, in: L’Artiste, 1869, pp. 20-7 – Cat. Musée d’ Angers, 1870, pp. 79-82 (Jouin) – Cat. Musée d’ Angers, 1881, pp. 83-5 (Jouin) – J. Crowe, G. B. Cavalcaselle, 1883, I, p. 339 – Cat. Musée d’ Angers, 1928, pp. 12, 20 – G. Dufour, Le ‘Raphael’ du Musée d’ Angers, in: La Province d’ Anjou, Nov.-Dec. 1930, No. 26, pp. 312-18 – H. Zerner, P. de Vecchi, J. P. Cuzin, 1982, No. 71, pp. 124-5 – Cat. Musée d’ Angers (V. Huchard), 1982, p. 7 – Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, No. 18, pp. 114-117 (J. P. Cuzin) – J. M. Lehmann, 1984, p. 144 – Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, pp. 91-8 (M. del Carmen-Garrido) – J. M. Lehmann, 1987, pp. 12-13 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 109, notes 8, 11, No. 11


Cat. No. 3
Italian Master, 1st half 16th century
The Holy Family with the Lamb

Poplar, 29.1 x 21.8 cm
Staatliche Museen Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister
GK 539; Inv. 1749, No. 665

Colour Plate VI
Colour Plate VI
Click to enlarge
Copy after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb,
Staatliche Museen Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister


Before 1748 in the possession of Baron Heinrich Jakob von Häckel, Frankfurt am Main. Given by him as a present to Landgrave Wilhelm VIII at New Year 1750.

The copy concurs in its measurements roughly with the Prado painting (29 x 21 cm) and is 3.2 cm less high than the Lee painting (32.2 x 22 cm). The leg of the lamb nearly touches the border at the lower edge of the picture, the plants in the foreground are only perfunctorily represented. The border overlaps the tree on the left edge of the picture, resembling the treatment in the Lee picture, and also shows a similar crown and delicate foliage. The tree on the right cuts across the drapery of the ochre yellow cloak of St. Joseph. Further trees behind to the right are barely recognizable. The ‘tree at the back of St. Joseph’ has been omitted from the beginning as proved by the infrared reflectogram and the X-ray photograph (fig. 25). This is the essential difference from the version at Angers, with which the Kassel picture concurs in many details (the trees on the left and on the right, the architecture in the background among others). In contrast to the known versions, St. Joseph is wearing a sandal in GK 539. The Kassel picture differs from the Lee and Prado versions and approximates to the Angers picture in the treatment of Mary’s ethereal veil thinly painted in single brush strokes, which lets her hair shine through, and in the neckline of her bodice which is only decorated with an ornament. The Kassel picture shares the halo of St. Joseph with the Lee pIcture.
It can therefore be assumed that GK 539 originated at a time when ‘the tree at the back of Joseph’ had already been eliminated from the Lee picture (Cat. No. 1). It shows the second, ‘revised’, state of the Prado picture to which it is related in format and overall pictorial space. In the treatment of the drapery of Mary’s and Joseph’s garments, however, GK 539 differs from the afore-mentioned paintings and that at Angers by a softer, more slurred handling, which reduces the relief-like effect of the drapes and makes the individual folds in Mary’s sleeve and skirt and Joseph’s garment and cloak appear less articulated. Mary’s facial features are more youthful and simplified compared to the exemplars mentioned before.
It is evident from these observations that the painter of the copy knew the Madrid picture as well as the one in Angers. How well and whether he knew the Lee picture is difficult to decide. Accepting a dependence on the Prado picture would confirm M. del Carmen Garrido’s opinion that the removal of the ‘tree in Joseph’s back’ occurred soon after completion of the picture, probably already during Raphael’s life time.
This, in turn, would mean a terminus post quem for the Kassel exemplar, i.e. that it could have been produced after 1507, in the 1st or 2nd decade of the 16th century in close connection with Raphael’s circle. We shall follow here the classification proposed by the outstanding expert on Raphael, Georg Gronau (Director of the Kassel Gallery 1910-1924) ‘approximately contemporaneous, probably Florentine copy’ (cat. Kassel 1913: ‘annähernd gleichzeitige, wohl florentinische Kopie’). The question of dating GK 539 has not elicited any more recent research.
The support consists of poplar measuring 29.1 x 21.8, thickness 8 mm, with vertical grain. On the reverse two rebated bracing strips, which probably stem from the time of inception. During the ‘Paris Exile’ (1807 -1815) the seal of the Napoleonic ‘Musées de France’ was affixed (fig. 26). In addition, the red number 665 (Inventory of 1749) and an inscription on the upper rebated bracing strip can be discerned.
Neither an infrared test nor the microscope could reveal a signature as found on the exemplars Lee and Madrid. Nor did the X-ray photograph (fig.25) reveal any alteration of the composition, as no pentimenti are visible. The X-ray photograph shows, however, the uncertain and cautious exploratory technique of the copyist. Through shrinkage of the wooden panel in the past considerable loss of pigment has occurred in the sections of the sky, the earth in the foreground and Mary’s blue mantle. The layered paint shows some intermittent blistering in the direction of the grain. The absence of any grounding or trace of pigments at the borders of the picture suggests that the panel may have been slightly planed down or trimmed.
Restored, in 1950 by Joseph Leiß, and in 1953 and 1959 by Sylvie von Reden.

