Raphael`s `Madonna dei garofani` Rediscovered

Raphael's 'Madonna dei garofani' Rediscovered
Author(s): Nicholas Penny
Source: The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 134, No. 1067, (Feb., 1992), pp. 67-81
Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/884991
Accessed: 28/04/2008 07:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmpl.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
NICHOLAS PENNY
Raphael's
'Madonna
dei
garofani'
rediscovered*
THERE
are numerous versions of Raphael's Madonna dei
garofani (the Madonna of thepinks). Many of them are obviously copies and in this century none has been generally
acknowledged as an original work by Raphael. Yet most
scholars agree that such an original must have existed.
Moreover the very abundance of the copies (see Appendix)
testifies to the composition's fame. The version which was
probably most esteemed in the first half of the last century
is that in the collection of the Duke of Northumberland
(Fig.3). In August last year the Duke generously agreed
to its being taken to the National Gallery, London for close
examination. The subtlety and assurance of the modelling
and the delicacy and solidity of the handling, qualities difficult to discern when the painting hung in the corridor at
Alnwick Castle, became more apparent in the conservation
studio, and the evidence revealed by both X-radiography
and, above all, infra-red reflectography, which will be
presented in this article, dispelled any residual doubts
that the original painting had been rediscovered. It was
clear too, and clearer still after the picture was cleaned by
Herbert Lank in October and November 1991, that it
had survived in exceptionally good condition.
The Alnwick Castle Madonnadei garofani is painted on a
panel 8 mm. thick. The back (Fig.2), which has been
polished, exhibits the very close grain of a fruitwood such
as cherry (used by Raphael as a support for the Transfiguration). ' A border varying from 6 mm. (at left of the lower,
and right of the upper, edge) to 1 mm. (on the sides
towards the top) has been left unpainted but is covered
with the gesso ground. Such a border is unusual in Raphael's
small panel paintings only in its irregularity.2 There is a
vertical split approximately in the centre of the lower half
of the panel, passing through the back of the Virgin's
hand and through the lower leg of the infant Christ, and
to either side of this there are several finer and shorter
vertical cracks. The paint has been disturbed, probably
by a defect in the preparation of the gesso ground, across
the right leg and belly, and especially in the thigh, of the
infant Christ and there are numerous pin-sized losses here.3
There has been some blistering in the dark background
areas beside Christ's head and belly and there are half a
dozen small losses here and a few elsewhere, all evident in
the photograph of the painting taken when it was being
cleaned (Fig.4).
The medium is almost certain to be predominantly oil,
although the painting's small size and excellent preservation
prevented any sample being taken to verify this. The
narrow strips of painted surface concealed by the frame
show that the green of the curtains was originally more
brilliant and that the tone of the blue sky has very slightly
altered. Other versions and prints support the conjecture
that the blue robe over the Virgin's left shoulder was once
more easily distinguished from the dark background and
that the contrast was clearer between the edge of the
curtain above the top of her head and the wall behind. In
the distant landscape the horizon line continuing under
the rock to the left of the tower is now visible - a revision,
or at least a procedure, improbable for a copyist.4 Slight
alterations to the outline of the cheek and chin of Christ
are also visible. The surprising touch of pale blue in the
Virgin's robe beside her right hand may not have been
intended to be so apparent.5 Shell gold was used for the
haloes, which are now inconspicuous; their chief lines are
no longer complete. Close examination reveals a few supplementary discontinuous concentric lines in the Virgin's
halo.
The Madonnadeigarofani must have been painted shortly
before Raphael left Florence for Rome, probably in 1507
or 1508. The Large CowperMadonna of 1508 (Fig.6) seems
to develop the composition in reverse, with the figures
enlarged, varied in action and given an outdoor setting.6
The date 1508 is also found on a painting at Wilton, per-
*The painting will be the subject of a special display at The National Gallery
between 12th February and 29th March. This has been sponsored by Hiscox
Syndicates Ltd, underwriters,and Blackwall Green Ltd, brokers,both of Lloyds
of London, who have also supported the cost of the colour plate illustrating this
article. The Duke of Northumberland has generously agreed to the painting
remaining on loan at The National Gallery until March 1993.
The author is grateful to the Duke of Northumberland, the Duchess of
Northumberlandand Lady Victoria Cuthbertfor theirhospitalityand encouragement. Caroline Armitage helped to organise the preliminary investigation of
the painting at The National Gallery. Colin Shrimpton, archivist at Alnwick
Castle, helped with the investigation of the family papers. Examination of the
painting in The National Gallery was made possible by the Chief Restorer,
Martin Wyld. I am indebted to discussions with him, with Jill Dunkerton and
with Herbert Lank. I am most grateful to Rachel Billinge who constructed the
infra-redreflectogrammosaics with great care and skill, and tojaynie Anderson
who shared her knowledge of the Camuccini collection.
