1

Studio-Exhibition

Museum Fridericianum Kassel

5th November 1995 to 21st January 1996

extended to 3rd March 1996

2

Jürgen M. Lehmann

RAPHAEL

The Holy Family with the Lamb of 1504 The Original and its Variants

Studio-Exhibition Museum Fridericianum Kassel

Arcos Verlag Landshut

3

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Raphael, The holy family with the lamb of 1504 : the original and its variants ; [studio-exhibition in the Museum Fridericianum Kassel, 5th November 1995 to 21st Januar 1996 extended to 3rd March 1996] / [Ed.: Museum Fridericianum and Staatliche Museen Kassel. Organized by Documenta-und- Museum-Fridericianum-Veranstaltungs-GmbH and Staatliche Museen Kassel]. Jürgen M. Lehmann. [Texts by Jürgen M. Lehmann ; Susan Tipton. Transl. from German by Susanna Swoboda with David Britt]. - Landshut : Arcos Verl., 1996 Dt. Ausg. u.d.T.: Raffael, Die heilige Familie mit dem Lamm von 1504 ISBN 3-9804608-1-9 Gb. NE: Lehmann, Jürgen M.; Tipton, Susan; Raffaello <Sanzio> [III.]; Museum Fridericianum <Kassel>; Documenta-und-Museum- Swoboda, Susanna [Übers.]; Museum Fridericianum <Kassel> MUSEUM FRIDERICIANUM Friedrichsplatz Kassel Exhibition devised by Dr. Jürgen M. Lehmann Curated by Dr. Veit Loers, Dr. Jürgen M. Lehmann Coordination and installation by Winfried Waldeyer Installation team: Hans Peter Tewes, Dieter Fuchs, Günter Pfurr Restorers: Hans Brammer, Pia Maria Hilsenbeck, Guntram Porps Technicians: Klaus Dunckel, Hans Weiser Organized by documenta und Museum Fridericianum Veranstaltungs GmbH and Staatliche Museen Kassel Chief Executor: Frank Petri Public Relations: Sylvia Hempelmann Secretariate: Barbara Großhaus, Ingrid Knauf Transports: Hasenkamp, Cologne Catalogue Editors: Museum Fridericianum Kassel and Staatliche Museen Kassel Texts by Dr. Jürgen M. Lehmann, Dr. des. Susan Tipton (S.T.) Translated from German by Susanna Swoboda with David Britt Typeset, printed and bound by Bosch Druck, Landshut, Germany Cover design and layout by Karin Oelerich © Museum Fridericianum, Staatliche Museen Kassel and the authors © for illustrations: see Photo Credits © 1995 Arcos Verlag, Landshut

Exhibition and catalogue supported by NORDSTERN Allgemeine Versicherungs AG, Munich ISBN 3-9804608-2-7

4

Preface

What established Raphael as a Classic throughout the centuries was his synthesis of the most important artistic achievements of the Renaissance. However, his contemporaries also praised his imaginative pictorial inventions which he generously passed on to other painters and imi-tators. ‘It is said’, writes Vasari in his Vite ‘that if any painter who knew him and even any who did not, asked him for a design which he needed, Raphael would leave hin own work in order to help.’ It is astonishing that Raphael’s pictorial inventiveness was obviously already famous at a time when he was not yet the Classic as whom we know him. The Holy Family with the Lamb from a private collection, the centre-piece of this studio exhi-bition, found imitators up to the time of the Nazarenes owing to the unusual treatment of the subject-matter. It had already been imitated immediately after its creation in 1504 before Raphael himself produced a more polished, more Raphaelesque version, which is now in the Prado, Madrid. I am pleased that Professor Dr. Jürg Meyer zur Capellen, who concerned himself for some time with the small panel of the Holy Family with the Lamb, has brought his scholarship to bear on this project, and that Dr. Jürgen M. Lehmann, the initiator of the exhibition, can offer new results derived from the comparison of the originals. This was only possible thanks to the cooperative support of the enterprise by many valuable loans. In the first place I wish to thank the owner of the Raphael panel for generously lending it and the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, and its Director Professor Christopher White FBA, for the loan of the corresponding Raphael Cartoon. I also owe a debt of gratitude to the Musée des Beaux Arts, Angers, Conservateur en Chef M. Patrick Le Nouene; the Bayerische Staats-gemäldesammlungen, Munich, Director-in-Chief Dr. Georg Prinz von Hohenzollern, and the Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg, Director Dr. Michael Eissenhauer. The Vice-Director of the Museo del Prado, Madrid, Doktor Manuele Mena Marques, took a great personal interest in the exhibition and contributed helpful textual and pictorial material. However, without the magnanimous support of a private sponsor anf the Nordstern Allgemeine Versicherungs AG, Munich, Dr. Brigitte Ulsess, this seminal and unprecedented exhibition could never have taken place. To them we convey our special gratitude.

Dr. Veit Loers former Director of the Museum Fridericianum Kassel Director of the Städtisches Museum Abteiberg, Abteiberg, Mönchengladbach

5

When Landgrave Wilhelm VIII. of Hessen-Kassel received in 1750 a generous New Year present, the Holy Family with a Lamb, an unknown Raphael on a small wooden panel from Baron Häckel of Frankfurt, of whose art collection Goethe was aware, the outstanding con-noisseurship of the Landgrave led him immediately to judge the painting an excellent copy after Raffaelo Santi (1483-1520). As such the picture was neglected by the public as a Renais-sance work in the Gallery of old master paintings of the Staatliche Museen Kassel. It is to the credit of our Italian art expert, Dr. Jürgen M. Lehmann, that he spent many years researching in-depth and within an international framework the art historical and cultural con-text of the subject-matter of this picture and its numerous derivations, and to have conceived the idea to present his findings in form of a small studio exhibition. The project was promoted by Dr. Ulrich Schmidt, the former Director of the Staatliche Museen Kassel in cooperation with Dr. Veit Loers, Head of the Kunsthalle Museum Fridericianum, but the present book which complements the exhibition in the Museum Fridericianum could only be produced thanks to the support of the private lender, the participating museums and the generous spon-sorship of the Nordstern Allgemeine Versicherung AG. Besides Raphael’s picture of 1504 and the revelatory cartoon from Oxford, all available vari-ants and copies were borrowed. Sadly, despite the efforts of the organizers, the loan of the well-known painting in the Prado, Madrid was refused, so that it could only be exhibited as a photographic reproduction in its original size. In this way, Dr. Jürgen M. Lehmann, the well known author of the scientific catalogue of Italian paintings at Kassel, assisted by Dr. des. Susan Tipton, has plugged an art historical desideratum and convincingly re-interpreted many details, such as the signatures and the dat-ing of the authentic Raphaels in the private collection and in the Prado. For me as a Leonardo scholar it was fascinating to see, while following this research, how immensely the young Raphael benefited from the greatest universal genius of the Renaissance shortly after he had experienced in Florence, in October 1504, the influence of Leonardo da Vinci, a generation older than himself. He immediately and faithfully imitated Leonardo’s animated, vibrant figures and his supple technique, including the famous sfumato which accentuates the atmospheric effetct of a distant landscape. May this book impart the joy of discovery to all readers and visitors and convey to them the thrill of researching.

6

The location of the exhibition adjacent to our ‘120 Masterpieces’ from the Picture Gallery could not have been more appropriate. The Museum Fridericianum was the first purpose-built Continental-European museum, even if not built as a picture gallery. Since its foundation in 1779 it had been planned as a place for historical studies and research projects, as the observa-tory in the tower demonstrates. Finally, I want to convey the gratitude to the directorate of the Staatliche Museen Kassel to all those involved in preparing the exhibition, the participating restorers and private lenders as well as to the supportive colleagues of the following institutions: Ashmolean Museum, Ox-ford; Civici Musei Castello Visconteo, Pavia; Musée des Beaux Arts, Angers; Bayerische Staatsgemälde-sammlungen, Munich, und Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg Kassel, September 1995 Prof. Dr. Ludolf von Mackensen

Museumsdirektor Staatlichen Museen Kassel

7

Introduction

Baron Heinrich Jakob von Häckel from Frankfurt wrote to Landgrave Wilhelm VIII of Hesse-Cassel on 3 February 1748 that he would send a small painting by Raphael and an old engrav-ing ‘by post coach so that it would not travel empty. I beg for a gracious expert opinion whether the engraving was done after the painting or the painting after the engraving or whether neither followed the other’. On 6 February 1748 he repeated his request. ‘The Raphael was dispatched by yesterday’s post and will probably arrive together with this letter. I humbly beg for Your Serene Highness’s gracious opinion of it’. Landgrave Wilhelm VIII answered on 10 February 1748 as follows: ‘I have received your two letters and both the painting by Raphael and the engraving after it in good condition. The picture is charming and well made. I am as little able as Freese to decide whether it is done after the print or whether the print is produced after the picture or whether neither is the case. On the whole, they agree, but on close inspection one finds many details there which are missing in the print. However, I shall examine it even more closely and then return both to you at my risk’. In a further letter by Wilhelm VIII dated 25 February 1748 he wrote: ‘I have further examined the Raphael with General Donop and Freese. But we cannot come to an agreement nor form a definitive judgement. You can however say that you own a very beautiful and fine picture. I have packed it with every care and returned it without the least damage, and do therefore not doubt that it will arrive in perfect condition. Meanwhile I thank you for the kindness which you showed me’1 (fig. 1) fig 1 fig 2

1· Copy after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 2· Carlo Francesco Rusca (1696-1769), Portrait of Staatliche Museen Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte- Landgrave Wilhelm VIII, Staatliche Museen Kassel, Meister, GK 539 Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, GK 971

8

The experts taking part in this examination, which did not yet lead at that time to the acquisi-tion of the painting, were the passionate collector Wilhelm VIII (1682-1760), ruling Land-grave of Hesse-Cassel (fig. 2) and his close friend of the same age Baron Heinrich Jakob von Häckel, resident in Frankfurt (aslo 1682-1760) who sported the title of an Austrian ‘Obrist-wachtmeister’. As a wealthy bachelor he had formed a collection in Frankfurt which com-prised more than 500 items at the time of his death. The young Goethe was present at the auction of this collection and bought several items2. Johann Georg von Freese (1701-1775) was made court painter by Wilhelm VIII in 1744 and was the teacher of Johann Heinrich Tischbein the Elder, the ‘Kassel Tischbein’. He held the office of Inspector of the Gallery for many years3. Another artistic advisor of the Landgrave was the ‘Geheime Rat’ and Lieutenant General Moritz von Donop whom Wilhelm VIII called ‘Director of my eyes’ delight’4. After consultations with these, Landgrave Wilhelm VIII, whose collection of Italian paintings was limited at this time, sent the ‘Raphael’ and the print (by Raphael Sadeler II, Cat. No. C 1) back to Häckel. Häckel wrote a few days later: ‘As to the Raphael, I myself conseider it an original, but believe that much has been added’. Proba-bly owing to his own assessment Häcken finally donated the painting to the Landgrave at New Year 17505. The Landgrave probably kept his new possession in his private chambers before he had it entered as No. 665 in September 1751 into his gallery inventory begun in 1749: ‘Raphael Urbino. The Holy Family, a small work in a brown locked casket for His Highness’ (without measurements) 6 (fig. 3). This entry coincided with those of other Italian paintings whose transfer to Kassel Baron Häckel had arranged. The entry for No. 667 in the inventory of 1749 records Antonio Belucci’s Antiochos and Stratonike (The Sick Prince) which Wilhelm VIII had acquired in September 1751 for 400 guilders from the collection of the Kurmainz Resident in Frankfurt, Adam Anton Pfeiff (died 1748)7. At that time Wilhelm VIII already owned some inportant Baroque paintings (by Palma Giovane, Guido Reni, Bernardo Cavallino, Alessandro Turchi, Antonio Belucci among others). On the other hand, High Renaissance Italien art was only represented by a few pictures, i.e. by a Holy Family ascribed to Leonardo (replica after Ber-nardino Luini’s picture in the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana, Milan acquired by M. von Donop and G. von Freese in Paris in 1749)8, and works ascribed to Correggio, Titian or Bassano (inv. 1749 Nos. 225-227, 232, 238, 398, 399, 647). Apart from these, several paintings ascribed to Raphael already formed part of the Landgrave’s collection before 1749, i.e. inv. No. 261 Girolamo da Santacroce (fig. 4)9, with echoes of Raphael’s tapestry cartoons. Consequently he could return to its sender a Raphael whose authenticity he doubted without scruples. How-ever, things looked different a little later when Wilhelm VIII got news in the summer of 1753 that the Court of Saxony had purchased a work by Raphael, Christ in Dispute with the Doc-tors, from an English art dealer for 2500 ducats. He wrote on 12 June 1753: ‘I wish that the Englishman at Dresden had brought his work by Raphael here. True, the price is very high, but if it is so beautiful and good, the price could have been managed’10. This interest was voiced by the Landgrave at the time when the Prince Elector August III of Saxony had already concluded the negotiations with the monks of S. Sisto in Piacenza concerning the purchase of Raphael’s Sistine Madonna. The purchase price was 25 000 scudi11. Landgrave Wilhelm VIII could certainly not compete with the Prince Elector August III and King of Poland, whom Frederick II, the Great had accused of forcing up prices12, his purchas-

9

fig 3

3 · Inventory of 1749 of the picture gallery of Landgrave Wilhelm VIII., page 58 ing power was too limited. Nor did he belong, up to the end of his collecting activities in 1756, to those whom Fortuna favoured with an authentic work by Raphael, as happened to the Prince Elector Johann Wilhelm von der Pfalz, ‘Jan Wellem’ (1658-1716).Through his mar-riage in 1691 to Anna Maria Ludovica, daughter of Gand Duke Cosimo III. de’ Medici, he came into the possession of the Canigiani Holy Family. The painting remained in the Galerie Electorale, Düsseldorf, after Jan Wellem’s death in 1716 and the return to Florence of his

10

widow. It was only transferred to Munich in 1806 13. The Madonna del Belvedere owned by Archduke Ferdinand Karl of Austria was already in Innsbruck in Habsburg territory by 1661/62. Ferdinand Karl had married his cousin Anna de’ Medici in 164214.