Illustration 25
Illustration 25
Click to enlarge

 

Illustration 26
Illustration 26
Click to enlarge

Copy after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Kassel, X-ray photograph   Copy after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Kassel, Wax seal of the Musées de France on reverse

 

Bibl.: S. Causid, Verzeichnis der Hochfürstlich Hessischen Gemälde-Sammlung in Cassel, Cassel 1783, p. 5, No. 20 – J. D. Passavant, 1839, vol. II, p. 91 (copy) – J. A. Crowe, G. B. Cavalcaselle, Leipzig 1883, vol. 1, p. 268 note (reprint) – O. Eisenmann, Katalog der Königlichen Gemälde-Galerie zu Cassel, Cassel 1888 (postscript by C. A. von Drach), p. 316, No. 501 – C. A. von Drach, in: O. Eisenmann, 1888, p. LXIII f. – C. A. von Drach, 1891, p. 4 and pp. 18-19 – G. Gronau, Katalog der Königlichen Gemäldegalerie zu Cassel, Berlin 1913, p. 51 – Lee of Fareham, 1934, p.14 (Appendix III, O. Fischel) – H. Vogel, Katalog der Staatlichen Gemäldegalerie zu Kassel, Kassel 1958, p. 116 – L. Dussler, 1966, p. 44 – G. Gronau - E. Herzog, 1969, p. 21 – L. Dussler, 1971, p. 12 – J. M. Lehmann, 1980, p. 212 – Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, p. 117 (J.-P. Cuzin) – J. M. Lehmann, 1986, (2nd edition 1991) pp. 15-17 notes 31-6, with colour plate – J. M. Lehmann, 1987, pp. 12-13 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, Pantheon 1989, p. 109 notes 7, 11


Cat. No. 4
Italian Master, 1st half 16th century
The Holy Family with the Lamb

Canvas, later glued onto wood, 29.1 x 21.8 cm
Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen
Inv. No. 6422
Provenance: 1809 from the Kurbischöfliche Galerie
Mainz (Elector Archbishop’s Gallery).

Colour Plate VII
Colour Plate VII
Click to enlarge
Copy after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb,
Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Munich