' The size and condition of the panel prevented any sample of the wood being
taken for analysis. It is possiblethat the wood was polishedin the early nineteenth
century to eradicate evidence of the owner prior to its acquisition by Vincenzo
Camuccini. A circle lightly incised in the wood is intersected by left and right
edges, perhaps reflecting a plan for a tondo which was subsequently abandoned.
The three seals, all in identical wax, are found on all the paintings at Alnwick
which came from the Camuccini collection. One of these is the seal of Vincenzo,
another perhaps that of Pietro, and the third (with the Colosseum) of an official
Roman agency 'della antichita e pittura', perhaps licensing the export. It has been
wrongly supposed that identical seals on the canvas of Bellini's Feast of the Gods
were applied soon after acquisition of the painting by the Camuccini in the late
The Feast of the Gods: Conservation,
eighteenth century; see D. BULLand j. PLESTERS:
Examination, and Interpretation,Washington [1990], p.21.
2The lack of register between painted image and support might suggest that the
painting was not made on an easel. The border of the Dream of a Knight is widest
along the lower edge - averaging 0.25 cm. - and finer elsewhere. That of the
Garvagh Madonna is 1 cm. along the lower edge and 0.25 cm. elsewhere. Borders
are often excluded from reproductions of Raphael's paintings, but see H. VON
SONNENBURG: Raphael in der Alten Pinakothek, Munich [1983], frontispiece (for the
Canigiani Madonna) and fig. 74 (for the EsterhdzyMadonna).
3This is a problem also in parts of Raphael's Ansidei Madonna and in The
National Gallery's Portraitofayoung man by Botticelli - for which seeJ. DUNKERTON,
S. FOISTER, D. GORDON and N. PENNY: Giotto to Diirer, London
and New
Haven
[1991], p.164, fig.215.
4This, perhaps the single most visible piece of evidence for the autograph status
of the painting, was surprisingly not mentioned by Cavalcaselle (see note 44
below).
5Herbert Lank has suggested to me that Raphael had reserved an area here for
the flowers.
6D.A. BROWN:Raphael and America, Washington [1983], pp.157-58. I am grateful
to Dr Brown for discussing with me the relationship between the Madonna dei
garofani and the Large CowperMadonna and the relationship of both with Leonardo.
67
RAPHAEL'S
1. Benois Madonna, by Leonardo da Vinci. Panel transferred to canvas,
48 by 31 cm. (Hermitage, Leningrad).
'MADONNA
DEI
GAROFANI'
haps reflecting a composition by Raphael or by a close follower, which reverses the Madonnadeigarofaniand alters the
nature of the interior setting (Fig.5).7 Telling comparisons
can be made with Raphael's Bellejardinierein the Louvre
also of 1507 - for the head of Christ with the Borghese
Entombmentalso of 1507 for the landscape and architecture- and, perhaps most strikingly, with the St Catherine,
generally dated 1508- for the Virgin's hair, eyebrows and
mouth (Figs.8 and 10). It is unlikely that Raphael executed
the painting in Rome because the pose of Christ was borrowed by Fra Bartolommeo (Fig.9) in a drawing used for
several works, the first of which seems to be a Holy Family,
signed by his partner Albertinelli and dated 1509.8 Many
of the paintings made by Raphael in Florence during this
period were inspired by the work of Leonardo and some
may even be considered as variants on a familiar model
by that artist. The Madonnadei garofani returns to an early
painting by Leonardo, the Benois Madonna (Fig.l), generally dated to the late 1470s. This composition seems to
have been easily accessible to artists: several other paintings, most of them Florentine, are derived from it.9
The theme of the Virgin holding a bunch of flowers in
one hand and showing one stem to the Child seated in her
lap is taken from the Benois Madonna. Raphael's Virgin
presents a carnation, or pink, to her son, as in another of
Leonardo's early paintings, the Madonnawith a carnationin
the Alte Pinakothek in Munich. This flower was not uncommon in betrothal portraiture of this period as an emblem of true love and could also be regarded as symbolic
of healing and divine protection.'0 While the composition
of the Madonna dei garofani also derives from the Benois
Madonna, the three hands in the centre of the picture form
a much less tight and intricate pattern and the Virgin's
hands are both more open and less twisted, assuming the
relatively stiff positions which Raphael gave two or more
years earlier to the personification of Pleasure in the Dream
of a knight (Fig. 11) but, characteristically, reversed. The
Virgin's hair is less densely braided and knotted. The
drapery of her sleeve has a plasticity which owes much to
Leonardo, with a similar bunching in the upper arm, a
stiffened opening to the outer sleeve at the elbow, and a
large fold in the robe below, turned back to reveal the
lining; but in every case the forms are less broken and there
is a contrast with tighter and smoother areas of drapery.
