RAPHAEL - The Holy Family with the Lamb of 1504
Prev Raphael’s ‘Holy Family with the Lamb’ · Pictorial Invention and Realisation Next

Raphael’s ‘Holy Family with the Lamb’


Pictorial Invention and Realisation




The Holy Family with the Lamb of 1504 from the Lee of Fareham Collection (Colour Plate II), the first of the series of Holy Families, was continued by the most consistent version, the Canigiani Holy Family, Munich; the Holy Family with the Palm Tree, Edinburgh; and the Holy Family, St. Petersburg. After further compositional adjustments the series was concluded much later, in 1518, by the Holy Family of Francis I, the Louvre26. A closer look at Raphael’s early works for patrons in Perugia reveals that the three-figure group of the Holy Family had already been addressed in 1502/03, albeit not as an isolated group but in a wider pictorial context. On one of the three predella panels of the Coronation of the Virgin commisioned by Alessandra or Maddalena degli Oddi from Perugia in 1502/03, the Adoration of the Magi is depicted (Pinacoteca Vaticana, Rome). Here can be found the seated Virgin Mary turned to the left with the Christ Child sitting on her lap. Next to her on the left stands Joseph supported on his staff, his head turned to the left towards the worshipping Magi27. This predecessor of the Holy Family as a three-figure group is framed by numerous attending figures consistent with the long format of the presentation. On studying the preparatory drawing in Stockholm28 it is striking how much trouble Raphael had taken to organise the multi-figure scene into coherent groups29. The group of Joseph, Mary and the Christ Child forms an independent entity, which already shows the trend towards isolation and independence. This concept of organising in terms of groups is even more in evidence in the 2nd predella, the Presentation of Christ at the Temple (also Pinacoteca Vaticana, Rome). Here the central group with the priest, Joseph, Mary and the Christ Child is separated from the accompanying figures on the right and left by the columns of the temple30.
On studying the Holy Family with the Lamb of 1504 after these preliminary stages the first thing that strikes one is the completely new relationship of the three figures which form the group, to the landscape which surrounds and backs it. If one follows an imaginary diagonal from bottom left to top right, the figurative element of the lamb lying on the ground in an oblique forward position acts as the base. Its head is turned to the front as it looks out of the picture. On its back rides the nude Christ Child bending slightly forward and stretching his leg towards the viewer; his head is raised to glance at Joseph, his worldly father. The perfect right profile of the Child shows to advantage his thick blond locks and the red coral necklace round his neck. He touches the head and neck of the lamb with his hands; his left one grasping its obliquely extended ear. A delicate halo hovers above his head.
Mary is the central figure of the group. Leaning forward and slightly to the left she is almost kneeling, but only her left foot touches the ground. The tension of the motion of her body is expressed in terms of an Symbol-curve and is captured in a transitory moment about to dissolve into kneeling down or standing up. She grasps the Christ Child’s left arm and right shoulder, be it to steady him or to lift him from the lamb to save him from his preordained fate31. In terms of colour Mary provides the main accent within the group. Her brilliant cerise red dress shows the signature


clearly legible below the neckline of the bodice, interspersed with gilded ornament (fig. 5). Her mantle in lapis lazuli blue covers her right shoulder and arm and, draped over her hip, her left leg down to her foot. The sleeve painted in lemon yellow leads to her left hand. A white kerchief covers her head revealing part of her light brown hair plaited above the temple; a diaphanous white veil falls onto her right shoulder; a delicate gold halo hovers above her head.

Colour Plate II
Colour Plate II
Click to enlarge
Raphael (1483-1520), The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1504, Private Collection

A large part of the right half of the picture is allotted to the standing figure of St. Joseph. Almost in profile his curving body together with his bent left knee forms an Symbol-curve. The heel of his left foot nearly touches the edge of the picture; with his strong hands he grasps the staff, which is level with his head, to support himself. The placement of his right leg is concealed behind Mary’s hip and his yello cloak. He wears a dove-blue rope and above it an ochre yellow mantle which falls over his shoulder in a wide curve and hides his left leg down to his foot. From his right shoulder the vertical fall of his cloak forms a light-yellow, glowing patch between Mary and Joseph. The Saint has lowered his almost bald head surmounted by a delicate halo, his worried premonitory glance seeks the Christ Child who responds innocently unperturbed.
The three-figure group is placed in a wide landscape with a high horizon. In the gently rising foreground at the feet of the group a wealth of flowers is depicted: to the left of the lamb, white flowering narcissi as a symbol of the Resurrection, to the right, dandelions which stand for the Passion of Christ and violets for the humility of the Mother of God32 (fig. 7). Despite the poor state of preservation of this zone with damaged areas on the left below the lamb, one can recognise how delicately the plants were executed and how harmoniously they were distributed across the foreground. Even behind the back of the lamb to violets are identifiable. On either side of the group the landscape rises in stages: first sandy and rocky slopes with a stretch of water which runs from left to right across the picture. Behind the water on the left the landscape rises gently.
A wide path, on which the minute figures of Mary and Joseph on the Flight to Egypt can be discerned, leads to a large building resembling a church; nave and transept meet at right angles; behind it a round crenellated tower with dome and lantern is joined on the left by simple annexes. Above this building rises a mountain, whose summit is topped by a castle, the well known Umbrian ‘rocca’. On the extreme left, parallel to the edge of the picture, a young tree stretches its crown of thin branches and small leaves into the sky.
Above Mary’s head and shoulder the landscape moves to the right. Two distant buildings are surrounded by spherical trees and shrubs. The traces of blue on their right hint again at water (river or lake). Rows of trees, diminishing in size as they recede, lead directly up to the violet-blue mountains which terminate the landscape. Above it rises the vault of the sky whose colour-scheme begins with a bluish tone tinged with white, which becomes increasingly darker with the rising skyscape until it condenses, via a larger layer of light blue, into a deep ultramarine.
To the right of Joseph the structure of the landscape follows the pattern already described. Striking is a white dandelion beside Joseph’s knee on the right. Close to Joseph’s back appear two slender trees, one behind the other; they completely accord with the type of tree at the left edge of the picture; their thin braches form transparent feathery crowns. On the extreme right edge of the picture a third tree top in perspectival diminution can be discerned, its trunk is missing. Damaged areas in the pictorial substance here make a precise description impossible.
The lamb itself, symbol of Christ’s sacrifial death, may have already seemed strangely familiar to Raphael’s contemporaries. The present-day viewer is likely to know this type of lamb with its short fleece, horizontally flattened ears and fixedly starring eyes lying on the ground turned obliquely to the right or left, from the German-Nederlandish master of Seligenstadt-am-Main about 50 years older than Raphael: Hans Memling (1435/40 Seligenstadt - 1494 Bruges). Since his picture of St. John the Baptist c. 1472 (Alte Pinakothek, Munich) (fig. 6) the white lamb has quite frequently appeared standing or lying down in his oeuvre (St. John the Baptist, Louvre, Paris; St. John the Baptist, National Gallery, London)33. Memling’s Munich St. John the Baptist is comparable to Raphael’s picture as regards absolute dimensions (31,4 cm x 24,4 cm), dimensions of the figures, foreground and background.