fig 4

4 · Girolamo da Santacroce (1480/85-1556), The Raising of Lazarus, Staatliche Museen Kassel, Gemälde galerie Alte Meister, GK 862 Going back in time one finds that the first owner of a Raphael on German soil was no less a person than Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528), the greatest German painter, draughtsman and en-graver of the Renaissance. In 1510-15 he had sent his self-portrait to Raphael15 and received from him the famous red chalk drawing Study of Two Nude Men for the Battle of Ostia in the Sala dell’Incendio. Dürer proudly wrote on Raphael’s sheet: ‘Raphael of Urbino who has been praised so highly by the Pope has made this picture of the nudes. And has sent them to Albrecht Dürer in Nüremberg to prove to him his skill’ 16

It is well known that Raphael’s other Madonna representations now in the museums of Berlin and Munich only arrived in Prussia and Bavaria in the 19th century. In 1819, Crown Prince Ludwig of Bavaria acquired the Madonna della Tenda; in 1821 the Solly Madonna joined Friedrich Wilhelm III’s collections in Berlin together with the Solly Collection. Further acqui-sitions followed: in 1827 the Colonna Madonna; in 1829 the Madonna with St. Jerome and St. Francis; in the same year Ludwig I acquired the Tempi Madonna; the Diotalevi Madonna from Rimini reached Berlin in 1842; the Terranuova Madonna from Naples in 1854. Thus, the princely passion for collecting Raphales was still in evidence in the 19th century, after Johann Joachim Winckelmann and Johann Wolfgang Goethe (that is to say after the acquisi-tion of the Sistine Madonna), had bestowed on Raphael the accolade of setting the ultimate measure of artistic perfection. Berlin and Munich became places of pilgrimage for Raphael devotees. Kassel offered but a pale reflection of the art of the ‘Divine’ and that only thanks to Baron Häckel’s initiative, Landgrave Wilhelm VIII’s successors, Landgrave Friedrich II (ruled 1760-1785); Wilhelm IX. (ruled 1785-1821, since 1803 Elector Wilhelm I.) and Elector Wilhelm II. (ruled 1821-1831/1847) did acquire several paintings, but they were over-shadowed by Wilhelm VIII’s outstanding merits as a collector. No interest in the acquisition of Italian Renaissance masters, let alone a Raphael, can be deduced from the extant papers and documents17. A certain, albeit small, chance for the directorate of the Königliche Gemälde-Galerie at Cassel to acquire an important early altarpiece by Raphael existed perhaps between 1829 and 1909, or even beyond that until 1924. For in 1892 the industrialist and art collector Ludwig Mond (Kassel 1893-1990 London) acquired the Gavari Crucifixion (now in the National Gallery, London No. 3943) from the Earl of Dudley Collection18. Mond, who had made a fortune from his ammonia-soda factory founded in 1873 at Winnington (Northwich), had already donated to his birthplace, Kassel, the large sum of 100.000 Mark for social institutions. In his last will

11

of 1909 he left Kassel 400.000 Mark. In 1905 he had donated to the Cassel Gallery Lucas Cranach’s small travelling altarpiece ‘Reisealtärchen’, a work with direct reference to Land-grave Wilhelm II of Hesse and his spouse Anna of Mecklenburg19. Raphael’s Gavari Cruci-fixion painted c.1503 for the church of S. Domenico in Città di Castello only came to the National Gallery, London in 1924. Unfortunately, Kassel and its Royal Picture Gallery missed this chance. The legacy of the Holy Family with the Lamb in Frankfurt am Main The Morgenstern miniature cabinet with the Holy Family with the Lamb in the centre was a special kind of shrine (Colour Plate I). In about 1800 three such small altarpieces were pro-duced by the Frankfurt painter and picture restorer Johann Ludwig Ernst Morgenstern (1738-1819). They contained numerous small-scale prefabricated supports for painted copies of pic-tures which had passed through the restoration workshop of the Morgensterns. ‘The cabinets served the Morgenstern family as aide-memoirs for their works of art that passed through their hands, but also as a means of propaganda. They could be shown to potential clients as visible proof of their skills’20. The copy after Raphael was painted in 1843 by Johann Friedrich Morgenstern (1777-1844), son of Johann Ludwig Ernst Morgenstern21. It renders quite faithfully Raphael’s composition of the group, the plants in the foreground and the landscape. Only the trees behind St. Joseph are painted very freely and do not correspond to the surviving prototypes. One may think first of all of the Kassel painting, which was in Frankfurt in 1748/49 and could have been copied by a painter like Justus Juncker (Mainz 1703-1767 Frankfurt), whom Baron Häckel had recommended to the Landgrave in 1753 as a copyist22. However, the absence of the tree at the back of Joseph refutes such an assumption. The date 1843 at the back of the Morgenstern copy suggests that his knowledge of the compo-sition was derived from the publication in 1842 of the version in the Count Castelbarco Col-lection in Milan23. This, however, does not explain how the colouristic similarity with the known exemplars was achieved. A sojourn in Milan or Paris, where versions of the composi-tion with a tree at the back of Joseph existed at that time, cannot be traced. At any rate, the delicate colouring of this miniature suggests that an older or more recent copy of the well-known pictorial theme existed at the Frankfurt art market (or among the Frankfurt collec-tors)24, which Morgenstern might have restored in circa 1843. Morgenstern painted his copy as a ‘ricordo’, a record of his professional acumen and placed it centrally in the Morgenstern Miniature Cabinet I. ‘He wanted to identify with the venerated artists Raphael and Dürer (cen-tral picture of Cabinet III) and thus with the artistic theories of the Nazarenes and their exam-ples’. In 1843 ‘the movement was no longer avant-garde but had long since become accepted by the educated bourgeoisie’25. As we have seen, Raphael’s composition, of which numerous copies were made in Italy between the 16th and 18th centuries, had also been known in Germany since the middle of the 18th century through the Kassel copy, and in Frankfurt since the middle of the 19th century through the copy of an older version. What Raphael’s composition, the source of all these versions, looked like will be discussed in the following part.

12

Colour Plate I

I · J. L. E. Morgenstern and J. E. Morgenstern, The Morgenstern Miniature

Cabinet I (central part) Historisches Museum Frankfurt am Main, B 81:12

13

Notes 1. Cited from Alhard von Drach, ‘Mittheilungen aus dem Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Wilhelm VIII. mit dem

Baron Häckel, betr. Gemäldeerwerbungen für die Kasseler Galerie’, in: Hessenland, Zeitschrift für hes-sische Geschichte und Literatur, vol. 5, 1891, p. 4 and pp. 18-19

2. W. von Both - H. Vogel, 1964, p. 134 3. G. Gronau, → Freese, see: Thieme-Becker Künstlerlexikon, vol. 12, Leipzig 1916, p. 410; G. Gronau - E.

Herzog, 1969, p. 20 4. A. von Drach, 1891, p. 18; W. von Both - H. Vogel, 1964, p. 136 5. A. von Drach, 1891, p. 19 6. „Haupt-Catalogus von Seiner Hochfürstl. Durchlaucht Herren Landgrafen Wilhelm zu Hessen sämtlichen

Schildereyen, und Portraits. Ano 1749“ - cf. G. Gronau - E. Herzog, 1969, p. 26 7. J. M. Lehmann, 1980, p. 40 8. J. M. Lehmann, 1986, p. 11 note. 12 9. J. M. Lehmann, 1980, p. 239; further pictures ascribed to Raphael, and already entered as copies in the

inventory of 1749 under Nos. 180, 221, 256 (copy after St. Michael, Louvre), 416, 417, 445 10. G. Gronau - E. Herzog, 1969, p. 36 - In the Dresden inventory (Guarienti 1747-1750, M. Oesterreich 1754 f)

a picture of the subject by Raphael or School of Raphael cannot be traced. (This information kindly provided by Dr. Gregor J. M. Weber, Staatl. Kunstsammlungen Dresden)

11. M. Putscher, 1955, pp. 148-9, notes 271-272a; Exh. Cat. Dresden 1983, pp. 8-9 12. M. Putscher, 1955, p. 148, note 272 13. Katalog der Galerie der Churfürstl. Residenz zu Düsseldorf, 1719, No. 332; Exh. Cat. Munich 1983, pp. 12-

14; Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, p. 209, note 29 14. Kunsthist. Museum Wien, Verzeichnis der Gemälde, Vienna 1973, p. XII, 139; Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, p.

209, notes 27, 28 15. F. Anzelewsky, Albrecht Dürer, Landshut 1991, p. 229, No. 117 V 16. ‘1515/Raffahell de Urbin der so hoch peim/pobst geacht ist gewest hat die hat/ diese nackette bild gemacht

Und hat/sy dem albrecht dürer gen nornberg/geschickt Im sein hand zu weisen.’ E. Knab - E. Mitsch - K. Oberhuber, 1983, p. 605, No. 504 *

17. cf. O. Eisenmann, Kat. der Kgl. Gemäldegalerie zu Cassel, 1888, pp. XI-LXXI; G. Gronau - E. Herzog, 1969, pp. 40-58

18. C. Gould, National Gallery Catalogues, The Sixteenth Century Italian Schools, London 1975, pp. 222-3 - Der Große Brockhaus, vol. 12, Leipzig 1932, p. 687

19. A. Schneckenberger-Broschek, Staatl. Kunstsammlungen Kassel, Die altdeutsche Malerei, Kassel 1982, p. 62 - Hessische Allgemeine (Kassel), 8. 3. 1969 - J. P. Richter, The Mond Collection, London 1910, vol. II, pp. 512-32

20. Exh. Cat. Bürgerliche Sammlungen in Frankfurt 1700-1830, Historisches Museum Frankfurt am Main 1988, p. 123 with colour plate

21. Inscription on the reverse: J. F. Morgenstern 1843, oak, c. 20 x 15 cm; Inv.No. B 81:12.36 (This information kindly provided by Dr. Kurt Wettengl, Historisches Museum Frankfurt am Main)

22. G. Gronau - E. Herzog, 1969, p. 36 23. G. Vallardi, 1842, passim 24. Exh. Cat. Frankfurt 1988, passim 25. Exh. Cat. Frankfurt 1988, p. 124

14

Raphael’s ‘Holy Family with the Lamb’

Pictorial Invention and Realisation

RAPHAEL VRBINAS AD MDIV

Colour Plate II

II · Raphael (1483-1520), The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1504, Private Collection 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

15

Holy Family, St. Petersburg. After further compositional adjustments the series was con-cluded 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 com-misioned 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 prede-cessor 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 inde-pendent entity, which already shows the trend towards isolation and independence. This con-cept of organising in terms of groups is even more in evidence in the 2nd predella, the Presen-tation 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 S-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

RAPHAEL * VRBINAS * AD * MDIV 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. A large part of the right half of the picture is allotted to the standing figure of St. Joseph. Al-most in profile his curving body together with his bent left knee forms an S-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 yel-low 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 deli-

16

cate 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 dis-tributed 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 sim-ple 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 famil-iar 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 dimen-sions (31,4 cm x 24,4 cm), dimensions of the figures, foreground and background.

17

6 · Hans Memling, (1435/40-1494), St. John the Baptist, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlun-

fig 7

fig 6

fig 5

5 · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb 1504, Private Collection. Signature

gen,Munich, Inv. No. 652

7 · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1504, Private Collection. Detail

18

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 Fam-ily 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).

19

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 slen-der 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 (Pina-coteca 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 slen-der 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, Flor-ence)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 (Na-tional 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 com-positional 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 un-known, 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.

20

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 Ox-ford 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 men-tioned that it was the picture at Angers (the so-called Gerini version) which served as a model for Gregori’s print. fig 9

fig 8

8 · The Canigiani Holy Family, Bayerische 9 · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Private Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Munich, Collection, UV - photograph Inv. No. 476

21

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 draw-ing 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 per-haps 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 lean-ing 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 lit-erature concerning Leonardo’s obvious and direct influence and in particular that of his car-

22

toon 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 Leo-nardo 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 observa-tions 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 keep-ing with the modern trends current in 1504, since they reflect Leonardo’s most recent inven-tions. 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) com-pete 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 dis-cussed recently in a very informative and detailed essay by David A. Brown68.

23

fig 11 fig 10

10 · Leonardo da Vinci, Study for the Cartoon 11 · Anonymous, Copy after Leonardo, The ‘Virgin and Child with St. Anne’ of 1501 Adoration of the Magi (Raphael?) The Question of the Patron Contemporary sources generally reveal little about the clients of small private devotional pic-tures, since written contracts were rarely neede, while they were drawn up for the large altar-pieces 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. Peters-burg (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.

24

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 pur-chase for the Medici Collection did not materialize75. As an indication of the fact that an ex-ample 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 consid-erable 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 men-tion 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 genera-tions 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 land-scape (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 par-ticulars 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 sug-gested 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 Gio-vanna 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 dis-play 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

25

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. fig 13

fig 12

12 · Raphael, Conestabile Madonna, 13 · Raphael, Madonna Orléans, Musée Eremitage, St. Petersburg Condé, Chantilly

The Painting in Madrid Unfortunately the organizers of the exhibition did not succed, despite strenuos efforts, to ob-tain 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

26

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 Raph-ael’s late Florentine period. The technical investigation of the Prado picture revealed the un-derdrawing below it and the slight changes from the composition’83

fig 14

14 · Raphael, Cartoon for the Holy Family with the Lamb, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

27

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 be-fore85 - 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 further-more 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 homogene-ous. 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. fig 15 fig 15a

15 · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb 15a · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1507, Museo del Prado, Madrid. X-ray 1504, Private Collection. X-ray photo- photograph graph

28

fig 16 fig 16a

16 · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 16a · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Museo del Prado, Madrid. Infrared photo- Private Collection. Infrared photograph graph fig 17 fig 18

17 · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 18 · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Museo del Prado, Madrid. Private Collection. Detail: signature and dating Detail: signature and dating

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

RAPHAEL VRBINAS MD VII IV is to be interpreted. If one visualizes the signature of the Lee painting

RAPHAEL VRBINAS AD MDIV

29

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).

Colour Plate III

III · Raphael (1483-1520), The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1507, Museo del Prado, Madrid

30

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 in-complete 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 assur-ance 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 En-tombment (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 ‘inven-zione’, 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 uncom-mon in Raphael’s artistic practice. Some such examples are the earlier Conestabile Madonna94 and the later Portrait of Tommaso Inghirami (Galleria Palatina, Florence and Isa-bella 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 devia-tions 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 repre-sentations, 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 Ma-donna, Modonna with St. Jerome and St. Francis) and the Conestabile Madonna in St.