Most notable of all the differences is the placing of the infant Christ further from the Virgin so that he is no longer
7I am grateful to the Earl of Pembroke for letting me examine this painting
closely at Wilton. The inscription in gold on the border of the Virgin's dress
reads 'RAPHAELLO VRBINAS MOVIII' (presumably for MDVIII). This
seems to be the composition engraved (in reverse) byJ. Morin. 'Ihis in turn was
the model for a line engraving by Landon. In SIDNEY 16TH EARL OF PEMBROKE:A
at WiltonHouse,London and
Catalogue
of thePaintingsandDrawingsin theCollection
New York [1968], p.85, it is described correctly as seventeenth century. ''he
sixteenth-century original (if there was one) oddly combines a figure group of
Raphael's Florentine period with the sort of dark interior and large curtain
favoured by Giulio Romano in the 1520s.
8'1he drawing also served as a model for Fra Bartolommeo'sown works, most
e
notably the Pala del Gran Consiglio. See c. FISCHER: Disegnidi Fra Bartolommeo
della sua scuola,Florence [1986], no.58, Fig.76. T'he connexion between this
drawing and Raphael's Madonnadeigarofaniwas kindly pointed out to me by
David Ekserdjian:it seems never to have been noticed in print.
9E.g. Christie'sNew York, 18thJanuary 1983, lot 31; Colonna Gallery, Rome
('R': 'Codicillo alla Madonna Benois', Criticad'Arte [Oct.-Dec.
2. Back of the panel of Fig.3.
68
1985], pp.80-82);
Sotheby's, London, 6th May 1964, lot 23 (as Lorenzo di Credi). A notable
example not of luscan origin is the painting attributed to the Maitre du Saint
Sang- Sotheby's, London, 18thJune 1952, lot 104.
'ISee E. WOLFFHARDT: 'Beitragezu Pflanzensymbolik',Zeitschrift
fur Kunstwissenschaft,VII [1954], pp. 177-96.
RAPHAEI'S
'MADONNA
DEI
GAROFANI'
V
_r00;0
502~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
e.,
u.
?;
:
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~",
,:ii
I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~il 31
F~~~~~~~
?
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i
, f"R'*Xy*'ja"f;;4si:,f
T" 7
]1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
===_z=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?
lio((!(lli
3.M((1tlZ(
N;t OIXl
( <l(
,I
)yRtl)l.(l.I
)(7-)2.1)llt
,
tI) 2 (m.(lu(
f orllml(rlnd(
Il\iol,Allw(
aslc
Nrtu
}-( lsll;
l lsll
o h
0sil
7I,~~~
_
1507-01.1Panti,
o)nloanto the
29 by 23 cm. (Dukcof'Northumberland
l.Aa(,ot///ai
colIcction,AInwickCastlc,Northumberland'
deiuaro/hni',
by Rap)ha(q.
National
Gallcry,
,,o_dn).
69
RAPHAEL
S
'MADONNA
DEI
GAROFANI'
4.
4. Photograph of Fig.3 during cleaning.
6. Large Cowuper
Madonna, by Raphael. 1508. Pancl, 68 by 46 cm.
(National Gallcry of'Art, Washington, D.C.).
-.
5. Madonna and child. Italian, scventccnth-ccntury?
(Wilton House, Wiltshire).
7()
Pancl, 31.7 by 22.6 cm.
, II
--
4
I
-
"or\
7. Studics of thc Madonna and Child, by Raphacl. 1508. 'cn and ink with
red chalk on paper, 26 hy 19.2 cm. (Albcrtina, Vienna).
RAPHAEL
S
'MADONNA
DEI
GAROFANI'
10.
10. Detail of St Catherine,by Raphael. 1507-08. Panel, 71.5 by 55.7 cm.
(whole). (National Gallery, London).
8.
8.
9. Madonna and (hild, by Fra Bartolommco. Black chalk with white
h ightnlling oll tiln(td )papr, 33.9 by 23.1 cm. (Uffizi, Florcncc).
)etail of Fig.3.
11. Detail of Dream ofa knight, by Raphael. c. 1504. Panel, 17.1 by 17.1 cm.
(whole). (National Gallery, London).
71
RAPHAEL
S 'MADONNA
united with his mother in a single serpentine sequence of
forms. Raphael provides a securer support for the group
by extending the Virgin's right thigh and placing a cushion
between her and the child. Format must have been a
factor here, for Leonardo continues the lines of the arched
top of the panel in his composition, which Raphael had
no need to do.
T'he Virgin's transparent veil, with the thread of highlight on its edge as it floats over her shoulder, is one of the
most captivating passages in the Madonna dei garofani.