Illustration 5
Illustration 5
Click to enlarge


Illustration 6
Illustration 6
Click to enlarge

Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1504, Private Collection. Signature   Hans Memling, (1435/40-1494), St. John the Baptist, Bayerische Staats-
gemäldesammlungen, Munich, Inv. No. 652

Illustration 7
Illustration 7
Click to enlarge
Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1504, Private Collection. Detail

The Composition

Consistent with his aim for pictorial symmetry Raphael frequently based his pictures painted in 1500-1504 on a equilateral triangle, more rarely on an acute-angled one. This tendency, already evident on the banner for the ‘Confraternità della Carità’ of Città di Castello of 1499/5034, is subsequently found in multi-figured scenes like the Resurrection, Museu del Arte, Sao Paolo35, the large figure Gavari Crucifixion, London36, is especially marked in the Pala degli Oddi of 1503, Rome37, and culminates in an early masterpiece, the Milan Marriage of the Virgin ‘Lo Sposalizio’ of 150438. The principle of a triangular composition can also be detected in the two - and three - figure pictures of the same period, for example in the Madonna and Child with Saints39; the Solly Madonna40; the Diotalevi Madonna41 and the Terranuova Madonna42, all in the Gemäldegalerie Staatliche Museen, Berlin. The principle of the diagonal composition, which creates a sense of movement, or that based on two crossed diagonals, alternates simultaneously with the concept of the triangular composition.
The principle of a central vertical crossed by a central horizontal constitutes a special case, as evidenced in the small panel of St. Michael an the Demon c. 1504, Louvre43, while its not quite equilateral counter-part, St. George and the Dragon, likewise in the Louvre44, follows a rising diagonal in its vehement movement to the right. Against this, the later St. George and the Dragon, Washington45, is based on a diagonal from bottom right to top left.
These examples are merely cited as premisses for the compositional scheme of the Holy Family with the Lamb. The diagonal from bottom left to top right, which starts from the lamb and the Christ Child’s body is strongly emphasized. Mary’s arm and Joseph’s shoulder lie approximately on this imaginary line, which can also be read from top to bottom. The second diagonal embedded in the picture should preferably be read from top to bottom, beginning from Mary’s head, leading across her back to her foot and terminating at the plants in the lower right hand corner of the picture.
Seen like that, a valid comparison can be made with some previously mentioned paintings, the Resurrection (Sao Paolo); Madonna and Child with Saints (Berlin) and particularly, St. George (Louvre, Paris).
However, the composition of the Holy Family with the Lamb cannot solely be explained in terms of diagonals, if one wants to to justice to the picture. Rather, Raphael tried to construct a pyramid, one edge of which leads into the picture space from below left to the far right; the second edge descents steeply from Joseph’s head. To put it differently, an approximately regular pyramid only exists obliquely in its initial stages; the pure formation of a figurative pyramid, as found for example in the little later Canigiani Holy Family in Munich46 (fig. 8), has not yet been achieved here.
The structure of the picture can only be explained as the fusion of a diagonal and a triangular compositional scheme with the spatial gradation of the figures behind each other. A decidedly complicated pictorial structure, the result of the young artist wanting to abandon the world of Perugino and present to the artistic scenario of Florence in 1504 tectonically structured figurative groups. Nevertheless, the result affects the viewer at first sight as clumsy, inconsistent and almost forced. Raphael has ‘entered the School of Michelangelo and Leonardo. Just as their lessons could not be absorbed without an effort, so some of his Florentine pictures display a certain strained quality’ (W. Schöne, 1958).