31

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 pub-lic view and created a great demand for copies104. In the 16th century, probably the most fa-mous 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, how-ever, 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 Capo-dimonte, 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, vari-ant, 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 repro-duction 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 qual-ity 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 pu-pils, 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.

32

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 supervi-sion, 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 Raph-ael’s pictorial ideas to a wider public, which further increased the demand. Through this proc-ess, 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.

Notes

26. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 19, fig. 55

27. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 10 fig. 29; F. F. Mancini, 1987, pp. 41-3, fig. 18

28. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, Inv. 298/1863; Exh. Cat. Rafael Teckningar, Stockholm 1992, p. 35, fig. 21

29. E. Knab - E. Mitsch - K. Oberhuber, 1983, pp. 65, 561, fig. 54

30. L. Dussler, 1971, p.10, fig.29

31. Exh. Cat. Munich 1983, p. 24; cf. Leonardo’s lost cartoon of St. Anne, Mary and the Child; M. Kemp, Leo-nardo da Vinci, The Marvellous Works of Nature and Man, London 1981, pp. 220-226

32. Exh. 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

33. M. 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.

34. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 3 fig. 1, 2

35. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 7 fig. 7

36. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 8 fig. 25

37. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 10 fig. 29

38. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 10 fig. 32; Exh. Cat. Milan 1984, pp. 25-34

39. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 4 fig. 9

40. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 4 fig. 8

41. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 4 fig. 12

42. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 16 fig. 48

43. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 5 fig. 11; Exh. Cat. Paris, 1983/84, pp. 78-80, No. 5

44. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 5 fig. 10; Exh. Cat. Paris, 1983/84, pp. 75-8, No. 4

45. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 3 fig. 7; S. Ferino-Padgen, 1989, p. 13, No. 2

33

46. L. Dussler, 1966, p. 48, No. 83; Exh. Cat. Munich 1983, pp. 24-7

47. Lee of Fareham, 1934, p. 7

48. F. F. Mancini, 1987, pp. 18-20, figs. 8, 10

49. C. Pedretti, 1989, p. 80

50. F. F. Mancini, 1987, p. 30, fig. 18

51. J. Pope-Hennessy, 1970, p. 178, fig. 158

52. Exh. Cat. Florence, 1984, Nos. 5, 9, figs. 22, 25, 26, 41

53. Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, P 4 fig. 22; P 6 fig. 24

54. Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, pp. 91-5

55. cited from M. Kemp, Leonardo on Painting, New Haven - London 1989, p. 273

56. G. Vasari, Le vite, 1568; ed. G. Milanesi, vol. 4, Florence 1879, p. 38

57. M. Kemp, Leonardo da Vinci, The Marvellous Works of Nature and Man, London 1989 (1981), pp. 220-3, fig. 61

58. M. Kemp, 1989, p. 223, fig. 62

59. C. Pedretti, Leonardo, Bologna 1979, p. 42

60. C. Pedretti - A. Vezzosi and others, Exh. Cat. Leonardo dopo Milano - La Madonna dei Fusi, Città di Vinci 1982, p. 18, No. 21 with fig.

61. cf. H. Gabelentz, Fra Bartolommeo und die Florentiner Renaissance, Leipzig 1922; Exh. Cat. Disegni di Fra Bartolommeo e della sua Scuola, Florence 1986 (Ch. Fischer)

62. Paris, Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, Inv. 9994 (Ecole de Léonard). Cf. C. Pedretti, Leonardo - Il Disegno, Art Dossier, April 1992, p. 45, fig. p. 40

63. J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 108

64. J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 108

65. F. Saxl, 1935 (MS): „The composition may thus be pronounced an original design of the end of 1504 or perhaps the turn of 1505“

66. Florence, Uffizi, No. 1700; P. Scarpellini, Perugino, Milan 1984, p. 88, No. 60 with fig.

67. P. Scarpellini, Perugino, Milan 1984; Kat. No. 39, 47, 48, 49, 63 and others

68. cf. D. A. Brown, Raphael, Leonardo, and Perugino: Fame and Fortune in Florence, in: Leonardo, Michelan-gelo, and Raphael in Renaissance Florence from 1500 to 1508, ed. Serafina Hager, Georgetown University Press 1992, p. 29-53

69. F. F. Mancini, 1987, p. 46

70. F. F. Mancini, 1987, p. 48; Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, p. 223, No. 54 (F. Viatte)

71. G. Vasari, 1568, vol. 4, pp. 41-3

72. S. Ferino Pagden; A. M. Zancan, 1989, Nos. 29, 44, 50

73. Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, Nos. 4, 5; V. Golzio, 1936 (1971), p. 18, note 3

74. C. Pedretti, 1989, pp. 56-63, notes 1-3

75. C. Pedretti, 1989, p. 90

76. V. Golzio, 1936 (1971), pp. 18-19

77. M. 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

78. Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, Nos. 8, 9; S. Ferino - Pagden, 1989, p. 55, Nos. 34, 35

79. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 20, fig. 54; Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, p. 41

80. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 16, fig. 48; Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, p. 41

81. L.. Dussler, 1971, p. 19, fig. 55; Exh. Cat. Munich 1983, p. 59

82. Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, p. 43 (A. Cecchi); V. Golzio, 1936 (1971), pp. 18-19; G. Gronau 1936, p. 77 men-tions 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.’)

34

83. M. Mena Marques, Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, p. 137

84. M. del Carmen Garrido, Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, pp. 91-8

85. J. P. Cuzin, in: Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, pp. 116-117

86. Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, p. 91: ‘la imagen resultante está más en linea con las de las pinturas de Rafael’.

87. Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, p. 91

88. Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, p. 93

89. Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985, pp. 93-5, figs. 9, 10, 11, 12

90. L. Dussler, 1971, p. 6, fig. 14; S. Ferino-Pagden, 1989, p. 39, No. 17. Probably painted before 1504

91. A. Schug, Pantheon 1967, pp. 470-82

92. A. Schug, Pantheon 1967, p. 478

93. Exh. Cat. Milan 1984, pp. 25-36

94. A. Vezzosi, Leonardo da Vinci, Attualitià e mito, Budapest 1991, VAR. 028, 029; a comparison of ‘Conesta-bile Madonna’ with ‘Madonna di Leone XIII’ painted on parchment

95. L. 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

96. M. Prisco, P. L. Vecchi, 1979, No. 96; S. Ferino-Pagden, 1989, p. 95, No. 58

97. Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, No. 12

98. M. Prisco, P. L. Vecchi, 1979, No. 144; S. Ferino-Pagden, 1989, No. 81

99. G. Goldberg, Zur Ausprägung der Dürer-Renaissance in München, Münchner Jahrb. f. Bild. Kunst, 31, 1980, pp. 129-75

100. Exh. Cat. Lucas Cranach, Kronach 1994, B. Hinz, Zur Varianten-Praxis der Cranach-Werkstatt, p. 174

101. Exh. Cat. Lucas Cranach, 1994; B. Hinz, p. 175

102. L. Dussler, 1966, p. 18, Nos. 5, 6; p. 37, No. 54

103. L. Dussler, 1966, p. 55, No. 96; Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, No. 6

104. L. Dussler, 1966, p. 54, No. 95; Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84, p. 125, No. 25

105. L. Dussler, 1966, p. 34, No. 46; Exh. Cat. Florence 1984, p. 189, No. 17

106. Exh. Cat. Florence, p. 190; G. Vasari, Le vite..., Florence 1550, ed. J. L. Bellosi - A. Rossi, vol. 2, Turin 1991, p. 717

107. Exh. Cat. Florence 1981, p. 190

108. K. Woisetschläger, J. Krenn, Original und Kopie, Exh. Cat. Museum Joanneum, Graz 7.12.1967 - 14.1.1986

109. Exh. Cat. Bild und Vorbild (K. Löcher), Staatsgalerie Stuttgart, Nov. 1971 - Jan. 1972, pp. 7, 12, 21 and passim

110. cf. artis, Das aktuelle Kunstmagazin, March 1974, p. 13

111. Exh. Cat. Original - Kopie - Replik - Paraphrase (H. Hutter), Akademie der bildenden Künste, Vienna, 1980, pp. 21-33

112. K. Schütz, in: Exh. Cat. Vienna, 1980, pp.21-33

113. Exh. Cat. Munich 1983, pp. 33-5, 76 f.; Probleme der Kopie von der Antike bis zum 19. Jahrhundert, Vier Vorträge, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Munich 1992

114. Exh. 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

35

Catalogue Cat. No. 1 Raphael (1483-1520) The Holy Family with the Lamb Signed and dated below the neckline of Mary’s bodice: RAPHAEL VRBINAS AD MDIV Poplar, 32.2 x 22 cm Private Collection

Colour Plate IV

IV · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1504, Private Collection

36

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 car-toon. 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 land-scape; 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. Duss-ler, 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, Ma-drid 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, Raf-fael, Leipzig 1983, pp. 64, 70 – R. Jones, N. Penny, Munich 1983, p. 28 note 13 – Exh. Cat. Ma-drid 1985, pp. 90-5 (M. del Carmen Garrido) and p. 137 – J. M. Lehmann, 1986, (2nd edition Kas-sel 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 beach-tet, aber bedeutend. Raffaels Versionen der ‘Heiligen Familie mit dem Lamm’ in einer Privat-sammlung 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 mi-to, 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 prepara-tion)

37

fig 19 fig 20

19 · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 20 · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb Private Collection. Reverse Private Collection. X-ray photograph

fig 21

fig 21a

21 · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 21a · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb Private Collection. Infrared photograph Private Collection. UV photograph

38

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)

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,

As 1 a), plus some oil Hydrated calcium sul- phate (gypsum) Proteins

39

c) d) e)

yellowish UV fluorescence Very thin, dark deposit Paint layer; UV fluorescence Dark glazes or varnish layers; UV fluorescence

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 me-dium. 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 instruc-tions 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 var-nish (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 var-nish. 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 custom-ary 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.

40

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 stereo-scopic 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 im-pression 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 con-trast 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.

fig 20a

20a · Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Private Collection. X-ray photograph

41

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

V · 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.

42

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 sec-tions. 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 weaken-ing of the intense expression of the original. The same applies to the treatment of the gar-ments: schematic rendering of folds, little plasticity, simplified linear design. All these obser-vations 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 Col-lection 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 esi-stenti 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 me-dia, 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, resi-dent 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

43

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 Raph-ael. 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.

fig 22 fig 24

22 · Studio of Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 24 · Carlo Gregori, The Holy Family with the Lamb Musée des Beaux Arts, Angers. UV photograph (after Raphael), Kunstsammlungen der Veste

Coburg

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. Leh-mann, 1987, pp. 12-13 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 109, notes 8, 11, No. 11

44

fig 23

23 · Studio of Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Musée des Beaux Arts, Angers. Infrared photograph

45

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

VI · 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 bor-der at the lower edge of the picture, the plants in the foreground are only perfunctorily repre-

46

sented. 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 Kas-sel 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 connec-tion 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. Dur-ing 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 composi-tion, 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 fore-ground 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.

47

fig 25

fig 26

25 · Copy after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, 26 · Copy after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Kassel, X-ray photograph 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. Gro-nau, 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 Kas-sel, Kassel 1958, p. 116 – L. Dussler, 1966, p. 44 – G. Gronau - E. Herzog, 1969, p. 21 – L. Duss-ler, 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

48

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

VII · 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 rela-tively 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.

49

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 over-laps 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 fore-ground, the painter has dispensed with precise detail (water, plants, scenery) and limited him-self 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 Raph-ael’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 Reinharts-hausen, 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 Staatsgemälde-sammlung Aschaffenburg, Munich 1933, p. 28 (German copy 18th century)(K. Martin), Bayeri-sche Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Galerie Aschaffenburg, Katalog, Munich 1964, p. 126 (R. Oer-tel) – L. Dussler, Critical Catalogue, 1971, p. 53 – (E. Steingraber), Bayerische Staatsgemälde-sammlungen, 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 Ca-pellen, 1989, p. 109 note 11 – C. Pedretti, 1989, p. 60, note 1

50

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

VIII · 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 origi-nal 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

51

in the treatment of light, the landscape, use of colour and his mannerist taste. From the Cor-regesque face of the Virgin a beam of rays, which moves towards the heads of the other pro-tagonists 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 per-haps 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 bril-liant 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 yel-low 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 infor-mation 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 dur-ing his artistic career. This largely novel creation after the well-known model should there-fore 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 Ca-pellen, 1989, p. 109, notes 10, 11 No. 18 – S. Zatti, Note su Faustino Anderloni e Giovita Garava-glia, in: Bolletino della Società Pavese di Storia Patria, 1993, pp. 185-15

52

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

IX · 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

53

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 pic-ture (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 com-mentary. Against this, H. Mac Andrew (1980) described the Lee painting as the original ver-sion (‘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 exe-cuted 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 possi-ble 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).

54

fig 28

28 · 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. Duss-ler, 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

55

Catalogue B - Paintings Not Exhibited

Cat. No. B 1 Italian Master, 1st half 16th century The Holy Family with the Lamb Poplar, 27.8 x 22.3 cm Whereabouts unknown

fig 29

29 · Copy after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, formerly Castle Reinhartshausen Principe di Salerno Collection, Naples (?); c. 1840-1870 Conte Carlo di Castelbarco-Albani Collection, Milan; Baldeschi Collection, Rome; Queen Marianne of the Netherlands Collec-tion; at about 1930 at Auction Graupe, Berlin; Prince Heinrich von Preußen Collection, Castle Reinhartshausen.