1Theremay originally have been an equivalent in Leonardo's
Benois Madonna as there certainly are in other works by
him. Another similarity is the Virgin's open mouth, something Leonardo may have adopted from Florentine sculpture. In the Large CowperMadonna the Virgin's mouth is
closed while that of the child is open. Raphael's preoccupation in 1507-08 with parted lips, which may well
have begun with the Madonnadei garofani, is evident in the
Entombment,the Canigiani Madonna, in Munich and the St
Catherine.'The colouring of the Madonna dei garofani may
also owe something to that of the Benois Madonna,in which
the yellow of the Virgin's sleeve and of the lining of her
robe contrast with a slatey grey, and with pale ultramarine
blue and deep moss green. Certainly the striking golden
yellow used by Raphael for the lining of the Virgin's robe
is close to that found in several of Leonardo's works, most
notably in both the Paris and London versions of the
Virginof therocks.
1There are no drawings by Raphael which can be regarded
with certainty as preparatory for the Madonnadei garofani,
but a sheet in the Albertina (Fig.7) can be connected with
it. The study on the right is similar in composition, as is
the higher of the two pen studies on the left, but in reverse.
It is possible that this drawing was made after the painting
and represents the germ of the idea for the Large Cowper
Madonna: proposals for, or recollections of, at least four
other Madonna compositions by Raphael are found on the
same sheet. " Perhaps the composition of the Madonna dei
garofaniwas not worked out in the usual way in preparatory
drawings, for dependence upon an idea of Leonardo's
could mean there was less planning to do. If so, we would
expect that the underdrawing of the painting would itself
resemble a preparatory drawing. That is precisely what the
infra-red vidicon reveals an underdrawing (Figs.12-13,
15, 20-21) more similar to Raphael's drawings on paper
than any other so far published, and one which reveals no
evidence of transfer in the form of either dotted lines or
slow, careful outlines. Nor are there traces of incised stylus
lines. The medium of the underdrawing has not been
identified but the fineness of the lines and the difficulty of
detecting them in infra-red photographs (as distinct from
''hcse are: the (.olonna Madonna (top left group in red chalk), perhaps the Casa
Tempi Madonna (in reverse - top right group in red chalk), the Holy Family with
thepalm (pcn and ink group lower right), the Bridgewater Madonna (pen and ink
group on the verso). Sec P. JOANNIDES: The Drawings qf Raphael, Oxford [1983],
p. 177, no. 181, and E. KNAB, E. MITSCH and K. OBERHUBER: Raphael. Die .Zeichnungen,
Stuttgart [1983], p.571, nos.162-63. It should be noted that the group which
may represent the germ of the idea for the Large CowperMadonna is no less close
to a composition recorded in another pen drawing in the Albertina (Fischel
150, JOANNIDES, op.cit. no. 168) which in turn is close to a wash drawing in the
Louvre of the Virgin and Child in a landscape (Fischel 144, JOANNIDES, op.cit.
no. 167) and served as a composition used by other artists.
72
DEI
GAROFANI'
!
i
12.
.r
13.
RAPHAEL'S
'MADONNA
DEI
GAROFANI'
14.
A"?
/4/,,,,,NE) 1e W;
/
12. 1nFra-red rcflcc( graplh ofI'adetail of'Fig.3.
13. 1 ii t1a-redrcfI( tograph of'a detail oftFig.3.
14. I ntira-rcd reflectograph o'a detail of'the Small
(,%wperMadonna, by Raphael. c. 1505. Panel,
58 by 43 cm. (whole). (National Gallery of Art,
Washington, D.C.).
15.
15. Inifra-red refleetograph ofa detail of Fig.3.
73
RAPHAEL
S
'MADONNA
DEI
GAROFANI'
16. GarvaghMadonna,by Raphael. 1508-09. Panel, 38.7 by 32.7 cm.
(National Gallery, London).
17. Infra-redr(flc(tograph of a detail of Fig. 16.
16.
the vidicon) suggests that it is in metalpoint rather than
chalk. '2
Notable among the remarkably free and exploratory
passages of drawing which have been revealed is that of
the extended right foot of the Christ Child (Fig.21): anatomically implausible but wholly characteristic, it is defined
with rapid loops like those with which the active body of
the infant Christ is depicted on the sheet in the Albertina.
Numerous revisions are revealed in the drawing. The
outline of a forked tree trunk can be seen alongside the
rock to the left of the tower (Fig. 13). A different style of
dress was contemplated, with a brooch fastening at the
Virgin's right shoulder. The hair was to have been more
distinctly and elaborately plaited with three or four plaits
above the ear (Fig.12). The repeated lines seeking ideal
grace rather than anatomical truth in the Virgin's breast
are particularly impressive, and it is highly typical of
Raphael that he should have continued the segmental
curve of some of these lines through the Virgin's sleeve
(Fig. 15).