The simplified copy is smaller in its measurements than all known versions and comes relatively close to the measurements of the picture which had been offered to the Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1676/77 from Urbania by Urbino. According to the documents published by C. Pedretti (1989) the measurements of the Holy Family with the Lamb were 27.2 x 20.3cm. However, Pedretti himself points out that these measurements do not accord with any of the exemplars known so far and concludes that Raphael’s picture from Urbania is untraceable or lost.
Conspicuous are some changes on the left edge of the picture, where the border slightly overlaps the lamb, and there is no trace of a tree or crown of a tree. The path on the left next to Mary leads obliquely, not winding like an S to a church-like building in the background which seems altered and slightly shifted to the left, compared to the exemplars Lee, Madrid and Angers. The castle on the slope which rises gently behind this building, is missing, but the spire of the steeple is visible above Mary’s halo (cf. Lee, Madrid, Angers). The simplified landscape in the foreground, middle distance and background differs from the model: four spherical trees and a house can be detected between the heads of Mary and Joseph, but the mountains in the distance painted in a shade of violet-blue seem flat and undifferentiated. The tree at the back of Joseph and the small trees to the right of Joseph largely concur with the picture at Angers. As regards the treatment of the landscape on the right of the picture the difference to the above mentioned paintings could not be greater. Here, as also in the foreground, the painter has dispensed with precise detail (water, plants, scenery) and limited himself to fine, short brush strokes. The floral wealth in the foreground is almost totally missing.
The haloes of Mary, Joseph and the Christ Child are quite distinctly marked. They appear as transparent discs, not as thin circles and differ from the above versions with the exception of the Lee picture, where St. Joseph is given a similar halo.
The faces, too, seem coarser, that of Mary more angular, her eyes and nose are enlarged; Mary’s veil is denser than in the Angers picture. Also some simplifications in the treatment of the draperies and the lamb’s fleece are of a lower quality than the more finely executed models. The blue of Mary’s mantle has greatly darkened; the gold below the neckline of the bodice and the ornaments are merely suggested. The lamb and the stretched-out foot of the Christ Child seem enlarged.
The inferior quality of this copy suggest that it had certainly not been painted during Raphael’s life time and was in no way connected with Raphael’s workshop. The unknown copyist, who perhaps knew the Angers version (Cat. No. 2) or another exemplar (e.g. former Reinhartshausen, Cat. No. B 1) merely satisfied the demand for a devotional picture which was well-known and popular in his time. He may have stemmed from the artistic circle of Ferrara, as R. Oertel (1964) surmised.

 

Bibl.: G. Parthey, Deutscher Bildersaal, vol. II, p. 487 – Katalog der Gemälde-Galerie im K. Schlosse zu Aschaffenburg, Munich 1902, p. 56 – F. Dörnhöffer, Katalog der Staatsgemäldesammlung Aschaffenburg, Munich 1933, p. 28 (German copy 18th century)(K. Martin), Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Galerie Aschaffenburg, Katalog, Munich 1964, p. 126 (R. Oertel) – L. Dussler, Critical Catalogue, 1971, p. 53 – (E. Steingraber), Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Galerie Aschaffenburg, Katalog, Munich 1975, p. 153 – J. M. Lehmann, 1980, p. 212 – Exh. Cat. Munich 1983, p. 24, note 1 – J. M. Lehmann, 1987, pp. 12-13 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 109 note 11 – C. Pedretti, 1989, p. 60, note 1


Cat. No. 5
Italian Master, 2nd half 16th century
The Holy Family with the Lamb

Signed and dated below the neckline of Mary’s bodice:
Wood, 31.5 x 24 cm
Pavia, Civici Musei, Pinacoteca Malaspina, Inv. No. 306

Colour Plate VIII
Colour Plate VIII
Click to enlarge
Variant after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Civici Musei, Pavia


Until 1808 Luigi Cerretti Collection, Pavia; thereafter acquired by Marchese Luigi Malaspina di Sannazaro (1754-1835). Donated to the Museum in 1838.