The Tree at the Back of St. Joseph

Already when the picture was first published in 1934 Viscount Lee of Fareham47, who owned it at that time, observed that the original composition had contained in the background a slender tree with forklike catapulting branches on the top which grew out of Joseph’s back (fig. 9). Lee also found traces of the delicate foliage of this tree and referred at the same time to Carlo Gregori’s engraving (Cat. No. C 2) in which this tree is shown lengthened. Also in 1934 he deduced from this fact that the painting had been altered by a restorer during the last 100 years. He, Lee, surmised, had scratched out this tree which had formed part of the original, probably for aesthetic reasons (and only then covered it with paint). Lee condemned ‘such vandalistic tampering with Raphael’s own design’. On the strength of the close similarity with Gregori’s engraving Lee identified, erroneously, his painting with the picture in the Gerini Collection, Florence, now in the museum at Angers (Cat. No. C 2), which clearly shows the tree at Joseph’s back.
This tree obviously formed an integral part of the original composition, as is also proved by the numerous copies which faithfully repeat this motif (see catalogue). The tree belongs to the archaic pictorial elements of Raphael’s early period. These slender trees with their delicate foliage can already be found in the background between figures in the predella of the Pala Colonna; in Christ on the Mount of Olives (Metropolitan Museum, New York) and the Pietà (Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston), both dating from 1501/0248. The most prominent use of the tree is made in the Dream of Scipio Africanus (the Dream of the Knight) (National Gallery, London) where it determines the composition by rising in the middle of the picture and dividing it into two halves49. On the predella painting of the Adoration of the Magi (Pinacoteca Vaticana, Rome)50 a similar tree with forked branches on the top rises in the centre of the picture between the heads of two attendants. These examples can be increased. The slender tree with delicately painted leaves, as an often quoted set piece, appears as a vertical accent in the background landscape of the following pictures: Madonna and Child with the Book (Norton Simon Foundation, Los Angeles)51; St. George and the Dragon (Louvre, Paris); Portrait of Maddalena Doni (Uffizi, Florence); Maddalena del Cardellino (Uffizi, Florence)52; La Belle Jardinière (Louvre, Paris)53. From this by no means complete enumeration it becomes evident that this scenic set piece taken over from his master, Perugino, remained with Raphael during his Florentine years 1504-1508, but never denied its derivation from his Umbrian period. Still applied to the Borghese Entombment of 1507, it is only replaced by sturdier tree formations in the background of his St. Catherine of Alexandria of 1508 (National Gallery, London). In the Holy Family with the Lamb the tree plays, however, another important role within the overall composition: it accentuates the vertical and gives to the swaying St. Joseph standing only on one leg some firm support.
The question, when this incriminating tree was removed from the material substance of the Lee painting, can hardly be solved by scientific investigation alone. As the number of copies with the tree in the back of St. Joseph is large, the conjecture that the Lee picture showed this tree perhaps for some years or possibly even for a decade can hardly be refuted. If the tree was eliminated from the composition shortly after the execution of the picture - and possibly by Raphael himself - it must be assumed that an almost contemporaneous replica or copy was made as a ‘ricordo’ which contained the tree and which became subsequently the ‘progenitor’ of the numerous copies in which the tree at the back of Joseph appears as an important compositional motif. The first example that comes to mind is the exemplar at Angers (Cat. No. 2) which showes many characteristics of a faithful studio replica. But a third, lost or as yet unknown, version, through which the original composition was spread more widely is also conceivable. Next it seems necessary to investigate whether one of the copies included in the catalogue fulfils the material conditions for such a workshop replica.
Significantly, the infrared reflectogram of the Prado picture (fig. 16) also shows that the small trees on the right edge of the picture and ‘the tree in the back of Joseph’ had been inserted during the painting process in keeping with the original composition of the Lee painting. It is really recognizable that they did not form part of the underdrawing which followed the Oxford Cartoon, but were only added at a time when the figural group had already been outlined and in large parts executed. They were covered with two dense layers of pigment at a later date which resulted in the present appearance of the picture without the trees described above. M. del Carmen Garrido54, who investigated and described these processes in detail, decluded from them that the alterations of the composition were perhaps made by the painter himself or by an assistant, and that Gregori’s engraving (Cat. No. 2) was produced after another version which showed the original composition. To complement these assumptions it may be mentioned that it was the picture at Angers (the so-called Gerini version) which served as a model for Gregori’s print.

Illustration 8
Illustration 8
Click to enlarge


Illustration 9
Illustration 9
Click to enlarge

The Canigiani Holy Family, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Munich, Inv. No. 476   Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Private Collection, UV - photograph

Adoption of Motifs and Reflexes

Leonardo’s lost cartoon of the Virgin and Child with St. Anne with the figures of a seated St. Anne, Mary leaning forward and the Christ Child who plays with the lamb formed the starting point of Raphael’s figure composition according to the unanimous judgement of all Raphael scholars since J. D. Passavant (1839). Fra Pietro da Novellara, Vicar-General of the Carmelite Order, described this cartoon in a letter from Florence dated 3 April 1501 to Isabella d’ Este, Marchioness of Mantua as follows:
‘From what I gather, the life that Leonardo leads is haphazard and extremely unpredictable, so that he seems to live only from day to day. Since he came to Florence he has done the drawing of a cartoon. He is portraying a Christ Child of about a year old who is almost slipping out of his Mother’s arms to take hold of a lamb which he then appears to embrace. His Mother, half rising from the lap of St. Anne takes hold of the Child to separate him from the lamb (a sacrifiacial animal) signifying the Passion. St. Anne, rising slightly from her sitting position, appears to want to reatrain her daughter from separating the Child from the lamb. She is perhaps intended to represent the Curch which would not have the Passion of Christ impeded. These figures are lifesized but can fit into a small cartoon because all are either seated or bending over or each one is positioned a little in front of each other and to the left-hand side. This drawing is as yet unfinished’55. Giorgio Vasari wrote56: ‘At last he did a cartoon on which the Madonna, St. Anne and the Christ Child were so beautifully represented that not only the artists were filled with admiration but when it was finished one saw for two days men and women, young and old flock to the room as if to a glorious festival to gaze at Leonardo’s marvellous work which amazed everybody’.
According to Fra Pietro da Novellara’s description the group of figures on this cartoon was turned to the left, and not to the right as it is in Leonardo’s famous picture of the Virgin and Child with St. Anne of 1508 f. in the Louvre, Paris57 and in the well-known cartoon in the National Gallery, London, likewise of c. 150858.
An idea of the lost cartoon can, however, be gained from a drawing which was published in 197959 and could be seen in 1982 at the exhibition ‘Leonardo dopo Milano - La Madonna dei Fusi’ in Leonardo’s birthplace Vinci60 (fig. 10). Here the motifs of the rising or forward leaning St. Mary, and of the Christ Child who embraces the lamb and looks up to Mary, are so clearly presented that the young Raphael needed only slightly to modify the Madonna - Child - Lamb group to find his own solution. The result is something like a ‘Hommage to Leonardo’ due to a ‘cultural shock’, caused by the departure from the lyrical world of Umbria and the confrontation with the greatest genius of that time, Leonardo da Vinci.
The bent figure of St. Joseph in profile has so far always been associated in art historical literature with Fra Bartolommeo (Florence 1472 - 1517 Florence). Some eligible examples do in fact exist in his oeuvre up to 150461. What has been ignored until now is a pen drawing in the Louvre which has been identified as a copy of figures on the left, and of heads and heads of horses after Leonardo’s Adoration of the Magi in the Uffizi (fig. 11).
According to C. Pedretti, ‘this re-found drawing could well be by the young Raphael, done immediately after his arrival in Florence in 1504, but is, in any case, a valuable document for the existence of a practice which Raphael soon made his own and which he used with results such as Leonardo himself achieved’62.
The figure of the standing old man on the left recalls that of St. Joseph in the profile view of his head, type of head, even in the lowered corner of his mouse and his sparse hair, in his facial expression and in the S form. This means that the series of assumed sources for this rustic but dignified figure of an old man can be extended from Perugino and Fra Bartolommeo to Leonardo.