The underdrawing is close in style to that of the Small
Cowper Madonna (Fig. 14), a work of probably a year or
two earlier, although in that drawing there is evidence of
transfer in some parts. 13 The two most telling similarities
are the probing repetitions of outlines and the evenly
spaced hatched lines, both diagonal and horizontal. There
too we find the segmental curves of the Virgin's breast
continued through her arm. Also apparent is the use of
what might be called a structural contour. Remarkable in
both works is the way that the line of the brow of Christ is
swept round from nose to temple in a double curve. Another
example of this is the line which defines the curvature of
Christ's chest in the Madonna dei garofani, which may be
compared with those circling the back of Christ in the
Small CowperMadonna(National Gallery, Washington).
In the search for further comparative data, the Garvagh
Madonna (Fig. 16), as a painting of comparable size and
character (although a year or so later in date), was examined on the vidicon. The head of Christ is here modelled
in the same schematic way as the head of Christ in the
Madonna dei garofani, with intersecting curves in the lips,
simplified nostrils, and lines for the eyebrows which extend
to define the curvature of the skull (Fig. 18). The diagonal
shading in the head is similar as well. A broader style of
shading is used for the drapery beside Christ's right foot
and the ledge below (Fig. 19), just as it is beside his right
foot in the Madonna dei garofani (Fig.21). Christ's feet are
drawn with the same rapid loops used to isolate a circular
heel or an oval toe. Another especially noteworthy feature
of the underdrawing of the GarvaghMadonna is the use of
ovals to define the knuckles of the curling infantile fingers
(Fig. 17). On the vidicon screen this is visible in Christ's
hands in the Madonnadei garofani, though too faintly to be
seen clearly in reproduction, and it is also apparent in the
index finger of the left hand of St Caltherineand in the
raised hand of the angel to the left of the CanigianiMadonna.4
A comparison between the X-radiograph of the Madonna
dei garofani (Fig.22) and that of the Garvagh Madonna
'2'l'hc drawing in metalpoint which makes the most telling comparison is that
for the Iloly Family with the palm in the Louvre (Fischel 138, JOANNIDES, op.cit.
Studies in the History of Art, National
[1986], pp. 139-47, esp. 143-44.
Gallery of Washington,
abIove,no. 155).
'4For the Canigiani
and 'Ireatment of the Small Cowper Madonna, hy
Raphael at T'he National Gallcry of Art', in j. BECK, ed.: Raphael beJfre Rome,
not noticed this device in Raphael's drawings on papl)r.
':K.M. MERRILL: 'Examination
74
angel see SONNENBER(,,
op).i.
Vol.XVII
at note 2 ablove, Fig.67.
I have
RAPHAEL
S
'MADONNA
DEI
GAROFANI'
18. Infra-redreflectographof a detail of Fig. 16.
20. Infra-redreflectographof a detail of Fig.3.
19. 1nlra-redr(ele(ctographol a detail olfig. b.
21. Infra-redreflectographof a detail of Fig.3.
(Fig.23) shows many features in common, especially if
allowance is made for differences in density and sharpness
of image produced by the support (the GarvaghMadonnais
painted on a thicker panel, probably of poplar). While
the drapery folds of the GarvaghMadonna are more freely
and broadly brushed in unsurprisingly, given its later
date and slightly larger size -the painting of the flesh,
particularly the flesh of the children, produces a strongly
three-dimensional image in both X-rays. In each, the
placing of the densest highlights is most strikingly similar
in the outstretched arms of the Christ Child. Equally
distinctive are the solid touches of lead white to emphasise
the whites of the eyes of the Christ Child in the Madonna
deigarofani and the Infant Baptist in the GarvaghMadonna.
The X-ray and infra-red images of both paintings reveal
the many slight but significant refinements to the outlines
of forms characteristic of Raphael's paintings. Among the
more easily detected adjustments to the GarvaghMadonna
are those to the back of the Virgin's neck as it curves into
her shoulder and to the forehead and upper arm of the
Baptist. Similarly, in the Madonnadei garofani slight alterations can be seen in, for example, the forehead and cheek