Only the figurative group of St. Joseph, Mary, the Child and the lamb accords with the original composition, though with obvious facial dissimilarities. ‘The unidentified painter of the copy, restored in 1977, adopts the group of figures from the Raphaelesque Holy Family, which he perhaps only knew from an engraving. But he seems independent and more mature in the treatment of light, the landscape, use of colour and his mannerist taste. From the Corregesque face of the Virgin a beam of rays, which moves towards the heads of the other protagonists accentuates, seen diagonally, an open space diffused with light and a corner in dense shadow. To achieve Raphael’s lucid balance the restless mood of the wood is steadied by interspersed ruins and by architectural elements in the background. Pastel-like colours produce the wide ranging chromatic scale. The copy should therefore be dated to the 2nd half of the 16th century and shows the influence of Federico Barocci’s art’. (M. Civita Cardi 1981).
Striking are the analogies with the Oxford Cartoon (Cat. No. 6): the lower edge of the picture near the hoof of the lamb, the upright left ear of the lamb and the right ear hidden under the Christ Child’s arm, Mary’s neckline with the V shaped cleavage, also covered by a thin veil, and the vertical folds in Mary’s dress which run from the neckline of the bodice to the hip. In these features the painter closely follows the Oxford Cartoon as his model, which was perhaps traced trough or outlined by dots with the aid of the coaldust bag (‘spolvero’).
The accurately produced plants differ considerably from those in the Lee picture. The donkey beside Joseph on the right, the scenic background, the large deciduous trees and the column near the upper edge on the right are all additions freely invented by the painter of this variant. Nevertheless, some reminiscences of the original composition are in evidence in this variant (the round tower topped by a dome behind on the left and others).
As to the main colours of the picture there are considerable deviations in St. Mary’s attire: her boldly curved cloak is rendered in a deep blue-green tone with the yellow lining turned up, her violet dress shows offwhite sfumato on the neckline. The left sleeve is done in a brilliant light red, the right one again in violet. The figure of Joseph also differs in its colour scheme from the Lee and Madrid exemplars: the blue is given a reddish tone, his ochre yellow cloak veers towards brown. The scenic and architectural elements are anyway additions from the copyist and therefore not suited for a comparison with the prototypes. (This information kindly provided by Dr. Susanna Zatti, Civici Musei Pavia).
The dimensions of the picture (31.5 x 24 cm) compared to those of the Oxford Cartoon (27.5 x 22.7 cm) and the above mentioned consistencies lead to the conclusion that the painter of the Pavia variant was in possession of this cartoon, which had already been frequently used during the fifty years since its inception and which probably no longer clearly showed the faces of St. Mary and St. Joseph owing to its state of preservation at that time. Therefore new elements influenced by Correggio’s art were introduced, corresponding to the time of this variant’s origin (Mary’s face, concept of landscape), features which point indeed to a link with the art of Federico Baroccio (1535 - 1612), who also confronted the art of Raphael during his artistic career. This largely novel creation after the well-known model should therefore have originated as M. Civita Cardi suggested in the 2nd half of the 16th century.

 

Bibl.: P. Zani, Enciclopedia metodica critica-ragionata delle Belle Arti, Part II, vol. VI, Parma 1921, p. 90 – G. Vallardi, 1842, p. 19 – Lee of Fareham, 1934, p. 14 (0. Fischel - L. Dussler, 1966, p. 44 – L. Dussler, 1971, p. 11 – J. M. Lehmann, 1980, p. 212 – Cat. Pavia Pinacoteca Malaspina (A. Peroni - D. Vicini), Pavia 1981, p. 214 (Maria Civita Cardi) – D. Vicini, Il Castello Visconteo die Pavia, Guida, Pavia 1984, p. 78, No. 91 – J. M. Lehmann, 1987, pp. 12-13 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 109, notes 10, 11 No. 18 – S. Zatti, Note su Faustino Anderloni e Giovita Garavaglia, in: Bolletino della Società Pavese di Storia Patria, 1993, pp. 185-195


Cat. No. 6
Raphael (1483-1520)
The Holy Family with the Lamb
Pen and brush drawing, brown ink, heightened with a
light yellowish-white colour, squared with metal point
Light brown paper, 275 x 227 mm. Pricked for transfer
to a prepared wooden panel.
Stamped lower right A. G. B. Russell (Lugt II, 2770a)
Oxford (G. B.), Ashmolean Museum
Cat. 1956, II, No. 520

Colour Plate IX
Colour Plate IX
Click to enlarge
Raphael (1483-1520), The Holy Family with the
Lamb, Cartoon, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford


Former Earl of Haddington Collection; Russell Collection. In 1951 donated to the Museum by Archibald George Blomefield Russell, Clarenceux King of Arms (London).