J. Meyer zur Capellen remarked in 1989: ‘There is consensus of opinion in the specialist literature concerning Leonardo’s obvious and direct influence and in particular that of his cartoon of St. Anne and the Virgin especially in connection with the motif of the Child and that lamb ... The structure of the group shows however that Raphael’s confrontation with Leonardo was only in its initial stage... The motif of Joseph’s posture is quite problematic... And this figure looks distinctly like a quote’63. After referring to the treatment of the foreground with the wealth of plants which also revert to Leonardo, he deduced correctly that ‘with these findings in mind the invention of the composition must be dated to 1504, a date with which the paintwork of the Lee version also harmonizes’64.
These arguments, which F. Saxl65 had already presented, can be supported by further observations concerning the Lee landscape. Seen as a whole, the mood which it conveys to the observer, is still very Peruginesque. If one compares it, for example, with Piero Perugino’s Portrait of Francesco delle Opere of 1494 in the Uffizi, Florence66, the largely identical structure of the landscapes is striking. The many features shared by both are: the gently rising, receding planes; the water in the middle distance; the mountains inserted from left to right like coulisses; the buildings in the distance with their pointed pale blue towers which stem from Northern-European graphic art, and the blue mountains which terminate the scenery; above them rises the light blue vault of the sky; even the slender, delicately tinted small trees at the edge of the picture are found in both pictures.
This type of landscape, which Perugino used time and again with differing variations beyond the year 150067, was deeply embedded in Raphael’s memory when he moved to Florence in the autumn / winter of 1504. Already during the early years of his career he had used this Peruginesque type of landscape in the previously mentioned paintings: the Coronation of the Virgin (Pala Oddi) in the Vatican; the Conestabile Madonna in St. Petersburg among others. He used this type of landscape again in the Lee picture and developed it to superb effect in the great Florentine Madonna representations: Canigiani, Cardellino, Belle Jardinière. Even in the Borghese Entombment this type of landscape, with additional new accents, predominates. Seen from this angle, the type of landscape of the Holy Family with the Lamb is extremely retrospective, i.e. dependent on Perugino’s examples of c. 1480-1500. In effect it forms a poignant contradiction to the ‘monumental’ figures which, as previously shown, are in keeping with the modern trends current in 1504, since they reflect Leonardo’s most recent inventions. The contradiction between the older Umbrian world and the new Florentine one can be sensed everywhere in the Lee picture. Archaic features (the landscape, the lamb adopted from Hans Memling) and current, not yet quite assimilated features (the figure of St. Joseph) compete with each other. This uncoordinated piecemeal effect has resulted from the pervasive conditions described above. These ambiguous circumstances only existed in 1504, but no longer in 1507, the year of the Borghese Entombment; the interdependencies between the young Raphael, his master Perugino and Leonardo in Florence have been extensively discussed recently in a very informative and detailed essay by David A. Brown68.

Illustration 10
Illustration 10
Click to enlarge


Illustration 11
Illustration 11
Click to enlarge

Leonardo da Vinci, Study for the Cartoon ‘Virgin and Child with St. Anne’ of 1501   Anonymous, Copy after Leonardo, The Adoration of the Magi (Raphael?)

The Question of the Patron

Contemporary sources generally reveal little about the clients of small private devotional pictures, since written contracts were rarely neede, while they were drawn up for the large altarpieces before their inception (e.g. the contract for the Pala of St. Nicholas of Tolentino for Città di Castello of 10 December 1500).
One of the early owners of a small devotional picture, the Conestabile Madonna, St. Petersburg (fig. 12) was Alfano di Diamante, in c. 1500 one of the wealthiest citizens of Perugia and married since 1493 to Marietta Baglioni, a member of the ruling family of the Baglioni. He was a nephew of the abbess Battista di Alfano, who gave Raphael the commission for a large altarpiece, the Coronation of the Virgin for Monteluce (Vatican, Rome), and who was closely related to Atalanta Baglioni, for whom Raphael painted the Borghese Entombment (Galleria Borghese, Rome)69. Finally, Raphael had been since his apprenticeship with Pietro Perugino in close contact with Domenico Alfani (c. 1480-1553), the nephew of Alfani di Diamante. The Coronation (Galleria Nazionale, Perugia), which formed part of the Borghese Entombment is ascribed to Domenico Alfani; in 1511 he created the altarpiece of the Holy Family with the Pomegranate (also in Perugia)70 after Raphael’s drawing of 1508.
As Giorgio Vasari (1568) reported, Raphael painted during his Florentine years (1504-1508) on a visit to Urbino ‘due quadri di Nostra Donna piccoli, ma bellissimi e della seconda maniera’ (two small, but very beautiful pictures of the Madonna in his second style)71. According to recent scholars these may be the Small Cowper Madonna in Washington, the Orléans Madonna in Chantilly (fig. 13), or the Esterhazy Madonna in Budapest72. The small ‘ricordo’ of St. Michael and St. George were commissioned with all probability, though not with certainty, by the Court of Urbino with Duke Guidobaldo da Montefeltre and Giovanna Feltria della Rovere the most likely contenders. In addition, a Madonna della Prefetessa has been mentioned by Raphael himself in a letter of 150873.
Apart from Raphael’s above mentioned connections with the Montefeltre, there is another factor which speaks in favour of an exemplar of the Holy Family with the Lamb to have been at the Court of Urbino. The first documentary mention of a painting by Raphael, which expounded the composition of the Holy Family with the Child riding on the Lamb is found in a letter, dated 1676, which J. B. Micalori wrote from Urbania, the former Castel Durante in the surroundings of Urbino, to Vincenzo Viviani, adviser of Grandduke Cosimo III de’ Medici, concerning the purchase of such a picture74. Unfortunately the picture (27,2 x 20,3), smaller than the Lee exemplar and the Madrid picture, was not to the taste of the Grandduke; the purchase for the Medici Collection did not materialize75. As an indication of the fact that an example of the composition existed in the Urbino district towards the end of the 17th century and was offered from there in Florence, the documents published by C. Pedretti are of considerable importance.
Other patrons could have been the wealthy families of the Florentine bourgeoisie, from whom Raphael had worked since he moved to Florence in tha autumn of 1504. The first one to mention is Piero Soderini (1452-1522), the Gonfalioniere of the Florentine Republic, to whom Giovanna Feltria della Rovere, ‘Ducissa di Sora’, sister of Duke Guidobaldo da Urbino and wife of the Prefect of Rome, had sent her letter of recommendation for the young Raphael76. Soderini had already commissioned Leonardo in October 1503 and Michelangelo in the autumn of 1504 to produce the two frescoes The Battle of Anghiari and The Battle of Casina for the Sala del Gran Consiglio in the Palazzo Vecchio. Both cartoons, now lost, made a deep impression on the young Raphael and became, according to Vasari ‘the School for generations of future artists’77. It seemed therefore expedient to seek the favour of the Gonfaloniere, who employed artists like Fra Bartolommeo and Jacopo Sansovino alongside Leonardo and Michelangelo for the decoration of the Sala del Gran Consiglio.
In addition, families for whom Raphael created portraits and his famous Florentine Madonna representations could have been patrons: Maddalena and Agnolo Doni, married since 1504 and portayed by Raphael c. 1505, both half-length portraits in front of a Peruginesque landscape (Galleria Palatina, Florence)78; Lorenzo Nasi and Sandra Canighiani who commissioned the Madonna del Cardellino, 1505/06 (Uffizi, Rome); Taddeo Taddei, owner of the Madonna del Belvedere of 1506 (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna), and a good friend of Raphael ‘whom he always wanted to have in his house and at his table’ (Vasari, 1568)79. Taddei also owned, according to Vasari, a picture in Raphael’s first Peruginesque ‘maniera’, which is mostly identified with the Terranuova Madonna in Berlin. As Vasari does not give any particulars concerning the subject-matter of this second Taddei painting, the Lee picture with its Peruginesque landscape could also qualify80. Likewise, Domenico Canighiani could have been the patron on account of the formal similarity between the figures of Mary and Joseph in the Lee picture and in the Canighiani Holy Family in Munich, which directly continues the development of the figurative group and must surely have originated before 150781. If Domenico Canighiani was already the owner of the small devotional picture, he could have suggested to Raphael to paint a second Holy Family in a larger, more representative format.
As Raphael returned to Urbino in 1506, the source of potential Florentine patrons has dried up. In Urbino he was once more in contact with the Court of Guidobaldo and, as already suggested above, the Lee painting could have been one of the ‘small Madonnas’ mentioned by Vasari. Also the Prado picture of 1507 is associated, though tenuously, with Urbino and Giovanna Feltria della Rovere on account of a letter by Raphael of 21 April 150882.
Apart from all these feasible suggestions to solve the question of the patron or recipient, one other possibility needs to be taken into account. Raphael painted the Lee picture of 1504 in the first weeks after his arrival in Florence and kept it in his workshop as a prototype and display model. This way he could accurately repeat his own pictorial invention including the colour scheme, and so could his future assistants. With these repetitions he was able to satisfy the apparently numerous clients who looked for a small devotional picture. The 1504 painting remained in use until a further exemplar, such as the picture at Angers (Cat. No. 2), took over the function of this readily availabe model. Only then could Raphael’s painting of 1504 leave the workshop and find a new, so far unknown owner.