of the Christ Child and along his right shin. The opaque
and somewhat blurred image of the Virgin's head in the
X-radiograph of the Madonna dei garofani indicates that
the position of her whole face has been shifted slightly,
75
RAPHAEL
S 'MAI)ONNA
DEI
GAROFANI
22. X-radiographof'Fig.3.
probably at a fairly early stage in the paint application, so
that it is now further in profile. The greater thickness of
the paint may account for the difficulty in detecting much
underdrawing in this area.15
This technical evidence may be compelling, but the high
quality of the painting is also obvious enough. Its neglect,
however, is only recent. The Madonna dei garofani was
bought by Algernon, fourth Duke of Northumberland
(1793-1865) in 1853, together with the Camuccini Collection. The whole collection, consisting of 74 paintings,
cost 125,000 Roman scudi (/27,589 8s. 6d), independent
of the bribes which the Duke paid to facilitate its export. 16
This collection had long been one of the sights of Rome,
but in 1851, when it was moved to a notable sixteenthcentury palace, Palazzo Cesi, it became more conspicuous
still.'7 It had been formed by Pietro Camuccini (17601833), the copyist, picture restorer and dealer, together
with his younger brother, Vincenzo (1771-1844), the
leading neo-classical painter in Rome. Pietro's activities
as a dealer have been described elsewhere.18 He worked
much in collaboration with Alexander Day, supplying the
latter, for instance, with both the GarvaghMadonna and
the St Catherinein 1800. Vincenzo was made a member of
the Accademia di San Luca in 1802, and its Princepsin
'"'lTh two paragraphs on the X-radiographs have been supplied by Jill
Dunkerton.
'lThecdetails of this transaction are contained in a letter in the Alnwick Castle
Archives to the 1)uke of 19th September 1853 from the German agent Emil
Braun. It will lbepublished IbyJaynieAnderson in: 'The Provenance of Bellini's
Feast of the Cods and a new/old interpretation', Studiesin the Historyof Art,
Vol.46, National Gallery of Art, Washington, forthcoming (1992). I am grateful
to Dr Anderson for letting me see a copy of this article in advance of publication.
in Roma,c.1851, a bound
dellaGalleriaCamuccini
1'71.BARBERI:Catalogoragionato
manuscript in a clerical hand in the Alnwick Castle Archives (another copy in
the archive of the Camuccini heirs at Cantalupo), fols.2r-4. A translation 'by
D.C.' written in a very florid hand and sumptuously bound is also at Alnwick
Castle. The Palace, now the headquartersof'the Tribunale Supremo Militare,
faces the Via della Maschera d'Oro and Via degli Acquasparta. Fedcrigo Cesi
had opened the Accademia dei Lincei here and established Rome's first boltanic
garden. It had once been famous for the murals on its lficades by l'olidoro and
Maturino.
'8For the Camuccini as dealers, see ANDERSON,loc.cit.at note 16 above. More
generally, sec the entries by A. BOVERO,in DiziionarioBiogrq/icodegli Italiani,
Camuccini
(1771-1844), Bozzettie
XVII, Rome [1974], pp.627-30, and Vincenzo
Disegni,ed. G.P. DEANGELIS,exh.cat. Rome, Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Moderna
[19781, pp. 104-05.
76
RAPHAEL'S
DEI
'MADONNA
_
23. X-radiogra,phofl'Fig.16.
3-
1
GAROFANI'
lr
-?C
L
--
L1
1806; he was appointed head of the mosaic workshop of
St Peter's in 1803 and Ispettoredelle pubblichepitture (i.e.,
curator and conservator of major paintings of the city) by
Pius VII in 1814, was created Baron by Pius VIII in 1830,
and arranged the Vatican Pinacoteca both for him and for
Gregory XVI. These high offices must have made it easier
for his brother to get away with irregular exports.
It was Vincenzo's son, Giovanni Battista, who sold the
collection (and purchased the estate of Cantalupo with
the proceeds). There is no reason to doubt that the two
brothers had hoped to preserve it, even though they never
ceased to engage in the art trade. However, the manuscript
catalogue by Tito Barberi, evidently composed for visitors
to Palazzo Cesi, presents their motives for collecting as a
commitment to the Italian heritage. When Pietro's art
dealing is taken into account, this seems implausibly high-
minded.'9 The collection may indeed have originated
with Pietro's realisation, soon after 1800, that he could
afford to keep some of his stock, perhaps on account of the
success of his younger brother as an artist.
The gems of the collection were Raphael's Madonnadei
garofani,Giovanni Bellini's Feastof theGods,now in Washington, Claude's Sunsetlandscape,Guido Reni's Crucifixion(both
still at Alnwick) and Guercino's Esther before Ahasuerus
(now in the University of Michigan Museum of Art, Ann
Arbor). The manuscript catalogue explicitly states that
the Raphael was bought by Vincenzo rather than his
brother, which is true of no other work in the collection,
and also that it was bought in Paris, whereas the others
with recorded provenances came from Roman palaces
(most notably, the Barberini, Aldobrandini, Borghese,
Sannessi and Braschi). In September 1825, when the
universale
19BARBERI, MS. cited at note 17 above, fol.2r:'In mezzoa questo
sconvolgilavoravano
lorodintorno
mentoi nostriartistiquasistranieria quantosi succedeva
indefessi
alcuni
per l'arte e per la gloria; ed oltre a questoi fratelli Camuccini,acquistando
e riunendo
chepernoinontuttiperdutin'andassero;
antichidipinti,cooperarano
de'migliori
avrebbedisperse,
alcunedelleoperele piu rare,chefacile la revoluzione
fondaronoquesta
galleria...'