56

The copy generally rated very highly by scholars follows the painting at Angers (Cat. No. 2) faithfully in its design. Its dimensions (27.8 x 23.3 cm) are smaller than those of the Madrid and Angers pictures. Compared to the Lee painting (Cat. No. 1) the foreground decked with flowers and a large section of the sky are missing. At the lower edge of the picture the leg of the lamb is overlapped; the barely visible display of flowers corresponds roughly to the Lee and Angers exemplars. Further direct links with the Angers picture are identifyable in Mary’s diaphanous veil, the rendering of the trees on the right and left of Joseph, as well as the ‘tree at the back of Joseph’ with its characteristic forking. The landscape of the background with its buildings is very subtly executed and depicts all details in accordance with the Lee and Prado pictures (structure of the church; the castle on the mountain; towers and the house sur-rounded by trees in the distance, staffage figures of the Flight into Egypt, among others). These passages are less well preserved in the Angers picture. The heads of Mary, Joseph and the Child correspond in their expression quite closely with those in the Angers picture. It therefore seems that this copy of outstanding quality is closely connected with the version at Angers, which was produced in Raphael’s studio. The painter Friedrich Overbeck (1782 Lübeck - 1869 Rome) rated it an original from Raphael’s own hand (Exh. Cat. Stuttgart 1959). Research since 1883 has always stressed its proximity to the Madrid or Lee painting, both of which do, however not show the ‘tree at the back of Joseph’. O. Fischel (1948) called the picture ‘a good 16th century copy’; L. Dussler (1966) limited its date of origin to the 1st half of the 16th century. The copy was probably painted even earlier, in the 1st quarter or the 1st thirty years of the 16th century by a member of Raphael’s circle or his successors. Engraving by Fernando Lasinio (cf. Cat. No. C 4).

Bibl.: G. Vallardi, Notizie sopra un dipinto di Raffaele rappresentante la Sacra Famiglia in riposo posseduto dalla nobile famiglia di Castelbarco, Milan 1842, passim – J. A. Crowe, G. B. Cavalca-selle, 1883, p. 268 note* – Lee of Fareham, 1934, p. 14 (0. Fischel) – (Th. Musper), Exh. Cat. Meisterwerke aus baden-württembergischem Privatbesitz, Stuttgart 1958, p. 64/65 No. 152 – L. Dussler, 1966, p. 44 – L. Dussler, 1971, pp. 11, 53 – J. M. Lehmann, 1980, p. 212 – J. M. Leh-mann, 1987, pp. 12-13 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, pp. 100, 109, note 11 – C. Pedretti, 1989 p. 60 note 1 – Annette Dopatka-Saltenberger, Das Kunstmuseum Reinhartshausen der Prinzessin Marianne der Niederlande in Erbach im Rheingau, MA-Uni. Frankfurt/M., Prof. Kiesow, SS 1989 (Sommersemester 1989)

57

Cat. No. B 2 Attributed to Gianfrancesco Penni (1488-1528) The Holy Family with the Lamb Wood, 27.9 x 21.6 cm (11 x 8½ inch.) Wilton House (Salisbury), Earl of Pembroke Collection Cat. Wilton House, 1968, No. 215 Cleaned, broken panel repaired and cradled in 1934

fig 30

30 · Copy after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Earl of Pembroke Collection, Wilton House

Already before 1730 in the Earl of Pembroke Collection, Wilton House. Probably acquired by Thomas, 8th Earl of Pembroke (died in 1733). ‘The Virgin, wearing a red and blue dress, with Joseph in blue and brown, leaning on his staff behind her, holds the infant Christ, who is seated on a lamb at her feet. Background of rocky hills with buildings and trees... There are other copies in European Galleries after Raphael’s masterpiece of 1507 in the Prado, Madrid, No. 296’ (Cat. Wilton House, 1968).

58

The painting which could unfortunately not be lent to the Kassel Exhibition, corresponds in its dimensions roughly to the painting at Reinhartshausen (27.9 x 21.6 as against 27.8 x 22.3 cm, cf. Cat. No. B 1). They also concur in the very cropped representation (the leg of the lamb almost touches the lower edge of the picture, scant zone of sky above Joseph’s head). It could therefore be identical with the painting which had been offered to Grand Duke Cosimo III de’ Medici from Urbania in 1676/77 (C. Pedretti, 1989). The plants in the foreground are depicted in detail and follow the Angers exemplar (Cat. No. 2), which is less well preserved in this zone. Individual motifs (dandelion, coltsfoot, the plant with white blooms on the left) revert directly to the Lee picture. The landscape on the left is very much simplified. The tree on the left edge of the picture is missing and the wide path behind the strip of water (no group of figures can be discerned on the path), leads to the building which appears only as a silhouette between the surrounding trees. Even weaker are the mountain with the castle and the mountains in the distance. The tree at the back of Joseph accords with the exemplars in the museums at Angers (Cat. No. 2) and the painting formerly at Reinhartshausen (Cat. No. B 1), as does the depiction of the small trees near the right edge of the picture. The heads of the figures, without haloes, seem simplified and reduced in powers of expres-sion. The veil of St. Mary and her ornamented neckline are barely visible any longer. Although the painting largely accords with the exemplars in the Prado, at Angers and Rein-hartshausen in the principal features of the figurative composition and in the foreground, the summary and abbreviated rendering of the middle distance and background does not support the attribution of this copy to Raphael’s collaborator, Gianfrancesco Penni. Works associated with Penni, such as the Coronation of the Virgin of Monteluce, Vatican, Rome; The Temptation of Christ, Christ Carrying the Cross, (formely S. Spasimo di Sicilia); the Transfiguration, all in the Prado; St. Luke Painting the Madonna, Accademia di S. Luca, Rome; the Flagellation, S. Prassede, Rome, show this pupil and assistant of Raphael to be a well versed, even if a somewhat dry and meticulous painter. (For the above paintings cf. S. Ferino-Pagden, Exh. Cat. Giulio Romano, Mantua 1989, p. 65 f., figs. pp. 66, 72; F. Ambro-sio, Giulio Romano, Milan 1991, pp. 8,9, fig. 10; G. Kraut, Lukas malt die Madonna, Worms 1986, p. 59 f., fig. 13). Despite the tradition going back to the 18th century, the attribution to Penni can hardly be upheld; the picture was probably produced by an anonymous follower in the 1st half of the 16th century.

Bibl.: J. A. Crowe, G. B. Cavalcaselle, 1883, p. 268 note* – Sidney, 16th Earl of Pembroke, A Catalogue of the paintings and drawings in the collection at Wilton House, Salisbury, London-New York 1968, p. 80, No. 215, fig. 83 – J. M. Lehmann, 1987, p. 13

Colour Plate X

X · Copy after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb,

59

Earl of Pembroke Collection, Wilton House, Salisbury

Cat. No. B 3 Attributed to Gianfrancesco Penni (1488-1528) The Holy Family with the Lamb Wood, c. 17 x 26 cm Formerly Lord Northbrook Collection, London

fig 31

31 · Variant after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, formerly Lord Northbrook Collection, London This variant, changed to an oblong format, was already known in the 19th century. O. Fischel described it thus: ‘In the Lord Northbrook Collection another rendering of this com-position was ascribed to Raphael’s pupil, Giovanni Francesco Penni. The landscape was altered and enlarged, and Raphael’s composition consequently deformed’. Even less than the copy of the Pembroke Collection (Cat. No. B 2) can this version, which transmits the figura-tive group quite correctly in its canonical form, be considered a work by G. F. Penni. Through the widening of the picture format, especially towards the left, and through its dimi-nution, a new miniature-like character has been created. Though the tree on the right next to Joseph adheres to the original composition, the landscape has been greatly broadened on the left, showing a wealth of vegetation in the foreground, a large deciduous tree on the left edge of the picture and a building resembling a church on a hill, which is reached by a path with staffage figures (Flight into Egypt). A wide river runs across the middle distance, behind which a wide landscape with buildings and minute figures recedes into the distance.Without knowledge of the original it is extremely difficult to establish the date of origin of this pic-ture. The painter seems to have known one of the well-known versions (Madrid or Cat. Nos. 1-5). The fact that he has dispensed with ‘the tree at the back of Joseph’ suggests the exem-plars Lee, Madrid and Kassel as possible models. The overall design and the details of the wide landscape infer that the picture originated in the 16th century. Bibl.: J. A. Crowe, G. B. Cavalcaselle, 1883, p. 268 note* – Lee of Fareham, 1934, p. 14 (0. Fischel) – L. Duss-ler, 1966, p. 44 – L. Dussler, 1971, p. 11 – J. M. Lehmann, 1980, p. 212 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 109 note 11

60

Cat. No. B 4 Italian Master, 16th century The Holy Family with the Lamb Poplar 43.8 x 38 cm The National Museum, Warsaw, Inv. No. 794

fig 32

32 · Variant after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, National Museum, Warsaw. Inv. No. 794

Presumably from the Perez Collection, Valencia (cf. Cat. Warsaw 1865); C. Lachnicki Col-lection, Warsaw; 1908 donated to the Museum. A free, in many passages transformed variant of Raphael’s composition. While the figures of Mary and the Christ Child are still based on the Lee model (as are the flowers in the fore-ground, though modified and enriched), St. Joseph, to the right of, no longer behind, Mary, walks towards the group, which brings also his right leg into sight. He is accompanied, on the right, by a mule which pushes its head into the picture; behind the mule a slender tree of the familiar type; the ‘tree at the back of Joseph’ is missing. A wide river runs through the middle distance; on its left bank some tall buildings and a castle can be discerned. In the background mountain ranges similar to those in the Lee painting are adumbrated. The staffage figures of the Flight into Egypt are omitted. Up to now the painting has been considered a copy dating from the 1st quarter of the 16th century. But this dating seems too early compared to the very faithful replicas and copies of

61

this timespan (Cat. Nos. 2, 3, B 1). The few elements which are characteristic of ‘the style of the period’ (the mule, the landscape) seem instead to point to a date of origin around the middle of the 16th century or later. The scientific-technological tests indicate that the picture was painted during the 16th century (cf. Cat. Warsaw 1979). The state of preservation is fairly mediocre; the wooden panel is slightly vaulted; blistering is found over the whole surface, fractures in the pigmentation and grounding are rare. Restoration by B. Marconi in 1938.

Bibl.: Katalog obrazów zbioru p. Cypryana Lachnickiego, pp. 11-12, No. 54, Warsaw 1865 – Czesc zbiorów C. Lachnickiego w. Warszawie, Warsaw – Cracow 1903, fig. 17 – W. Tartar-kiewicz, Die Bilder des Warschauer Museums, in: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, N. F., XXI, 1910, p. 262 – J. Starzynski, M. Walicki, Cat. Galerii Malarstwa Obcego, Museum Narodowe w Warszawie, Warsaw 1938, No. 51 – J. Bialostocki, Galeria Malarstwa Obcego, Malarstwo wol-skie, hispanszkie, francuskie, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII wieku, Warsaw 1955, pp. 17-18 – Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie, Galeria Malarstwa Obcego Przewodnik, wyd. II, Warschau 1964, pp. 69, 115 – Malarstwo Europejskie, Katalog zbiorów, Museum Narodowe w Warszawie, I - 1967; II - 1969; Engl. edition: Catalogue of Paintings, Foreign Schools, National Museum in Warsaw, I - 1969; II - 1970; Warsaw 1970, No. 1025 – Cat. Muzeum Narodowe Warszawie, Galeria Malar-stwa Obcego, Malarstwo Francuskie ...do 1600, Warsaw 1979, pp. 145-146 – J. M. Lehmann, 1980, p. 212 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 109 note 11

Cat. No. B 5 Italian Master, 16th century The Holy Family with the Lamb Wood, 30.4 x 22.3 cm Galleria Nazionale d’ Arte Antica, Palazzo Corsini, Rome, Inv. No. 249 Principi Corsini Collection, 1883

fig 33

33 · Copy after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Galleria Corsini, Rome

62

This very summary copy with its somewhat crude treatment of the figures' faces, their gar-ments and the landscape, has been entirely ignored in the recent art historical literature. It was last mentioned by J. Crowe and G. B. Cavalcaselle (1883). The tree at the back of Joseph, the tree on the left edge of the picture and the two small trees on the right indicate the influence of the exemplars at Angers (Cat. No. 2) and the former Reinhartshausen (Cat. No. B 1). All figures had been given a halo, however that of Mary is hardly visible any longer. The Principi Corsini Collection goes back in essence to the 18th century, when Cardinal Neri Corsini, the nephew of Pope Clemens XII built up a collection of paintings, a large library and a collection of drawings and graphic designs in the Palazzo Corsini. The small copy after Raphael is, however, not mentioned in the inventories of the 18th and early 19th centuries. It can therefore be assumed that the painting was acquired in the middle of the 19th century by Prince Tommaso Corsini who bought a group of 13th - 15th century paintings from Luisa Corsini in Florence (This information kindly provided by Dr. Sivigliano Alloisi, Galleria Corsini). The file on the picture records that the copy had first been entered as by Perino del Vaga, then as Copy after Raphael and lastly, as Tuscan School of the 16th Century. The painting has been kept for years in storage

Bibl.: J. A. Crowe, G. B. Cavalcaselle, 1883, p. 268 note*

Cat. No. B 6 Unknown Master, 16th century ( ? ) The Holy Family with the Lamb Material and measurements unknown Whereabouts unknown Photograph Kunsthistorisches lnstitut, Florence, negative No. 21 037

Figure 34 see page down This copy which is only known from photographic reproduction shows the group of figures concurring in the main with the painting in the Prado (Colour Plate III), with which also some of the details accord: St. Mary’s dense veil; depiction of church buildings and castle; omission of the tree at the back of Joseph, among others. Evidently, the wealth of plants in the foreground exceeds all other known exemplars (includ-ing the Madrid picture). Strange phenomena are the simplifications in the middle zone; the tree on the left is totally missing and the two slender trees on the right edge of the picture appear to be swaying in the wind. The heads of St. Mary and St. Joseph seem coarser and less expressive; the decoration of the neckline of Mary’s bodice appears to have been only partly executed. The quality of this copy is apparently weak; no judgement can be offered concerning the state of preservation.