Illustration 12
Illustration 12
Click to enlarge


Illustration 13
Illustration 13
Click to enlarge

Raphael, Conestabile Madonna, Eremitage, St. Petersburg   Raphael, Madonna Orléans, Musée Condé, Chantilly

Illustration 14
Illustration 14
Click to enlarge
Raphael, Cartoon for the Holy Family with the Lamb, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

The Painting in Madrid

Unfortunately the organizers of the exhibition did not succed, despite strenuos efforts, to obtain the painting in the Prado, Madrid (Colour Plate III) for a presentation in Kassel. It is only on view in a photographic reproduction of the original size. We shall first of all present in translation the catalogue entry for the picture at the Raphael Exhibition of 1985 in Madrid:

The Holy Family with the Lamb
(La Sagrada Familia del cordero)
Wood 0.29 x 0.21
Signed in gold letters on the neckline of the bodice of
the Virgin: ’Raphael Urbinas MD VII‘
St. Joseph, the Virgin and the Child who has mounted
the Lamb.
This small work, almost a miniature, was acquired at the end of the 18th century by Carlos IV from the Falconieri Collection in Rome. It was kept in the monastery of El Escorial where it adorned the ‘Camarin’, and was transferred to the Museo del Prado in 1837. Dated 1507, it was painted in the last year of Raphael’s stay in Florence. It has obvious connections with the art of Leoanrdo da Vinci and Fra Bartolommeo, but certain elements from works by Perugino are still in evidence in the delicate luminous landscape of the background.
A preparatory cartoon for this composition is in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford which accords with the painting in the Museo del Prado.
Various copies of this composition are known, that of the highest quality, created in Raphael’s life time, is preserved in the Musée des Beaux Arts at Angers; another one which belonged to Lord Lee of Fareham later entered a German collection and displayed a dating to the year 1504, which does not accord with the style of the picture, which stems definitely from Raphael’s late Florentine period. The technical investigation of the Prado picture revealed the underdrawing below it and the slight changes from the composition’83.

For this exhibition in the Prado the Holy Family with the Lamb (inv. No. 296) underwent scientific tests84. These showed that the painting has an underdrawing which concurs with the cartoon in Oxford (fig.14). M. del Carmen Garrido compares - as J. P. Cuzin did already before85 - the X-ray photograph of the Prado picture (fig.15) with that of the Angers one and comes to the conclusion that this comparison speaks in favour of the Prado picture, which is more closely aligned to X-ray photographs of other paintings by Raphael86. M. del Carmen Garrido concludes from the facts that the pentimenti near the Christ Child and the lamb and the dimensions of the two compositions (Oxford Cartoon and Prado painting) correspond, that the picture in the Prado is the original painting by Raphael, even though the problem of the trees in the background has been left unsolved87. M. del Carmen Garrido points out furthermore that the infrared reflectograms (fig.16) show the ‘tree at the back of Joseph’ and the small thin trees on both sides of the composition, which do not form part of the underdrawing, but only belong to the final stage of the painting process. Two dense layers of pigment, which were superimposed on the zone with the trees at a later date, obliterate these originally extant compositional features. In the Oxford Cartoon, from which, according to Carmen Carrido, these scenic motifs are also derived, only minute adumbrations of trees or crowns of trees can be discerned (left upper corner, cf. Cat. No. 6, fig.14); the tree at the back of Joseph is missing88.
The authoress considers the changes in the upper region of the sky to have been made by the painter himself or by a close collaborator, as the pigments used stem from the same period, the layers of paint are continuous and the craquelure of the surface is sufficiently homogeneous. She further points out various changes from the underdrawing in the execution: Mary’s dress; the head of the lamb turned slightly from right to left; and the eyes of the lamb, the position of which differs from the underdrawing (and from the Oxford Cartoon)89. The report on the restoration in the Prado catalogue also offers proof for the fact that the execution of the picture differs from the drawing made following the transfer of the Oxford Cartoon onto the panel.
What is missing in the report on the Prado painting are answers to the following questions: When was the tree on the right-hand edge of the picture added? When the swarm of birds on the left above the castle? Both these pictorial features are surely not at all typical for a Raphael painting of 1507; the tree could at best recall The Dream of the Knight in London90, if the technique entailed did not suggest a later date of origin.