77
RAPHAEL'S
,
.'.. , /," ',
'/, //
.
.
I
A- .....
--/
.`
=f
L(
(
___
7
._,
./
/./
I
t
,' .
=
'MADONNA
.
--
t
I
I
24. Madonna deigarf/ani, by Giovanni Farrugia after Raphael. 1828.
Engraving, 29.4 by 23.4 cm. (image). (British Museum, London).
DEI
GAROFANI'
Camuccini were obliged to list their best paintings, the
Madonna dei garofani was not included.20 This could be
because the painting had been exported from France and
so was not considered to be Roman cultural property, but
more probably indicates that the Camuccini did not yet
possess it. Vincenzo's only recorded visit to Paris was in
1810, but I suspect that the painting was acquired there
by Vincenzo or on his behalf not long before the end of
1828, in which year a very precise engraving (Fig.24) by a
Maltese protege of the Camuccini, Giovanni Farrugia,
was published in Milan with the information in the legend
that 'I'originaledella slessagrandezzaesislein Romanellagalleria
del celeberrimopillore Sig. Cav.re Camuccini'.It was also in
Milan, in the following year, that the painting was first
described in print, as an 'operasimilmenlede' primi anni di
Raffaello,sparsad'infinilasoavila'.2'
The painting's reputation in Rome in 1840 may be
gauged from the IdeesIlaliennes,ostensibly by the enameller
Abraham Constantin but partly ghosted by Stendhal, in
which it is praised in the highest terms and its status as an
original work held to be beyond doubt. It is described
there as the 'gloire' of the Camuccini collection, before
even the Bellini.22 A document in the archive at Alnwick
makes it clear how highly esteemed the painting was in
about 1850. This is a list of Camuccini's paintings with
sterling prices or valuations compiled in Rome, presumably
by an agent of the Duke. The Raphael (at [2500), the
Claude (at ?1500) and the Guercino (at [1000) were the
most highly valued - together with the Bellini, to which
no figure seems then to have been attached.23 The acquisition
of the Madonnadei garofani by Vincenzo must surely reflect
the special devotion that he felt for Raphael -as witnessed
by several copies after Raphael in the collection.24 'Sommo
dipinloree sommo conoscitoredelle memoriede'maestridell'arle
sua', was how Longhena described Vincenzo in 1829. He
was citing Vincenzo's support for the theory that Raphael
did not die from amorous excess but from a chill caught in
St Peter's.25 Four years later, in September 1833, Raphael's
bones were uncovered in the Pantheon. Vincenzo made a
careful drawing. He had initiated the excavation in his
capacity as Princeps of the Accademia di San Luca. It
refuted the controversial claim made by the Keeper of
20Ibid., fols.27v-29v: 'Vincenzo Camucciniricomperatoloin Parigi, la restitui alla Italia
ed a Roma, collocandolofra i migliori quadridella propriagalleria'. For the inventory of
1825 which Jean-Baptiste Wicar, a friend of the Camuccini, was also obliged to
make see F. BEAUCAMP: Le peintre lillois 7ean-Bapliste Wicar, Lille [1939], II,
pp.567-68.
21'.
LONGHENA: Isloria della vita e delle opere di Ra/faello Sanzio da Urbino del
Quatremerede Quincy voltata in Italiano, corretta, illuslrata ed ampliata . . . Milan
[18291, p.12.
22A. CONSTIAN'IIN:Idees italiennes sur quelques tableaux celebres; Florence
[1840],
pp.152,237.
23Alnwick Castle Archives,Add. MSS (1973), F 76a.
24The copies were: a frescoon tile allegedly hy Giulio Romano after Raphael's
portrait of Guiliano de'Medici, noted as impressive by Waagen (not now it
seems at Alnwick); a full-size oil painting of St Peter conducted from prison
from Raphael's frescoin the Stanza of Heliodorus, probablyeighteenth century,
but claimed by the Camuccini as the work of Poussin (still at Alnwick) and a
full-sizeoil painting of the Holy Family in Naples said to be by Giulio (also still
at Alnwick) - see BARBERI,op.cit. at note 17 above, fols.9r and 27r-v. Peruginesque
, '.
- ^.....C
;t,irluil Prd
MI)lI,c''I\/
.
u
f I F'1 EGO J I,
MFVS ,411M
t
,l
Rl
R ;..
' Ir
iFt .'.ibp
c,. ,
nk*mtt.
a <J
.ijrd
shutters believed by the Camuccini to be by Raphael should be mentioned in
this connexion (see note 39). The Camucciniowned at least one notalle drawing
by Raphael for the Entombment,according to LON(;HENA, op.cit. at note 21 above,
25. Madonna dei garqJani, y Jean Couvay after Raphael. Engraving,
33.7 by 25.7 cm. (image). (British Museum, London).