63

fig 34

34 · Copy after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, whereabouts unknown. Photograph: Kunsthistorisches lnstitut, Florence

64

Catalogue C - Prints and Engravings

Section C translated by David Britt

Cat. No. C 1 Raphael II Sadeler (1584 Antwerp - 1632 Munich) The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1613 Engraving, 202 x 163 mm Coburg, Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg Inv. Nr. VII, 281, 106.

fig 35

35 · Raphael II Sadeler, The Holy Family with the Lamb, engraving, Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg

65

Quid sibi vult pastor miti gestatus ab agno? Hanc metamorphosin quis tibi Naso canit? An puer est agnus, vel in agno pastor et agnus? Tartareumve lupum qui cruce vicit, ovat? HANC EFFIGIEM EX GRATIA SERENISS. PRIN- CIPIS AC DN. DN. ALBERTI BOIORVM DVCIS Raph. Sadeler Iunior Sculpsit / Monachii M.D.C.XIII. Raphael Sadeler the Younger, son of Raphael Sadeler the Elder, was probably born in Antwerp in 1584, and is named in the register of the Antwerp Guild of St. Luke in 1610. He was presumably with his father during the latter’s stay in Venice from 1601 to 1604. In 1604 he settled in Munich with his father, with whom he worked on the illustrations to the second and third volumes of the Bavaria Sancta, a collection of Lives of the Saints by the learned Jesuit Matthäus Rader, the first volume of which appeared in Munich in 1615. He died in Munich in 1632. Sadeler’s engraving, dated 1613, shows composition of The Holy Family with the Lamb, with-out ascribing it explicitly to Raphael. On the left, it adds a group of the infant St. John reclining with a rabbit beneath a slender elm, its trunk entwined by a luxuriant grapevine. Christ’s pre-cursor, who grasps a bunch of grapes with his left hand, is shown as a boy Bacchus; his physi-cal type is baroque in its opulence. The prolific rabbit on which he leans is a baroque symbol of eternal life. The tall, non-fruiting elm tree, around which the weak but fructiferous vine en-twines itself, is a symbol of the mutually beneficial alliance of dissimilar partners. The Latin verses appended to Sadeler’s engraving apostrophize Ovid, author of the Metamor-phoses, asking him the meaning of the metamorphosis shown in the picture and referring to Christ's dual role as the victim and victor who has redeemed humanity through his suffering and thus conquered death. (‘What does the shepherd mean, borne by the gentle lamb? Who will explain this metamorphosis to you, Ovid? Is the boy the lamb, or on the lamb both shepherd and lamb? Or is he who by his Cross vanquished the Wolf and Hell enjoying his triumph?’) The legend identifies Raphael Sadeler as the engraver, not the inventor of the composition, and dedicates the engraving to Duke Albert of Bavaria. Contradicting Hollstein (XXI, 1980, No. 29), Meyer zur Capellen (1989, p. 98) rightly identifies the dedicatee as the younger brother of Maximilian I, Duke of Bavaria; this was Albert VI, ‘Der Leuchtenberger’, Duke in Bavaria (1584-1666; administrator of the territory 1651-54). He also suggests that Sadeler may here be reproducing a painting in Albert’s collection, possibly a composition by a contemporary artist, modified in the ’Dürer-Renaissance’ spirit. However, Sadeler’s detailed engraving cannot pos-sibly be a reproduction of a painting by Raphael in the possession of the Bavarian court; nor can it be regarded as a reproduction of a contemporary painting. Virtually nothing is known of the art collection, or the artistic tastes, of Albert VI, whose resi-dence, along with the art collection of the reigning Duke Maximilian in the Residenz in Munich, was sacked in 1632 by the occupying troops of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. According to the inventories, Maximilian’s Kammergalerie contained two highly prized paint-ings by Raphael (see Diemer, Kammergalerie, 1980, pp. 140, 167f.) The more celebrated of the two - a Madonna with the Christ Child seated on a cushion - was destroyed in a fire at the Residenz in 1729; the other - a Holy Family with John the Baptist beneath an oak tree - is now regarded as a copy after Raphael. The sources thus provide no evidence to suggest that Sade-ler’s 1613 engraving derives from an original by Raphael in the Munich collections. In any case, if Sadeler had been working from a Raphael in the ducal collections, one would expect him to have said so. That a member of the well-known Sadeler family of engravers, whose fame did not rest solely on their own inventions but above all on their sensitive and precise reproductions of contempo-rary Italian and Netherlandish - and even early German - painting, made no reference to a composition by Raphael in the Munich collection, though even in 1675 Joachim von Sandrart still made a point of praising Aegidius Sadeler’s engraving of Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia

66

in the Uffizi (Sandrart, 1675, p. 240f.), can only mean that Raphael II Sadeler was already acquainted with the composition of The Holy Family with the Lamb before he moved to Munich. Sadeler’s reproduction of Raphael’s composition is meticulously detailed. His engraving con-tains numerous informations that are present only in the 1504 Lee of Fareham version of the painting, including the format, which is tall and narrow by comparison with other panel paint-ings. The flowers in the foreground can be identified botanically; both the Madrid and Angers versions are less detailed in this area. The engraving also clearly indicates the course of the stream in the middleground. In the arrangement of saplings behind Joseph’s back, the engrav-ing is once more closer to the Lee version than to the first version of the Prado painting, as revealed by UV photography. But there are also differences: the position of the tree at far left, on a grassy hill on the near bank of the river, is better motivated than in the Lee version, where the tree is situated on the far bank. Sadeler has also taken trouble to reproduce the middle ground and background landscape. The engraving retains the Holy Family on the Flight into Egypt, with the donkey, as well as the round tower of the fort in the left background and the gabled house behind the trees in the centre. On the far right, the Lee version is markedly less detailed than the engraving. In the rendering of Mary's garments, her veil, the Lamb's fleece and Joseph's long, sparse hair, the engraving seems to outdo the Lee version in substance and precision. However, by including the group of John and the rabbit - clearly added by the engraver, and not imitated from a contemporary painting - Sadeler has changed the narrow, upright format to a wider one. Sadeler’s engraving was followed to a remarkable extent in early seventeenth-century painted copies. In a small gouache, the Monogrammist JFB, unconfident as a figure painter, adopted Sadeler’s composition and added a distant landscape view on the right to convert the image to a landscape format (Auction Lempertz, Cologne, 26 May 1989, Cat. 637, No. 84; gouache on paper, 12.3 X 18.5 cm; monogram and date b.r. JFB 1639; fig. 36). In a small painting (oil on canvas, 35.5 x 26.5 cm), a follower of Hans Rottenhammer (Munich 1654 - 1726 Augsburg) painstakingly converts the Sadeler version of The Holy Family with the Lamb back into an upright format, retaining the landscape and Flight into Egypt in great detail (Auction: Fine Old Master Paintings, London, Phillips, Son & Neale, 16 April 1991; fig. 37). Sadeler's 1613 engraving thus faithfully reproduces the composition preserved in the Lee ver-sion of The Holy Family with the Lamb of 1504 (fig. 35a). Sadeler is unlikely to have been able to study this early Raphael composition in Munich; he probably saw it in Italy. The first to connect Sadeler’s engraving with Raphael’s composition was Vincenzo Vittoria, who in his unpublished catalogue of 1703 mentioned a painting in the Falconieri collection in Rome as lacking the figure of the boy St. John shown in Sadeler’s engraving. According to Meyer zur Capellen, however, there is no documentary record (beyond Vittoria's mention) that the paint-ing ever was in Rome. The Lee version, even in its present state of preservation, is supple-mented in several important details by Sadeler's engraving. Seen in conjunction, the two con-stitute a record of Raphael's composition of 1504. (S. T.)

67

fig 35a

fig 37

35a · Raphael, The Holy Family with the 37 · Circle of Hans Rottenhammer, The Holy Family Lamb, 1504, Private Collection with the Lamb, after Raphael II Sadeler

fig 36

36 · Monogrammist JFB, The Holy Family with the Lamb, after Raphael II Sadeler, 1st half 17th century

68

Bibl.: J. von Sandrart, 1675, p. 240 – Tauriscus Euboeus, 1819, p. 166, No. 30 – V. Vittoria, 1703, book 5 – Ch. Le Blanc, 1856, vol. III, p. 403 – Lee of Fareham, 1934, p. 14 (0. Fischel) – L. Duss-ler, 1966, p. 44, No. 73 – L. Dussler, 1971, p. 12 – F. W. Hollstein 1980, vol. XXII, p. 237, No. 9 – Peter Diemer, Materialien zu Entstehung und Ausbau der Kammergalerie Maximilians I. von Bayern, in: Quellen und Studien zur Kunstpolitik der Wittelsbacher vom 16. his zum 18. Jh., cd. H. Glaser, Munich 1980, pp. 129-74 – Exh. Cat. Paris 1983, No. 18 (J. P. Cuzin) – Exh. Cat. Rome 1985, No. XII, 1 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 108, n. 2

Cat. No. C 2 Carlo Gregori (1719 Florence - 1759 Florence) The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1613 Etching and Engraving, 378 x 277 mm Coburg, Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg Inv. Nr. XII, 280, 38

fig 38

38 · Carlo Gregori, The Holy Family with the Lamb, engraving, Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg

69

From: Quadri de’ Gerini di Firenze, Florence 1786, plate 8: Quadro di Raffaello Sanzi d° Raffaello da Ur- bino / Alto Palmi 2 once 6 Largo Palmi 2 once 2

Carlo Gregori made his reputation in Florence principally as a portrait engraver (portraits of the Grand Dukes of Tuscany). As a reproductive engraver, at the height of the mid-eighteenth-century revival of interest in art his-tory and connoisseurship, he published major paintings of the great Italian masters of the sixteenth and seven-teenth centuries (Raphael, Titian, Correggio, Allori, Domenichino and others), mostly from Florentine collec-tions, in a number of large-scale gallery albums and compilations (Museo fiorentino, Galleria di Firenze, Gabi-netto Gerini, Etruria pittrice, Museum Capitolinum ).

The first part of the album Raccolta di Ottanta Stampe rappresentanti i Quadri piu scelti de’ SSig.ri Marchesi Gerini di Firenze must have appeared as early as 1759. In it, Gregori’s en-graving after Raphael’s The Holy Family with the Lamb appears as plate 8. On the strength of the repeated handwritten inscription Galleria Gerini on the reverse of the painting, Jean-Pierre Cuzin convincingly identifies the panel of The Holy Family with the Lamb now in Angers (Cat. No. 2) as the painting reproduced in this engraving. Meyer zur Capellen (1989, p. 100, n. 8) agrees with Cuzin, while pointing to ‘significant differences’ between the painting and the engraving. The eighteenth-century fame of Raphael’s composition, and of the Gerini Collection, is evi-denced by a drawing that was in the collection of the connoisseur, collector and writer Pierre-Jean Mariette, as listed in the inventory of his estate (Catalogue de différens objets de curi-osité . . . dépendants de la succession de M. Mariette. Vente du 15 novembre 1775 - 10 janvier 1776, Paris, Basan et Chariot, 1775). The painter, draughtsman and engraver Gabriel de Saint-Aubin made sketches in the margins of his own copy of this 1775 auction catalogue (Collec-tion W. A. Sargent, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, No. 37 17 13; see Dacier, II, 1931, Cat. No. 1042), including one of the drawings in Mariette’s collection which reproduced the com-position of The Holy Family with the Lamb in the version from the Gerini Collection in Flor-ence (see J. P. Cuzin in Exh. Cat. Paris 1983-84, No. 18: ‘15 novo 1775, No. 700: Une Sainte-Famille, où se voit l’enfant Jésus monté sur un mouton, dessiné avec soin à la pierre noire, d’après un superbe tableau de ce maître qui existe à Florence dans la galerie du marquis de Gerini, l’estampe y est jointe.’) As the auction catalogue points out, in his capacity as a col-lector and connoisseur Mariette also possessed Gregori’s engraving. (S. T.)

Bibl.: J. D. Passavant, 1839, vol. II, p. 91 – Thieme-Becker, Künstlerlexikon, vol. XIV, 1921, p. 577 – Emile Dacier, Gabriel de Saint-Aubin, peintre, dessinateur et graveur (1724-1780), 2 vols., Paris 1929-1931, vol. II, 1931: Catalogue raisonné, No. 1042 – Exh. Cat. Coburg 1983-84, No. 65 (S. Netzer) – Exh. Cat. Paris 1983-84, No. 18 (J. P. Cuzin) – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 100, fig. 2

70

fig 39

39 · Studio of Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, Musée des Beaux Arts, Angers

Cat. No. C 3 Giovita Garavaglia (1790 Pavia - Florence 1835) The Holy Family with the Lamb, 1817 Engraving, 470 x 347 mm Pavia, Civici Musei, Var. P. 5369 Raffaello da Urbino inv.; Giovita dis. et inc. / All’ Egregio Amatore di Belle Arti Il. Sig. Mcs. LUIGI MALASPINA di Sannazzaro / Ciambellano di S.M.I.R.A. e cavaliere / del nuovo ordine Imple delta Corona Ferrara etc. etc. / L’originale esiste presso il sullodato cavaliere; Giovita Gara vaglia D.D.D. / In Firenze presso Luigi Bardi e Comp.

71

fig 40

40 · Giovita Garavaglia, The Holy Family with the Lamb, engraving, Civici Musei, Pavia

In 1817 Giovita Garavaglia, a pupil of the engraver Faustino Anderloni in Pavia, won the prize awarded by the Accademia Braidense in Milan with his engraving of The Holy Family with the Lamb, after Raphael. The print had been commissioned by Marchese Luigi Malaspina di Sannazzaro (1754-1835). A passionate collector and patron of printmakers in particular, Malaspina was following the example of the great gallery albums of the eighteenth century in publishing one of the masterpieces of his collection in Pavia (Exh. Cat. Rome 1983, p. 188, No. XII, 2; S. Zatti, 1993, p. 195; see also the first state, fig. 41). Malaspina purchased his Raphael copy, which was painted in Modena, from the estate of Luigi Cerretti, a professor of rhetoric who died in Pavia in 1808, and who had himself acquired it at the time of the Napoleonic ‘pillage of the arts.’ As late as 1821 the painting in the Malaspina collection in Pavia (Cat. No. 5) was listed by Pietro Zani (Enciclopedia metodica critica-ragionata delle Belle Arti, part II, vol. VI, Parma 1821, p. 89) as an original by Raphael. But the later inventories of the Galleria Malaspina refer to it as a copy, and in 1839 Johann David Passavant listed it as one of the copies of the Prado painting, mentioning Garavaglia’s engraving.