Illustration 15
Illustration 15
Click to enlarge


Illustration 15a
Illustration 15a
Click to enlarge


Illustration 16
Illustration 16
Click to enlarge


Illustration 16a
Illustration 16a
Click to enlarge

Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1507, Museo del Prado, Madrid. X-ray photograph   Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1504, Private Collection. X-ray photograph   Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Museo del Prado, Madrid. Infrared photograph   Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Private Collection. Infrared photograph

Illustration 17
Illustration 17
Click to enlarge


Illustration 18
Illustration 18
Click to enlarge

Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Museo del Prado, Madrid. Detail: signature and dating   Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Private Collection. Detail: signature and dating

Colour Plate III
Colour Plate III
Click to enlarge
Raphael (1483-1520), The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1507, Museo del Prado, Madrid

The question of the signatures

Unfortunately, the Prado catalogue does not address in any way the important question of how the clearly visible signature of the Prado painting


is to be interpreted. If one visualizes the signature of the Lee painting


one will find considerable differences, not in the almost identical rendering of the name, which can also be found on the Canighiani Holy Family, but in the rendering of the date (figs.17, 18).
It is to the merit of Albert Schug to have concerned himself already in 1967 with the problem of the signatures on both paintings in his detailed review of L. Dussler’s book on Raphael of 196691. Schug pointed out that the date of the Prado picture had been habitually rendered incomplete in almost the entire Raphael literature. He juxtaposed the two signatures and wrote: ‘In the Madrid version the AD (of the Lee version) was changed into MD, suggested also by the irregular writing of the M, which looks more like an A left open at the top. The MD was changed into a VII, and the IV, which had now become pointless, has been simply tagged on to the new date’92.
However, this tagged on IV, clearly recognizable as such, cannot be entirely without meaning: for this its documentary value must be rated too highly. If, as previously suggested, the Lee exemplar was in the possession or at the disposal of Raphael until 1507 or beyond, it was easy for the artist to produce a replica by his own hand, provide it with the correct date of 1507 and to attach a "ricordo" of the original version of 1504 in the form of a complementary IV. For the assumed client of this version who knew the painting of 1504 it was an additional assurance that he did not get the first 1504 version which seemed already old-fashioned in 1507, but a second, more modern version which accorded with the new style of the Borghese Entombment (cf. the depiction of the plants in the foreground of both pictures). This posed the problem for Raphael of how to provide the picture with the ‘right’ date: he had to satisfy the patron by supplying a new picture painted in 1507, but wanted also to record that his ‘invenzione’, his composition, dated back to the year 1504. As the space available for the signature which was framed by ornaments was the same, Raphael did not alter the style of writing his name, which concurs with that on the slightly earlier Marriage of the Virgin (Brera, Milan, 1504)93. Instead he changhed the sequence of the letters, i.e. of the Roman letters and digits: AD (Anno Domini) became MD; MDIV became VII IV, a sequence of digits requiring about the same space.
Several examples can be cited to demonstrate that the repetition of devotional pictures and portraits by the artist himself and / or with workshop participation was anything but uncommon in Raphael’s artistic practice. Some such examples are the earlier Conestabile Madonna94 and the later Portrait of Tommaso Inghirami (Galleria Palatina, Florence and Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston)95; Madonna di Loreto (Musée Condé, Chantilly and numerous further versions)96; the Portrait of Pope Julius II (National Gallery, London and Uffizi, Florence)97 and St. John the Baptist (Uffizi, Florence)98.


Original - Replica - Copy - Variant

The questions of the reason for, and date of, repetitions - replicas by the artist’s own hand; workshop (studio) replicas; copies, mostly produced later, or variants with numerous deviations from the original model, - have been treated more virulently in recent art monographs than in the earlier art historical literature (pre-war in Germany). But even today the subject is mostly treated marginally. Phenomena like the Dürer Renaissance or the practice in Lucas Cranach’s workshop have engaged the curiosity of scholars99 affecting valuable results. The fact that at present more than 60 variants of Cranach’s picture of Lucretia are known (as half-lenght, three quarter-lenght or full-lenght figures), speaks for a well organised workshop and ‘the studio as a factory’100. In 15th and 16th centuries Italy the demand of a humanistically educated clientele for pictorial subjects of Christian iconography, especially Madonna representations, was at least equally as large. Among the varying repetitions of Christian subjects those of the Madonna and Child rank numerically above all others. This applies to Perugino and Raphael as it does to Dürer and Cranach101.
The literature on Raphael records variants or copies of the early Berlin Madonnas (Solly Madonna, Modonna with St. Jerome and St. Francis) and the Conestabile Madonna in St. Petersburg102. As to the Holy Family with the Lamb of 1504 the number of replicas, copies and variants is growing steeply, which may have had to do with its handy, convenient format. At least 6 copies are now known of the 1508 Belle Jardinière in the Louvre, while the number rises to more than 30 in the case of the Madonna of Loreto of c. 1509103. This picture was donated by Pope Julius II to the Church of S. Maria del Popolo in Rome where it was on public view and created a great demand for copies104. In the 16th century, probably the most famous copy after Raphael was the apparently very accurate copy by Andrea del Sarto of the three-figure Portrait of Pope Leo X with the Cardinals Giulio de’ Medici and Luigi de’ Rossi (Uffizi, Florence, 1518/19)105. Vasari relates that Federico II Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, saw this portrait in Florence in the house of Ottaviano de’ Medici and asked Pope Clemens VII to give it him as a present. The Pope requested Ottaviano to send it to Mantua. Ottaviano, however, had Andrea del Sarto secretely make a copy which was sent to Mantua, where even Giulio Romano, Raphael’s most gifted pupil and court painter of Federico II, is said not to have recognized it as a copy106. A copy ascribed to Andrea del Sarto in the Museo di Capodimonte, Naples could confirm this well-nigh unbelievable story. The fact that Raphael’s original remained in Florence is borne out by a copy executed by Vasari himself107.
Since 1967 several small exhibitions in Austria and Germany have focused on the theme Original and Copy. The Joanneum in Graz offered an exhibition under this name in 1968 organised by K. Woisetschläger and P. Krenn with copies from the 15 - 16th centuries108. The Staatsgalerie Stuttgart followed in 1972 with an exhibition ‘Bild und Vorbild’ (Picture and Model). In the accompanying catalogue Kurt Löcher defined the concepts: copy, replica, variant, pastiche, fake. In our context citing the following definitions may be of use:
Replica (French replique = response, repetition; from Latin replicare) generally a repetition of a single work created by the artist himself, to differentiate it from a copy whihc is done by another hand. Repetitions which have been signed by the artist but have been carried out in his workshop with the help of his pupils are also termed replica.
Copy (French copie; derived from Lat. copia = quantity, store, number) signifies the reproduction of a work of art by another hand. A copyist intends to reproduce the model. A copy can differ from the original in material and measurements. Usually, a copy is inferior in quality to the original.
Variant (Latin variatio the creative argument of an artist with a well-known work of art which becomes the starting point of his own composition (cf. Cat. No. 5).
The Stuttgart exhibition showed, among other exhibits, copies after Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, Raphael, Sebastiano del Piombo and replicas by Francesco Bassano and Johann Liss109. Also, in 1972 the Louvre mounted a small exhibition termed ‘Copies, Repliques, Pastiches’ after Solario, Raphael, Titian, Franz Hals and others110. The Akademie der Bildenden Künste in Vienna made an important contribution to our theme with an exhibition in the autumn of 1980 entitled ‘Original - Kopie - Replik - Paraphrase’ organised by H. Hutter111. Works from the 15th to the 20th century were the central feature of the show, which included a section on David Teniers the Younger as a copyist in the service of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm112. Mention is also to be made of H. von Sonnenburg’s detailed discussion of copies after the Canighiani Holy Family in the Munich Catalogue of 1983, and of the series of lectures on ‘Probleme der Kopie von der Antike bis zum 19. Jahrhundert’ (Problems of the Copy from Antiquity to the 19th Century) given in Munich in 1988 and published in 1992113.
The 1983 Raphael-Anniversary has refreshed the discussion on copies after Raphael by pupils, collaborators and imitators. The Exhibition-Catalogues from Florence, Paris, Washington and Dresden brought new light on workshop practice and copyist tradition around Raphael, questions mostly neglected in the more recent monographs on Raphael114.