The much damaged drawing still shows the three-figure group with the lamb almost in its entirety. The upper left part is lost except for a small section. Mary’s and Joseph’s heads have almost disappeared; they were retouched at an unknown date. Numerous contours and forms inside them were reinforced. Those parts which show the lamb, the Christ Child, and Mary’s and St. Joseph’s bodies are well preserved. St. Joseph’s staff rises above his head and nearly reaches the upper border of the Cartoon. On the left, rudimentary indications of the landscape in the background can be discerned. The sheet has a tear at the bottom right hand side.
Owing to the high quality of its execution the Oxford Cartoon has been considered a work by Raphael by his own hand ever since K. T. Parker (1956). The pricking of the contours and of the forms inside them, as well as the traces of the use of a charcoal dust bag (spolvero) (fig. 28) indicate the transfer of the cartoon to a prepared support (a wooden panel). Joseph’s staff was only pricked up to the height of his head. The Oxford Cartoon concurs with the Lee picture (Cat. No. 1) in the absolute dimensions of the figures and in a comparison of the pricks on the individual figures. While tests carried out on this picture at the Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne at the end of the 1970s had already shown traces of dots on the outlines, i.e. of a transfer of the composition from a pricked cartoon to the prepared picture plane, the prickings become clearly visible in the Raking Light photographs of the Cartoon which the Ashmolean Museum produced in 1985/86. J. Meyer zur Capellen described the procedure in detail in 1989 and judged as follows: ‘One may therefore conclude that the Oxford Cartoon should be considered the primary model of the Lee version, the more so as this method of transfer is by no means unusual in Raphael’s early works’. Meyer zur Capellen refers in the subsequent text to the cartoons for the Annunciation in the Louvre (predella of the Pala Oddi), St. George in the Uffizi and the London allegory of the Dream of the Knight, in which numerous parallels with this work process can be found. Neither does Meyer zur Capellen refute a possible use of the Cartoon at the inception of the Prado picture as well.
K. T. Parker (1956) held the view that the Cartoon had served as the model for the painting in the Prado. But he also pointed out that there were differences in the absolute dimensions and that the edge of the Prado picture overlaps important parts of the composition (the lamb, the left foot of Joseph). Parker only mentioned the painting in the Lee Collection without commentary. Against this, H. Mac Andrew (1980) described the Lee painting as the original version (‘This and not the painting in the Prado is considered Raphael’s original’ - see Dussler), likewise C. Pedretti (1989). The Oxford Cartoon has been associated with the Prado picture by John Pope-Hennessy (1970); E. Knab - E. Mitsch - K. Oberhuber (1983); J. P. Cuzin (1983/84); M. Mena Marques and M. del Carmen Garrido (1985) and S. Ferino Pagden (1989). The infrared photographs of the Madrid painting show in fact, that the deftly executed underdrawing has many features in common with the Oxford Cartoon (i.e. the vertical folds which run from the neckline of Mary’s bodice to her hip, the shape of the neckline of the bodice, among others). These findings lead to the conclusion that the Cartoon had been transferred by means of indenting the contours of the drawing or possibly directly by the ‘spolvero’ method (cf. the text to the Prado picture).
Many signs speak therefore for the conclusion that the Oxford Cartoon has served as a model for the inception of the Lee painting of 1504 as well as that of the Prado picture of 1507. Concerning the Angers version, this can only be presumed (J. P. Cuzin 1983/1984). A possible use for other copies is by no means to be disclaimed given the prominent traces of usage. Much speaks in favour of the fact that the Cartoon played an important role in the origin of the much later painting in Pavia (cf. Cat. No. 5), as the absolute dimensions of the figures largely concur.

A drawn copy of Raphael’s Oxford Cartoon is said to be preserved in Budapest. (see Exh. Cat. A. Vezzosi, Budapest 1991).

Illustration 28
Illustration 28
Click to enlarge
Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Cartoon,
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Section


Bibl.: K. T. Parker, 1956, pp. 268-9, No. 520 – J. Pope-Hennessy, 1970, p. 287, note 50 – L. Dussler, 1971, p. 11 f. – H. MacAndrew, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Catalogue of the Collection of Drawings, vol. III, Italian Schools: Supplement, Oxford 1980, p. 257 – P. de Vecchi, 1981, p. 243 – E. Knab - E. Mitsch - K. Oberhuber, 1983, p. 578, No. 242 – P. Joannides, 1983, No. 154 – Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84 (J. P. Cuzin) p. 117 – M. del Carmen Garrido, Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, pp. 91-4 – J. M. Lehmann, 1987, p. 13 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 103 f., note 34 – S. Ferino-Pagden, M. A. Zancan, 1989, p. 66 – C. Pedretti, 1989 p. 90 – Exh. Cat. Budapest 1991, VAR 018, MAGYAR 014

 


Prev Catalogue Next
Raphael’s ‘Holy Family with the Lamb’
Pictorial Invention and Realisation
Home Catalogue B - Paintings Not Exhibited