72

Garavaglia’s engraving precisely reproduces the composition of the painting in the Malaspina collection, which is ascribed to a North Italian master of the second half of the sixteenth cen-tury; this is evident in the relationship between figure group and landscape, and in the details (antique ruins, donkey’s head etc.) The loose linear drawing, which seems designed principally to reproduce the atmospheric values of the original, shows Garavaglia to be an engraver in the tradition of Giuseppe Longhi. He makes a revealing contrast with the rigorous precision of an engraver like Raffael Morghen, whom he succeeded as a teacher at the Florentine Academy in 1833. In 1828 he engraved Raphael’s Madonna della Seggiola in the Uffizi from a drawing by Samuele Jesi. At his early death, in 1835, his engravings of Raphael’s Madonna di Foligno and of the so-called Raphael Self-Portrait remained unfinished. (S. T.)

fig 41

41 · Giovita Garavaglia, The Holy Family with the Lamb, engraving, preliminary stage. Civici Musei, Pavia

Bibl.: J. D. Passavant, 1839, vol. II, p. 91, No. 63b – Donata Vicini, Appunti sulla genesi della Pinacoteca Pavese: Luigi Malaspina di Sannazaro (1754-1835), collezionista e mecenate, in Cat. Pavia Pinacoteca Malaspina, with contributions by A. Peroni and Donata Vicini, Pavia 1981, pp. 7-22; fig. p. 11 – Exh. Cat. Rome 1985, p. 188, No. XII, 2 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 109, n. 10 – Susanna Zatti, Note su Faustino Anderloni e Giovita Garavaglia, incisori a Pavia nella prima metà del Ottocento, offprint from: Bollettino della Società Pavese di storia patria, 1993, pp. 185-95; p. 188, n. 14

73

Cat. No. C 4 Fernando Lasinio (1821 Florence -1865 Florence) The Holy Family with the Lamb (after Raphael) Outline etching, 138 x 172 mm London, British Museum, Department of Prints and Drawings, Windsor Raphael Collection

fig 43

43 · Fernando Lasinio, The Holy Family with the Lamb, etching. British Museum, London; Windsor Raphael Collection

Frontispiece to Giuseppe Vallardi, Notizie sopra un dipinto di Raffaele rappresentante la Sacra Famiglia in riposo, posseduto Jaffa nobile famiglia di Castelbarco, Milan 1842 The Florentine engraver and painter Fernando Lasinio, probably a nephew of the well-known reproductive engraver Carlo Lasinio (1759-1838; see Exh. Cat. Rome 1985, p. 871), produced this delicate outline etching of The Holy Family with the Lamb as frontispiece for the art his-torian Giuseppe Vallardi's Notizie, published in Florence in 1842.

74

Immediately after the publication of Johann David Passavant’s monograph on Raphael, Vallardi published the painting of The Holy Family with the Lamb owned by Conte Carlo Castelbarco in Milan as an original work by Raphael, reproducing numerous opinions to that effect signed by distinguished professors at the Florentine Academy. The engraving records significant details of that painting. The arrangement of three slender saplings behind Joseph’s back and the tall sapling on the extreme left, the tiny figures of the Holy Family on the Flight into Egypt in the middle ground, the meticulously detailed array of flowers and tufts of grass in the foreground, and the proportions of the print, allow a positive identification of the original reproduced here: it is the painting from the collection of Prince Heinrich of Prussia, formerly at Schloss Reinhartshausen, with a provenance dating back to the eighteenth century, when it was in the collection of the Prince of Salerno in Naples (Cat. No. B 1). (S. T.) Not in the exhibition

fig 43a

43a · Copy after Raphael, The Holy Family with the Lamb, formerly Castle Reinhartshausen

Bibl.: Thieme-Becker, Künstlerlexikon, vol. XXII, 1928, p. 404 – Exh. Cat. Stuttgart 1958-59, No. 152, fig. 71 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 100 and n. 16

75

Cat. No. C 5 Vincenzo Rolla (dates unknown) Virgin Mary with Christ Child and Lamb (after Raphael) Engraving, 285 x 220 mm London, British Museum, Department of Prints and Drawings, Windsor Raphael Collection

fig 44

44 ·Vincenzo Rolla, Compiacenza Materna, engraving. British Museum, London; Windsor Raphael Collection

Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino dipinse / V. Rolla incise nello studio di C. Dellarocca / COM-PIACENZA MATERNA / All’Illustrissimo Signor Conte / GIROLAMO PORTALUPI / Egregio Amatore di Belle Arti. / Milano presso li. Frat.li Bettalli. Contr. a del Cappello N. 4027. / Ernesto Spampani D.D.D.

76

Vincenzo Rolla’s reproductive engraving concentrates Raphael’s composition of The Holy Family with the Lamb by omitting the figure of Joseph, behind Mary, and thus makes it into a representation of Compiacenza materna, ‘Maternal Delight’. The engraving - which is en-tirely free in its handling of the original landscape composition, notably adding a bushy pair of trees on the left - was probably based on a painting that existed in the Milan collection of Count Girolamo Portalupi during the nineteenth century. (S. T.) Not in the exhibition.

Bibl.: J. D. Passavant, 1839, II, No. 63, p. 92 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 109, n. 11, No. 5

Additional Reproductive Engravings Mentioned in the Literature: Jean Lenfant (1615 Abbeville -1674 Paris) The Holy Family with the Lamb (after Raphael) Engraving (?) J. Lenfant sculps. et ex. The pastellist and engraver Jean Lenfant, a pupil of Claude Mellan, engraved works by Italian High Renaissance masters, the Baroque Classicists of the Bologna school (Annibale Carracci, Guido Reni) and designs of his own. Among his reproductions of works by Raphael, the most notable is an engraving of the Madonna delta Sedia in the Uffizi. In 1839, in the second volume of his monograph on Raphael, Passavant mentioned Lenfant’s engraving as a reproduction of the painting of The Holy Family with the Lamb in the Gerini collection in Florence. It is impossible to be sure, however, which version of The Holy Family with the Lamb Lenfant really saw before his death in Paris in 1674; the earliest certain record of the painting in the Florentine collection is the engraving made by Gregori in the mid-eighteenth century.

Bibl.: J. D. Passavant, 1839, II, No. 63, p. 91 – Charles Le Blanc, Manuel de l’amateur d’estampes, 1854-90, II, p. 532 – Thieme-Becker, Künstlerlexikon, vol. XXIII, 1929, p. 50 – L. Dussler, 1971, p. 11 (?) – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 109, n. 11, No. 10

Antonio Morghen (1788 Rome - 1853 Rome) Raffael Morghen (1758 Naples - 1833 Florence) The Holy Family with the Lamb (after Raphael) A. Morghen sculp. et R. Morghen dir. Summoned to Florence by Grand Duke Ferdinand II of Tuscany in 1793, the engraver and etcher Raffael Morghen opened a school of engraving there. His biographer and pupil Niccolo Palmieri tells us that Morghen dedicated his reproduction of Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia in the Uffizi to Marchese Manfredini, who had helped him to secure his appointment at the Florentine Court. (Niccolo Palmieri, Opere d’intaglio de Cav. Raffaello Morghen, Florence 1824). In 1803 he became teacher of engraving at the Florentine Academy of Art. Morghen

77

was famous for his reproductive engravings of altarpieces and portraits by the great painters of the Italian High Renaissance (Raphael, Leonardo, Correggio, Titian) and Baroque (Van Dyck) and by contemporary artists (Anton Raffael Mengs, Angelika Kauffmann). His son Antonio engraved Raphael’s composition of The Holy Family with the Lamb, after Raphael - as Carlo Gregori and later Antonio Lapi also did - from the version best known in the eighteenth century, the one in the Gerini collection in Florence (see Cat. No. 2).

Bibl.: J. D. Passavant, 1839, II, No. 63, p. 91 – Thieme-Becker, Künstlerlexikon, vol. XXV, 1931, p. 150 f. – L. Dussler, 1966, pp. 43-45 – Exh. Cat. Paris 1983, No. 18, pp. 114-17 – Exh. Cat. Coburg 1983-84, No. 14 – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 109, n. 11, No. 8

Angelo Emilio Lapi (1769 Livorno - 1852 Florence) The Holy Family with the Lamb (after Raphael) The Florentine draughtsman, engraver and medallist Angelo Emilio Lapi, a pupil of Raffael Morghen, made numerous engravings of paintings by Raphael and Andrea del Sarto. His engraving of The Holy Family with the Lamb after Raphael, like that of his master Raffael Morghen, was made from the celebrated version in the Gerini Collection in Florence.

Bibl.: J. D. Passavant, 1839, II, p. 54 – Thieme-Becker, Künstlerlexikon, vol. XXII, 1928, p. 368 f. – J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989, p. 109, n. 11, No. 9

Raphael in Umbria

1483 6th April born at Urbino, the son of Magia Ciada amd Giovanni Santi, court painter to Federi-co da Montefeltre, Duke of Urbino. 1491 On 8th October Raphael’s mother Magia Ciada dies. Vasari records Raphael’s apprenticeship with Pietro Vannucci, called il Perugino, which he may have already begun before his mother’s death in 1491. 1494 On 1st August Raphael’s father, Giovanni Santi (born 1435 ?) dies. 1499 On 5th June court hearing at Urbino concerning Raphael’s inheritance, which was contested by Bernadina Parte, second wife of his father. 1500 On 10th December conclusion of a contract with ‘Magister Rafael Johannis Santis de Urbino et Vangelista Andree de Plano Meleto pictores’ for an altarpiece for the family chapel of An-drea Baronci in S. Agostino, Citta di Castello: the Coronation of St. Nicholas of Tolentino (fragments in Louvre, Paris; Museo Capodimonte, Naples; Pinacoteca Tosio Martinengo, Bre-scia).

78

1501 On 13th September payment for the Pala di S. Nicola da Tolentino. 1502 According to Vasari participation in the cartoons for the frescoes of the ‘Biblioteca del Duo-mo’ in Siena which Cardinal Francesco Todeschini Piccolomini, the future Pope Paul II, had executed under the direction of Pinturicchio in June 1502. 1503 The Gavari Crucifixion (National Gallery, London, formely Mond Collection; predellas: Museu de Arte Antiga, Lisbon; The North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh) commissioned by Dominikus Thomas Gavari for the altar of his family chapel in S. Domenico, Città di Cas-tello. On the altar the inscription: HOC OPVS FIERI FECIT DNICVS THOME DE GA-VARIS MDIII. Signed at the foot of the Cross: RAPHAEL VRBINAS P. The Coronation of the Virgin (Pinacoteca Vaticana, Rome) commissioned by Maddalena Oddi for the altar of the family chapel in S. Francesco, Perugia presumably during the tempo-rary return of the Oddi from exile February-September 1503. Madonna Conestabile (Eremitage, St. Petersburg). Was property of Alfano di Diamante, Perugia; uncle of Domenico Alfani; probably executed between 1500 and 1504. 1503/04 St. Michael and the Demon (Louvre, Paris) St. George and the Dragon (Louvre, Paris) Probably commissioned by Duke Guidobaldo da Montefeltre or his sister Giovanna Feltria della Rovere, mother of the heir to the throne Francesco Maria della Rovere, widow of the prefect of Rome and patron of the young Raphael. Her brother’s conferment of the Order of St. Michael in 1503 or her son’s conferment of the Order of the Garter on 10th May 1504 may have been the reason for the commissions. 1504 Marriage of the Virgin (Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan) Signed and dated above the entrance to the temple: RAPHAEL VRBINAS MDIIII. Altarpiece for the Cappella Albizzini in S. Francesco, Città di Castello.

Raphael in Florence On 1st October 1504 Giovanna Feltria della Rovere signs a letter of recommendation for Raphael to the Gonfaloniere of Florence, Piero Soderini, from whom Raphael hopes to obtain public commissions in Florence. Influence of the Florentine cartoons for the battle scenes in the Sala del Gran Consiglio of Palazzo Vecchio by Leonardo (Battle of Anghiari) and Michelangelo (Battle of Cascina). The Holy Family with the Lamb (Private Collection) signed and dated: RAPHAEL VRBINAS AD MDIV

79

Portraits of Agnolo and Maddalena Doni (Galleria Palatina, Florence) Probably commissioned on the occasion of the marriage of the wealthy merchant and collec-tor Agnolo Doni to Maddalena, daughter of Giovanni Strozzi in 1504. 1505/1506 Pala Ansidei (National Gallery, London) Dated MDV on the edge of the mantle of Mary, also read as MDVI or MDVII. According to Vasari the panel was painted for the Cappella Ansidei in S. Fiorenzo dei Serviti, Perugia. Altar of the Colonna Family (Metropolitan Museum, New York; Christ on the Mount of Olives, Lamentation over the Dead Christ, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston; Christ Carrying the Cross, National Gallery, London) The Canigiani Holy Family (Alte Pinakothek, Munich) Signed RAPHAEL VRBINAS on the neckline of Mary’s bodice. Vasari saw the panel in the house of Domenico Canigiani’s heirs in Florence. Madonna del Granduca (Palazzo Pitti, Florence) In 1799 acquired by Grand Duke Ferdinand III of Tuscany. 1506 Madonna del Cardellino (Uffizi, Florence) Probably executed c. 1505/06 on the occasion of Giovanni Nasi’s marriage to Sandra di Mat-teo di Giovanni, a member of the wealthy Canigiani family, on 23 January 1506. Madonna of the Meadow (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna) Dated MDVI on the border of Mary’s dress. Vasari saw two paintings of the Madonna by Raphael’s own hand in the house of Taddeo Taddei in Florence, one in the style of Pietro Perugino, the other already in Raphael’s more mature style. 1507 The Holy Family with the Lamb (Prado, Madrid) Signed and dated below the neckline of Mary’s bodice: RAPHAEL VRBINAS MDVII IV The Entombment (Galleria Borghese, Rome) Three predellas showing the Theological Virtues (Pinacoteca Vaticana, Rome). Signed and dated RAPHAEL VRBINAS MDVII. Commissioned by Atalanta Baglioni for the family chapel in S. Francesco al Prato, Perugia in memory of her son Grifone, murdered in 1500. Pope Paul III gave the panel to his nephew Scipione Borghese. 1507/08 Small Cowper Madonna (National Gallery of Art, Washington) Perhaps to be identified with that small Madonna for Giovanna Feltria della Rovere which Raphael mentions in a letter dated 21st April 1508. Madonna del Baldacchino (Palazzo Pitti, Florence) According to Vasari commissioned probably in July 1507 by the heirs of Rinieri di Bernardo Dei for the family chapel in S. Spirito, Florence. Left unfinished probably because of Raph-ael’s move to Rome. Acquired by Baldassare Turrini, Raphael’s executor and confidant of Pope Leo X, for his chapel in the Duomo of Pescia. Probably already displayed there before 1520.