The significance of the contemporary copy

In contrast to the numberless 19th century copies of Renaissance masterpieces made in the great European museums by young budding artists, usually under their professor’s supervision, to learn their craft, a greater, autonomous importance attaches to the 16th century copy, as has already been indicated. In the case of Raphael, replicas and copies of his compositions were in demand since the first years of the 16th century, as already at the age of twenty he had made a name for himself in Città di Castello, Urbino, Siena and Perugia.
This demand generated repetitions by foreign, mostly unknown artists who transmitted Raphael’s pictorial ideas to a wider public, which further increased the demand. Through this process, legitimized by the artist and the client, the contemporary copy attains a high conceptual value and almost assumes the function of deputizing for the original.
In the 16th century, replicas, copies and variants formed an integral part of the thriving art world and gained great importance for the ever expanding art market. Their significance will be descibed in more detail in the next part of this book.



26L. Dussler, 1971, p. 19, fig. 55
27L. Dussler, 1971, p. 10, fig. 29; F. F. Manicini, 1987, pp. 41-3, fig. 18
28Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, Inv. 298/1863; Exh. Cat. Rafael Teckningar, Stockholm 1992, p. 35, fig. 21
29E. Knab - E. Mitsch - K. Oberhuber, 1983, pp. 65, 561, fig. 54
30L. Dussler, 1971, p. 10, fig. 29
31Exh. Cat. Munich 1983, p. 24; cf. Leonardo’s lost cartoon of St. Anne, Mary and the Child; M. Kemp, Leonardo da Vinci, The Marvellous Works of Nature and Man, London 1981, pp. 220-226
32Exh. Cat. Munich 1983, pp. 26, 37, Figs. 31-35; J. Meyer zur Capellen, Pantheon 1989, p. 102; Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, vol. III, 1971, pp. 7-14
33M. Corti - G. T. Faggin, Das Gesamtwerk von Memling, Milan 1969, Nos. 7 A, 30 B, 33 A, 59 A; Cat. Alte Pinakothek München. Munich 1983, p. 340f.
34L. Dussler, 1971, p. 3, fig. 1, 2
35L. Dussler, 1971, p. 7, fig. 7
36L. Dussler, 1971, p. 8, fig. 25
37L. Dussler, 1971, p. 10, fig. 29
38L. Dussler, 1971, p. 10, fig. 32; Exh. Cat. Milan 1984, pp. 25-34
39L. Dussler, 1971, p. 4, fig. 9
40L. Dussler, 1971, p. 4, fig. 8
41L. Dussler, 1971, p. 4, fig. 12
42L. Dussler, 1971, p. 16, fig. 48
43L. Dussler, 1971, p. 5, fig. 11; Exh. Cat. Paris, 1983/84, pp. 78-80, No. 5
44L. Dussler, 1971, p. 5, fig. 10; Exh. Cat. Paris, 1983/84, pp. 75-8, No. 4
45L. Dussler, 1971, p. 3, fig. 7; S. Ferino-Pagden, 1989, p. 13, No. 2
46L. Dussler, 1966, p. 48, No. 83; Exh. Cat. Munich 1983, pp. 24-7
47Lee of Fareham, 1934, p. 7
48F. F. Mancini, 1987, pp. 18-20, figs. 8, 10
49C. Pedretti, 1989, p. 80
50F. F. Mancini, 1987, p. 30, fig. 18
51J. Pope-Hennessy, 1970, p. 178, fig. 158
52Exh. Cat. Florence, 1984, Nos. 5, 9, figs. 22, 25, 26, 41
53Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, P 4 fig. 22; P 6 fig. 24
54Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, pp. 91-5
55cited from M. Kemp, Leonardo on Painting, New Haven - London 1989, p. 273
56G. Vasari, Le vite, 1568; ed. G. Milanesi, vol. 4, Florence 1879, p. 38
57M. Kemp, Leonardo da Vinci, The Marvellous Works of Nature and Man, London 1989 (1981), pp. 220-3, fig. 61
58M. Kemp, 1989, p. 223, fig. 62
59C. Pedretti, Leonardo, Bologna 1979, p. 42
60C. Pedretti - A. Vezzosi and others, Exh. Cat. Leonardo dopo Milano - La Madonna dei Fusi, Città di Vinci 1982, p. 18, No. 21 with fig.
61cf. H. Gabelentz, Fra Bartolommeo und die Florentiner Renaissance, Leipzig 1922; Exh. Cat. Disegni di Fra Bartolommeo e della sua Scuola, Florence 1986 (Ch. Fischer)
62Paris, Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, Inv. 9994 (Ecole de Léonard). Cf. C. Pedretti, Leonardo - Il Disegno, Art Dossier, April 1992, p. 45, fig. p. 40
63J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 108
64J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 108
65F. Saxl, 1935 (MS): ‘The Composition may thus be pronounced an original design of the end of 1504 or perhaps the turn of 1505’
66Florence, Uffizi, No. 1700; P. Scarpellini, Perugino, Milan 1984, p. 88, No. 60 with fig.
67P. Scarpellini, Perugino, Milan 1984; Kat. No. 39, 47, 48, 49, 63 and others
68cf. D. A. Brown, Raphael, Leonardo, and Perugino: Fame and Fortune in Florence, in: Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphael in Renaissance Florence from 1500 to 1508, ed. Serafina Hager, Georgetown University Press 1992, p. 29-53
69F. F. Mancini, 1987, p. 46
70F. F. Mancini, 1987, p. 48; Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, p. 223, No. 54 (F. Viatte)
71G. Vasari, 1568, vol. 4, pp. 41-3
72S. Ferino Pagden; A. M. Zancan, 1989, Nos. 29, 44, 50
73Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, Nos. 4, 5; V. Golzio, 1936 (1971), p. 18, note 3
74C. Pedretti, 1989, pp. 56-63, notes 1-3
75C. Pedretti, 1989, p. 90
76V. Golzio, 1936 (1971), pp. 18-19
77M. Kemp, Leonardo da Vinci, The Marvellous Works of Nature and Man, London 1981, p. 236f.; H. von Einem, Michelangelo, Bildhauer, Maler, Baumeister, Berlin 1973, p. 37
78Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, Nos. 8, 9; S. Ferino - Pagden, 1989, p. 55, Nos. 34, 35
79L. Dussler, 1971, p. 20, fig. 54; Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, p. 41
80L. Dussler, 1971, p. 16, fig. 48; Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, p. 41
81L. Dussler, 1971, p. 19, fig. 55; Exh. Cat. Munich 1983, p. 59
82Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, p. 43 (A. Cecchi); V. Golzio, 1936 (1971), pp. 18-19; G. Gronau 1936, p. 77 mentions a ‘Sacra Famiglia’ from a Urbino Collection (Inventory of Pesaro, 1623, f. 44 v: ‘Quadri uno di mano di Raffaelle con un Cristo, Madonna, S. Gioseffe et ornamento a foggia di specchio.’)
83M. Mena Marques, Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, p. 137
84M. del Carmen Garrido, Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, pp. 91-8
85J. P. Cuzin, in: Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, pp. 116-117
86Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, p. 91: ‘la imagen resultante está más en linea con las de las pinturas de Rafael’.
87Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, p. 91
88Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, p. 93
89Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, pp. 93-5, figs. 9, 10, 11, 12
90L. Dussler, 1971, p. 6, fig. 14; S. Ferino-Pagden, 1989, p. 39, No. 17. Probably painted before 1504
91A. Schug, Pantheon 1967, pp. 470-82
92A. Schug, Pantheon 1967, p. 478
93Exh. Cat. Milan 1984, pp. 25-36
94A. Vezzosi, Leonardo da Vinci, Attualitià e mito, Budapest 1991, VAR. 028, 029; a comparison of ‘Conestabile Madonna’ with ‘Madonna di Leone XIII’ painted on parchment
95L. Dussler, 1971, p. 34, fig. 76; p. 29, fig. 77; M. Prisco, P. L. de Vecchi, 1979, Nos. 112 and 113; Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, No. 11
96M. Prisco, P. L. Vecchi, 1979, No. 96; S. Ferino-Pagden, 1989, p. 95, No. 58
97Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, No. 12
98M. Prisco, P. L. Vecchi, 1979, No. 144; S. Ferino-Pagden, 1989, No. 81
99G. Goldberg, Zur Ausprägung der Dürer-Renaissance in München, Münchner Jahrb. f. Bild. Kunst, 31, 1980, pp. 129-75
100Exh. Cat. Lucas Cranach, Kronach 1994, B. Hinz, Zur Varianten-Praxis der Cranach-Werkstatt, p. 174
101Exh. Cat. Lucas Cranach, 1994; B. Hinz, p. 175
102L. Dussler, 1966, p. 18, Nos. 5, 6; p. 37, No. 54
103L. Dussler, 1966, p. 55, No. 96; Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, No. 6
104L. Dussler, 1966, p. 54, No. 95; Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, p. 125, No. 25
105L. Dussler, 1966, p. 34, No. 46; Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, p. 189, No. 17
106Exh. Cat. Florence, p. 190; G. Vasari, Le vite..., Florence 1550, ed. J. L. Bellosi - A. Rossi, vol. 2, Turin 1991, p. 717
107Exh. Cat. Florence 1981, p. 190
108K. Woisetschläger, J. Krenn, Original und Kopie, Exh. Cat. Museum Joanneum, Graz 7.12.1967 - 14.1.1986
109Exh. Cat. Bild und Vorbild (K. Löcher), Staatsgalerie Stuttgart, Nov. 1971 - Jan. 1972, pp. 7, 12, 21 and passim
110cf. artis, Das aktuelle Kunstmagazin, March 1974, p. 13
111Exh. Cat. Original - Kopie - Replik - Paraphrase (H. Hutter), Akademie der bildenden Künste, Vienna, 1980, pp. 21-33
112K. Schütz, in: Exh. Cat. Vienna, 1980, pp.21-33
113Exh. Cat. Munich 1983, pp. 33-5, 76 f.; Probleme der Kopie von der Antike bis zum 19. Jahrhundert, Vier Vorträge, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Munich 1992
114Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, N. 11, 12, 17, 19, 20; Exh. Cat. Paris 1983, N. 8, 14, 18, 19, 22-28a, b; Exh. Cat. Washington 1983, passim; Exh. Cat. Dresden 1983, passim

Prev Raphael’s ‘Holy Family with the Lamb’ · Pictorial Invention and Realisation Next
Introduction Home Catalogue