80

1508 Large Cowper Madonna (National Gallery of Art, Washington) Signed and dated: M.D.VIII, R.V. Pin. Acquired in 1780 for the Cowper Collection from the Florentine Niccolini Collection. In the Mellon Collection since 1937. La Belle Jardinière (Louvre, Paris) Signed on the border of Mary’s dress: RAPHAELLO VRB. and dated M.D.VIII According to Vasari painted for the Sienese nobleman Filippo Sergardi, a high cleric at the Court of Pope Leo X. Acquired by Francis I of France in Siena.

Raphael in Rome 1508 Raphael summoned to Rome by Pope Julius II. Begins the decoration of the papal chambers in the Vatican (Stanze) with the Stanza della Segnatura. 1509 On 4 October Raphael is appointed Writer of the Papal Briefs. 1511 Frescoing of the Stanza d’Eliodoro, Vatican. Completed 1514. 1511/1512 Madonna di Foligno (Pinacoteca Vaticana, Rome) Commissioned by the historian Sigismondo Conti, Chamberlain and Papal Secretary, Prefect of the Fabric of St. Peter’s to Pope Julius II, who is depicted as a donor kneeling next to his Patron Saint, St. Jerome. The patron who died on 18th February 1512 was buried in S. Maria in Aracoeli, Rome, where Raphael’s Madonna di Foligno decorated the high altar until 1565. Anna Conte, the patron’s niece, moved the picture into the Convent Church of the Contesse di Foligno. 1512 Beginning of the decoration of the Villa Farnesina, commissioned by the Sienese banker, Agostino Chigi. Completed in 1514. Beginning of the frescoing of the Cappella Chigi in S. Maria della Pace, Rome, at the behest of Agostino Chigi. Portrait of Pope Julius II (Uffizi, Florence) The Sistine Madonna (Gemäldegalerie, Dresden) Commissioned by the Benedictine Monks of S. Sisto, Piacenza for the high altar of the church with the reliquaries of St. Barbara, St. Sixtus. The Portrait of Pope Julius II della Rovere (died 1513) who is immortalized in the figure of the St. Sixtus was probably included in memory of Pope Sixtus II, the first pope from the House of the della Rovere. 1513 Election of Leo X to the Holy See, a member of the Medici family. Madonna della Sedia (Uffizi, Florence) 1613 came to Florence with the heritage of the della Rovere.

81

1514 After the death of Donato Bramante nomination of Raphael to the post of Architect-in-Chief of St. Peter’s. In the same year Raphael was appointed Commissary of Antiquities of the city of Rome. St. Cecilia (Pinacoteca Comunale, Bologna) Commissioned by Elea Duglioni dell’Olio, Bologna, for the chapel of St. Cecilia in St. Gio-vanni in Monte Uliveto, Bologna; probably executed 1514/16. Portrait of Bindo Altoviti (Kress Collection, National Gallery, Washington) 1515 Beginning of work on the cartoons for the tapestries for the Sistine Chapel, Vatican; com-pleted in 1518. Christ Carrying the Cross (Museo del Prado, Madrid) Signed: RAPHAEL VRBINAS; Commissioned c. 1515 for the monastery of the Oliveti of S. Maria dello Spasimo, Palermo. The Transfiguration (Pinacoteca Vaticana, Rome) Commissioned in 1516 by Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici for his bishopric, the Cathedral at Narbonne. The painting probably begun in July 1518; adorned Raphael’s catafalque in the Pantheon after his death. 1517 Decoration of the Loggie at the Damasus Cortile, Vatican, Rome. Portrait of Pope Leo X with Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici and Cardinal Lorenzo de’ Rossi (Galleria Palatina, Florence). The painting was sent to Florence in September 1518. Vision of Ezechiel (Galleria Palatina, Florence) Vasari saw this small format panel in the house of Conte Vincenzo Ercolani in Bologna. Frescoing of the Loggia di Psyche in Villa Farnesina, Rome, with representations of the story of Cupid and Psyche after Apuleius’s ‘Golden Ass’; probably in view of the marriage of Agostino Chigi to Francesca Ordeaschi. Decoration completed in early 1519. 1518 St. Michael Fighting Satan (Louvre, Paris) Signed and dated at the border of St. Michael’s garment: RAPHAEL VRBINAS PINGEBAT MD XVIII. Donated to King Francis I of France, probably in connection with the Concordance of Bolo-gna by order of the Pope, by Lorenzo de’ Medici, as confirmed by numerous letters dating from 1518. The Holy Family of Francis I (Louvre, Paris) Signed and dated on the border of Marie’s mantle: RAPHAEL VRBINAS/S PINGEBAT MD XVIII, above it: ROMAE. Commissioned in 1518 by Pope Leo X as a present for Queen Claude of France and delivered at Fontainebleau.

82

1519/20 The Visitation (Prado, Madrid) Signed centrally at the bottom: RAPHAEL VRBINAS F:MARINVS BRANCONIVS F.F. Probably commissioned for S. Silvestro in L’Aquila by Marino Branconio through mediation of his son Giovanni, Chamberlain at the Papal Court. Since 1665 in the Escorial. The Holy Family under the Oak Tree (Prado, Madrid) Signed below the cradle: RAPHAEL PINXIT. Raph

ael died on Good Friday, 6th April 1520. Buried in the Pantheon, Rome

Selected Bibliography

G. Vasari, 1568 Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de’ piu eccelenti pittori, scultori, e architettori scritte da M. Giorgio Vasari, Firenze 1568, 3 vols., ed. G. Milanesi, Florence 1878-85 V. Vittoria, 1703 Vincenzo Vittoria, Indice dell’ opera di Raffaello Sanzio d’Urbino pubblicate coll’intagli delle stampe, Rome 1703 (Ms. Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence, No. J 7559) A. Félibien, 1705 André Félibien, Entretiens sur les vies et les ouvrages des plus excellens Peintres, anciens et modernes, London 1705 L. Lanzi, 1795-96 Luigi Lanzi, Storia pittorica d’ltalia, Dal risorgimento delle belle arti fin presso al fine del XVIII secolo, Bassano 1795-96 T. Euboeus, 1819 Tauriscus Euboeus (Baron de Lepel), Catalogue des Estampes gravées d’après Rafael, Frank-furt a. M. 1819 J. D. Passavant, 1839 Johann David Passavant, Rafael von Urbino und sein Vater Giovanni Santi, 3 vols., Leipzig 1839-58 G. Vallardi, 1842 Giuseppe Vallardi, Notizie sopra un dipinto di Raffaele rappresentante la Sacra Famiglia in riposo posseduto dalla nobile famiglia di Castelbarco, Milan 1842

83

Ch. Le Blanc 1854/90 Charles Le Blanc, Manuel de l’amateur d’estampes, 4 vols., Paris 1854-90 (reprint Amsterdam 1970) J. D. Passavant, 1860 Raphael d’ Urbin, 2 vols., Paris 1860 F. A. Gruyer, 1869 F. A. Gruyer, Les Vierges de Raphael et l’iconographie de la Vierge, 3 vols., Paris 1869 G. Conestabile, 1872 Giancarlo Conestabile, Catalogue descriptif des anciens tableaux et deseins appartenant à Monsieur le Comte Scipion Conestabile della Staffa et exposés dans sa maison à Perouse, Perugia 1872 J. A. Crowe - G. B. Cavalcaselle, 1883 Joseph Archer Crowe and Giovanni B. Cavalcaselle, Raphael. Life and Works, 2 vols., London 1882-1883 J. A. Crowe - G. B. Cavalcaselle, 1885 Joseph Archer Crowe and Giovanni B. Cavalcaselle, Raphael. Sein Leben und seine Werke, 2 vols., Leipzig 1885 A. van Drach, 1891 Alhard van Drach, ‘Mittheilungen aus dem Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Wilhelm VIII. mit dem Baron Häckel, betr. Gemäldeerwerbungen für die Kasseler Galerie’ in: Hessenland, Zeit-schrift für hessische Geschichte und Literatur, vol. 5, 1891, p. 4 and pp. 18-19 G. Gronau, 1904 Georg Gronau, Die Kunstbestrebungen der Herzöge von Urbino, I, in: Jahrbuch der preußi-schen Kunstsammlungen XXV, 1904, Supplement, p. 1 f. A. Luzio, 1913 Alessandro Luzio, La Galleria dei Gonzaga venduta all’Inghilterra nel 1627-28. Documenti degli Archivi di Mantova e Londra, Milano 1913 W. Bombe, 1914 Walter Bombe, Raffaels Peruginer Jahre, in: Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft IV, 1914, p. 296 f. G. Gronau, 1923 Georg Gronau. Raffael. Des Meisters Gemälde (= Klassiker der Kunst), 5th revised edition, Stuttgart / Berlin / Leipzig 1923 F. Baumgart, 1931 Fritz Baumgart, Beiträge zu Raffael und seiner Werkstatt, in: Münchner Jahrbuch der bilden-den Kunst, N. F. VIII, 1931, p. 49 f.

84

A. L. Mayer, 1931 August L. Mayer, Sitzungsberichte der Münchner Kunstgeschichtlichen Gesellschaft: Vortrag zur Hl. Familie mit dem Lamm, in: Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, N. S. VII, 1931, p. 378 A. Stix, L. Fröhlich, 1932 Alfred Stix, Lili Fröhlich, Beschreibender Katalog der Handzeichnungen der Graphischen Sammlung Albertina, vol. III: die Zeichnungen der toskanischen, umbrischen und römischen Schulen, Vienna 1932 Lee of Fareham, 1934 Viscount Lee of Fareham, A new version of Raphael’s Holy Family with the Lamb (with con-tributory notes by Roger Fry, Kenneth Clark, Oscar Fischel and A. P. Laurie), in: The Burling-ton Magazine, LXIV, 1934, pp. 3-19 A. L. Mayer, 1934 August L. Mayer, A new version of Raphael’s Holy Family with the Lamb, in: The Burlington Magazine, LXIV, 1934, p. 146 f. O. Fischel, 1935 Oskar Fischel, Santi, Raffaello, in: Thieme-Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künst-ler, vol. XXIX, Leipzig 1935 F. Saxl, 1935 Fritz Saxl, Raphael’s ‘Holy Family with the Lamb’ in the possession of Lord Lee. Manuscript, Warburg Institute, London 1935 A. Venturi, 1935 Adolfo Venturi, Storia dell’ arte Italiana, IX/2, Milan 1935 V. Golzio, 1936 Vincenzo Golzio, Raffaello nei documenti, nelle testimonianze dei contemporanei e nella lette-ratura del suo secolo, Città del Vaticano 1936 G. Gronau, 1936 Georg Gronau, Documenti artistici urbinati, Florence 1936 W. Suida, 1941 Wilhelm Suida, Raphael, London / New York 1941 A. E. Popham - J. Wilde, 1949 A. E. Popham, Johannes Wilde, The Italian Drawings of the XV and XVI centuries in the Col-lection of His Majesty the King at Windsor Castle, London 1949 S. Ortolani, 1942 Sergio Ortolani, Raffaello, Bergamo 1942, 2nd edition 1945 O. Fischel, 1948 Oskar Fischel, Raphael, 2 vols., London 1948

85

C. Gamba, 1949 Carlo Gamba, Raffaello, Novara 1949 E. Carli, 1951 Enzo Carli, Raffaello, Milan 1951 G. Fiocco, 1954 Giuseppe Fiocco, Fra Bartolommeo e Raffaello, in: Rivista d’Arte, XXIX, 1954, p. 43 R. Longhi, 1955 Roberto Longhi, Percorso di Raffaello giovine, in: Paragone, May 1955, p. 8 f. M. Putscher, 1955 Marielene Putscher, Raphaels Sixtinische Madonna. Das Werk und seine Wirkung, Tübingen 1955 E. Camesasca, 1956 Ettore Camesasca, Tutta la pittura di Raffaello, I Quadri, Milan 1956, 2nd edition 1962 K. T. Parker, 1956 K. T. Parker, Catalogue of the collection of drawings in the Ashmolean Museum, Vol. 2: Ital-ian Schools, Oxford 1956 W. Schöne, 1958 Wolfgang Schöne, Raphael, Berlin and Darmstadt 1958 Exh. Cat. Stuttgart 1958/59 Meisterwerke aus baden-württembergischem Privatbesitz, Staatsgalerie Stuttgart, Stuttgarter Galerieverein, 9 October 1958 - 10 January 1959 A. Chastel, 1959 André Chastel, Art et humanisme à Florence au temps de Laurent le Magnifique, Paris 1959 R. Oertel, 1960 Robert Oertel, Italienische Malerei his zum Ausgang der Renaissance. Meisterwerke der Alten Pinakothek München, Munich 1960 S.Freedberg, 1961 Sidney Freedberg, Painting of the High Renaissance in Rome and Florence, 2 vols., Cam-bridge, Mass. 1961 O. Fischel, 1962 Oskar Fischel, Raphael, Berlin 1962 P. Pouncey - J. A. Gere, 1962 Philip Pouncey - John A. Gere, Italian Drawings in the department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, London 1962 A. M. Brizio, 1963 Anna Maria Brizio, ‘Raffaello’, in: Enciclopedia Universale dell’ Arte, vol. XI, Venice 1963

86

F. J. Sanchez Canton, 1963 Francisco Xavier Sanchez Canton, Museo del Prado, Catalogo de las Pinturas, Madrid 1963 W. von Both - H. Vogel, 1964 Wilhelm von Both - Hans Vogel, Landgraf Wilhelm VIII. von Hessen-Kassel. Ein Fürst der Rokokozeit, Munich / Berlin 1964 L. Dussler, 1966 Luitpold Dussler, Raffael. Kritisches Verzeichnis der Gemälde, Wandbilder und Bildteppiche, Munich 1966 M. Prisco - P. De Vecchi, 1966 Michele Prisco, Pierluigi De Vecchi, L’opera completa di Raffaello, Milan 1966 A. Schug, 1967 Albert Schug, Zur Chronologie von Raffaels Werken der vorrömischen Zeit. Überlegungen im Anschluß an das Kritische Werkverzeichnis der Gemälde, Wandbilder und Bildteppiche Raffaels von L. Dussler, in: Pantheon, XXV, 1967, p. 470 f. C. H. Clough, 1967 Cecil H. Clough, The relations between the English and Urbino Courts, in: Studies in the Ren-aissance, XIV, 1967, p. 202 f. A. Schug, 1968 Albert Schug, Zur Ikonographie von Leonardos Londoner Karton, in: Pantheon, XXVI, 1968, p. 446 f. and XXVII, 1969, p. 24 f. G. Gronau - E. Herzog, 1969 Georg Gronau, Erich Herzog, Die Gemäldegalerie der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen Kassel, Hanau 1969 J. Shearman, 1970 John Shearman, Raphael at the Court of Urbino, in: The Burlington Magazine, CXII, Febr. 1970, p. 72 f. S. J. Freedberg, 1971 Sidney J. Freedberg, Painting in Italy 1500-1600, Harmondsworth 1971 L. Dussler, 1971 Luitpold Dussler, Raphael. A critical Catalogue of his Pictures, Wall-Paintings and Tapestries, London / New York 1971 W. Kelber, 1979 Wilhelm Kelber, Raphael von Urbino. Leben und Werk, Stuttgart 1979 J. M. Lehmann, 1980 Jürgen M. Lehmann, Italienische, französische und spanische Gemälde des 16. bis 18. Jahr-hunderts (Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Katalog I), Fri-dingen 1980

87

W. Braunfels - L. Dussler - W. Sauerländer, 1980 Wolfgang Braunfels, Luitpold Dussler, Willibald Sauerländer, Museo del Prado, Pintura ex-tranjera, Guia illustrada, 2 vols., Madrid 1980 F. W. Hollstein, 1980 F. W. Hollstein’s Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, vol. XXII, Amster-dam 1980 P. L. De Vecchi, 1981 Pier Luigi De Vecchi, Raffaello. La pittura, Florence 1981 H. Zerner - P. L. De Vecchi - J. P. Cuzin, 1982 Henri Zerner, Pier Luigi De Vecchi, Jean Pierre Cuzin, Tout l’oeuvre de Raphael, Paris 1982 J. Beck, 1982 James Beck, Raffaello, Milan 1982 S. Béguin, 1982 Sylvie Béguin, Un nouveau Raphael. Un ange du retable de Saint Nicolas de Tolentino, in: Revue du Louvre, No. 2, 1982, pp. 99-115 K. Oberhuber, 1982 Konrad Oberhuber, Raffaello, Milan 1982 P. L. De Vecchi, 1983 Pier Luigi De Vecchi, Raffael. Das malerische Werk, Freiburg, Brsg., 1983 Exh. Cat. Coburg 1983/84 Raphael - Reproduktionsgraphik aus vier Jahrhunderten, December 1983 - April 1984, Kunst-sammlungen der Veste Coburg / Coburger Landesstiftung, (Kataloge der Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg, published by Joachim Kruse), text by Susanne Netzer Exh. Cat. Dresden 1983 Raffael zu Ehren, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Albertinum, 17 Mai - 7 September 1983, Dresden 1983 Exh. Cat. London 1983 Drawings by Raphael from the Royal Library, the Ashmolean, the British Museum, Chats-worth and other English collections, J. A. Gere, N. Turner, London, British Museum 1983 Exh. Cat. Munich 1983 Hubertus von Sonnenburg, Raphael in der Alten Pinakothek. Geschichte und Wiederherstel-lung des ersten Raphael-Gemäldes in Deutschland und der von König Ludwig I. erworbenen Madonnenbilder, Munich 1983 Exh. Cat. Paris 1983/84 Hommage à Raphael. Raphael dans les collections françaises, Grand Palais, Paris, 15 Novem-ber 1983-13 February 1984

88

Exh. Cat. Washington, 1983 David Alan Brown, Raphael and America, Catalogue of an exhibition held at the National Gal-lery of Art, Washington D.C., 9 January - 8 May 1983, Washington 1983 Exh. Cat. Vienna, 1983 Raphael in der Albertina, Graphische Sammlung Albertina, revised by Erwin Mitsch, 7 Sep-tember - 13 November 1983, Vienna, 1983 J. P. Cuzin, 1983 Jean Pierre Cuzin, Raphael. Vie et oeuvre, Paris 1983 P. Joannides, 1983 Paul Joannides, The drawings of Raphael. With a complete Catalogue, Oxford 1983 R. Jones - N. Penny, 1983 Roger Jones, Nicholas Penny, Raphael. New Haven 1983 (German edition, Munich 1983) E. Knab - E. Mitsch - K. Oberhuber, 1983 Eckard Knab, Erwin Mitsch, Konrad Oberhuber, Raphael. Die Zeichnungen, unter Mitarbeit von S. Ferino Pagden, with an introduction by W. Koschatzky, Stuttgart 1983 P. L. De Vecchi, 1983 Pier Luigi De Vecchi, Raphael. Das malerische Werk, Freiburg 1983 Exh. Cat. Florence, 1984 Raffaello a Firenze. Dipinti e disegni delle collezioni fiorentine, Florence, Palazzo Pitti, 11 January - 29 April 1984, Milan 1984 J. M. Lehmann, 1984 Jürgen M. Lehmann, Paris, Grand Palais. ‘Hommage à Raphael. Raphael dans les collections françaises’ in: Pantheon, XLII, 1984, p. 178 f. Exh. Cat. Madrid 1985 Rafael en Espana, Museo del Prado, Madrid, May - August 1985 (with contributions from M. Mena Marquez, M. del Carmen Garrido and others), Madrid 1985 Exh. Cat. Rome, 1985 Raphael Invenit. Stampe da Raffaello nelle collezioni dell’ Istituto Nazionale per la Grafica. Catalogo a cura di Grazia Bernini Pezzini, Stefania Massari, Simonetta Prosperi Valenti Rodi-no, Ist. Naz. per la Grafica, Rome 1985 R. Quednau, 1985 Rolf Quednau, Raphael und ‘alcune stampe di maniera tedesca’, in: Zeitschrift für Kunstge-schichte, 46, 1985, pp. 129-175 J. Beck, 1986 Raphael before Rome. Studies in the History of Art, vol. 17, Centre for Advanced Studies in the Visual Arts, Symposium Series V, published by James Beck, National Gallery of Art, Washington 1986, pp. 7-12

89

J. M. Lehmann, 1986 Jürgen M. Lehmann, Italienische, französische und spanische Meister in der Kasseler Gemälde-galerie, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Kassel, 1st edition, Melsungen 1986 B. Passamani, 1986 Bruno Passamani-Renata Stradiotti, Raffaello e Brescia, Echi e Presenze, Assessorato alla cul-tura-Pinacoteca Tosio Martinengo, Brescia 1986 F. F. Mancini, 1987 Francesco Federico Mancini, Raffaello in Umbria. Cronologia e committenza. Nuovi studi e documenti, Perugia 1987 L. D. Ettlinger - H. S. Ettlinger, 1987 Leopold D. Ettlinger, Helen S. Ettlinger, Raphael, Oxford 1987 J. M. Lehmann, 1987 Jürgen M. Lehmann, Raffaels ‘Hl. Familie mit dem Lamm’, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, in: Informationen, Theater und Musik, Kunst und Wissenschaft in Kassel, No. 10, Oct. 1987, p. 12 f. S. Ferino Pagden, 1988 Sylvia Ferino Pagden, Post Festum. Die Raffaelforschung seit 1983, in: Kunstchronik, May 1988, vol. 5, pp. 194-216 (with selected bibliography 1983-1987) S. Ferino Pagden - M. A. Zancan, 1989 Sylvia Ferino Pagden, Maria Antonietta Zancan, Raffaello. Catalogo completo, Florence 1989 J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1989 Jürg Meyer zur Capellen, Raffaels ‘Heilige Familie mit dem Lamm’. Anmerkungen zu einem Problem der Kunstgeschichte, in: Pantheon, XLVII, 1989, pp. 98-111 J. Meyer zur Capellen, FAZ 1989 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 Carlo Pedretti, Raphael. His Life & Work in the Splendours of the Italian Renaissance. With new Documents and an unpublished Essay by Vincenzo Golzio, Florence 1989 Exh. Florence 1989/90 Raffaello. La ‘Madonna Conestabile’, Leningrado, Museo dell’Ermitage, Firenze, Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, December 1989 - January 1990 (Folding sheet with text by Marco Chia-rini) P. L. De Vecchi, 1990 Pier Luigi De Vecchi, Madonnen aus Florenz und Rom, Landshut 1990 Exh. Cat. Florence 1991 Raffaello a Pitti. La Madonna del Baldacchino. Storia e restauro. Florence, Palazzo Pitti, 23 June - 15 September 1991. Catalogo a cura di Marco Chiarini, Marco Ciatti, Serena Padovani, Florence 1991

90

J. M. Lehmann, 1991 Jürgen M. Lehmann, Italienische, französische und spanische Meister in der Kasseler Gemälde-galerie, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Kassel, 2nd revised edition, Melsungen 1991 E. Ullmann, 1991 Ernst Ullmann, Raphael, 2nd edition, Leipzig 1991 Exh. Cat. Budapest, 1991 Alessandro Vezzosi, Leonardo da Vinci. Attualità e mito. Budapest, March - April 1991 Master Drawings, 1992 Symposion: From Cartoon to Painting, Raphael and his Contemporaries, held at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, organized by Nicholas Penny with J. Shearman, C. Bambach Cappel, A. Nesselrath, L. Wolk-Simon, A. Nova, in: Master Drawings, vol. XXX No. 1, 1992, pp. 3-108 S. Hager, 1992 Serafina Hager (ed.), Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphael in Renaissance Florence from 1500 to 1508 (Symposium Fiesole 1989), Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C. 1992 (including D. A. Brown, Raphael, Leonardo, and Perugino) P. Joannides, 1993 Paul Joannides, Raphael, his studio and his copyists, in: Paragone, XLIV, N. F. 41-42 (523-525), September - November 1993, pp. 3-29 E. Mercati, 1994 Enrico Mercati, Andrea Baronci e gli altri committenti tifernati di Raffaello: con documenti inediti, Città di Castello 1994 P. L. De Vecchi, 1995 Pier Luigi De Vecchi, Raffaello - La mimesi, l’armonia e l’invenzione, Florence 1995 J. Meyer zur Capellen, 1996 Jürg Meyer zur Capellen, Raffael in Florenz, London - München 1996

91

Vote of Thanks

This exhibition could not have materialized without the cooperation and active support of the participating museums and institutions. In addition to the directors of the Museums at Angers, Pavia, Oxford, Munich and Coburg, whose names are already quoted in the Preface, I wish to express my special gratitude to: Christine Besson (Angers), Dr. Susanna Zatti (Civici Musei Pavia), Dr. Catherine Whistler (Oxford), Dr. Cornelia Syre and Veronica Poll-Frommel (Munich), Dr. Christiane Wiebel (Coburg), A. V. Griffith, Katherine Ward (British Museum, London), Dr. Artemisia Calcagni (Florence), Dr. Birgit Laschke (Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence), Dr. Sivigliano Alloisi (Rome), R. W. Stedman, (Wilton House), Amélie Lefebure (Chantilly), Dr. Kurt Wettengl (Frankfurt/M), Dr. Gregor J. M. Weber (Dresden), Anette Dopatka-Saltenberger M. A. (Usingen). Dr. Susan Tipton’s texts on the graphic works the table of events and the bibliography were indispensable. She also made a valuable contribution to the ‘mise en scène’ of the exhibition. For this she is to be especially thanked here. Even though our request for a loan was unsuccessful I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the Vice-Director of the Museo del Prado, Dr. Manuela Mena Marques. The Willi Leibbrand GmbH, Bad Homburg and the Directorate of the Schloßhotel Reinhartshausen did everything in their power to assist in the search for the copy missing from Reinhartshausen. I hope that all owners of further copies after Raphael’s Holy Family with the Lamb will respond to my plea to get in touch with me so that the research of this subject can be continued as far as possible.

Jürgen M. Lehmann

92

Photo Credits and Copyright© Colour plates (I) and black and white photographs (figures) (1) Historisches Museum Frankfurt-am-Main (I) Derechos Reservados © Museo del Prado, Madrid (III), 15, 16, 17 Cliché Musées d’Angers (V), 22, 23, 39 Civici Musei, Pavia (VIII), 27, 40, 42 Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungcn, Munich (VII), 6, 8 Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (IX), 14, 28 Kunstsammlungen der Veste, Coburg 24, 35, 38 Wilton Estate, Salisbury, Wilts. (X), 30 Musée du Louvre, Paris 11 Eremitage, St. Petersburg, 12 Soprimendenza per i Beni Anistici e Storici, Galleria Corsini, Rome 33 Nationalmuseum, Warsaw 32 The British Museum, London 31, 43, 44 Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence 34 Photographie Giraudon 13 Private (II, IV), 5, 7, 9, 10, 15a, 16a, 18, 19, 20, 21, 21a, 29, 36, 37, 43a Staatliche Museen Kassel (E. Müller, M. Büsing, A. Hensmanns, G. Bößert, U. Brunzel) (VI), 1, 2, 3, 4, 25, 26

Dr. phil. Jürgen M. Lehmann

Photo: Rainer Brem Landshut About the book: The origin of a small devotional painting, “The Holy Family with Lamb” by Raphael in 1504, falls exactly at the time of Michelangelo’s “David”, Leonardo’s “Mona Lisa” and Giorgione’s “Castelfranco Madonna”. The book looks into the predispositions and sources for the creation of this masterpiece, i.e. the relationship between the young Raphael and the 52-years-old Leonardo da Vinci. It looks at the numerous replicas, copies and variants from the 16th century and the subsequent existence of the motif in later graphic reproductions. Aspects around the history of the collections round off this monograph. About the author: Dr. phil. Jürgen M. Lehmann studied history of art and classical archaeology in Frankfurt/Main, Hei-delberg and Vienna. He gained his doctorate in 1967 on the subject “Domenico Fetti - life and work of the Roman painter”. Since 1968, he has been working on the stock of Italian, French and Spanish paintings at the State Museums of Kassel (formerly State Art Collections, Kassel). His opus magnum, the scientific catalogue “Italian, French and Spanish paintings from 16th to 18th century”, was pub-lished in 1980. Other books on the Kassel Picture Gallery and numerous publications in German and international art periodicals on Italian Renaissance and Baroque painting have made Dr. Lehmann well known among connoisseurs and amateurs of Italian art.

93