78
p.719.
25Ibid.,p.442.
RAPHAEL
S 'MADONNA
Papal Antiquities, Carlo Fea, that Raphael had been
buried in S. Maria Sopra Minerva - a gratifying conclusion,
since Fea had been striving to disgrace the Camuccini for
the way they had exported works of art from Rome. 26
From whom Vincenzo Camuccini purchased the Madonna
deigarofaniis not known, and that it would not be disclosed
may well have been a condition of the sale. How Camuccini
knew about it, however, is not difficult to guess. The
painting had been reproduced as an enamel plaque for
the Royal Porcelain factory at Sevres (Fig.26). This was
the work of the celebrated enamellist Victoire Jaquotot,
the third in a series of copies after Raphael for which she
was especially admired. She began her copy - the same
size as the original - in January 1817 and the first version
was fired in May, the second in June.27 That this was
made from the Alnwick painting seems very likely from
the close similarity between them. But there are in fact
numerous minor differences: some of these, such as the
slight variations in the veil on the Virgin's right shoulder
or the size of the flower heads, are unsurprising, but others
- most
notably the greater number of flowers in the Virgin's
left hand, the 'correction' of the anatomy of the Virgin's
left hand and of Christ's foot, and the simplification of the
landscape are unexpected in so exact a copyist. Jaquotot
has also embellished the neckline of the Virgin's dress
with ornament in gold. This would be typical of Raphael,
but there is no hint of it in Farrugia's print, and no trace
of it on the painting, and it would be surprising for Raphael
to use yellow as a ground for gold.28
The enamel was shown privately by the enamellist to
amaleursin November 1817, exhibited publicly at the Louvre
on 1st January 1818 to great acclaim, and then shown
again in the artist's studio. It was included in the Salon of
1819 with a note that it had been given by the King to
Madame.29 Anne Lajoix, who has kindly communicated
to me her research on this plaque, notes that the suggestion
that it should be reproduced in enamel came from Madame
Jaquotot herself in a letter to the factory's administrator,
Alexandre Brongniart, on 17th January 1817. She wrote
that she could arrange for the loan of a Raphael 'qui
n'exisle pas au Musee' and is 'connu en France que pas des
gravures',but she kept the identity of the owner secret.30
Although Barberi's manuscript catalogue does not disclose from whom Vincenzo Camuccini bought the painting
in Paris, it does assert that it had been acquired from the
2' 'For an acc(ount of the excavation with full bibliography see v. GOLZIO: Raffaello
nei documenti,Vatican 11936,reprinted 1971], pp. 120-21. For Fca see ANDERSON,
loc.cil. at note 16 above, with relfernces to the unpublished D. Phil. thesis of
JEAN-LOUIS PASCAL (GRIENER: The Function(f Beauty: The 'Philosophes'and the Social
Dimension
France,Oxlbrd, 1989, pp.217-41.
of Artin lateeighteenth-century
27Mus(e National de Ceramique, Sevres. Inventory no.16 855. References to
the firingsinJaq(uotot'sletters to Brongniartand in Brongniart'snotes (ManuNationalede Sevres,Archives,Pb. 4 and Pb. liasse 1) kindlycommunicated
f1acture
to me by Anne Lajoix. I am grateful to Mme Fiy-Hallc, Conservatcurof the
Mus6e de Ceramique, for letting me examine the plaque. Measurements of
details within painting and plaque show no diflerences in size, which suggests
thatJaq(uotottook a tracing. Her colours are close to Raphael's, departing most
in the subtle grey of the Virgin's dress.
2 It should be noted that the deviationsfrom
Raphael'sdesign do not correspond
to those in any painted version known to me. 'Ihey are greater than one would
but that painting, being in the
expect fromJaqruotot'scopy of the Bellejardiniere,
Louvre, was more easily available for comparison.Jaquotot made ten enamel
copies after Raphael between 1813 and 1840; see A. LAJOIX: 'Pcinturc ct porcelaine: substituer a la toile une plaque de poreelaine', La Revuede la Ceramiqueet
DEI
GAROFANI'
26. Madonnadeigarofani,by VictoireJaquotot alter Raphael. 1817. Enamel
plaque, 31.4 by 26.6 cm. (sight). (Musee National de Ceramique,Sevres).
heirs of the Oddi family in 1636 by a Frenchman.3' The
date may well reflect precise documentation supplied by
the vendor, but the further claim that it had been made
for 'Maddalena Degli Oddi, Monaca in Perugia' must be
regarded with scepticism. It is not entirely impossible that
this story came from the Oddi family itself,32 but since
Maddalena is mentioned by Vasari as patron of Raphael's
Coronationof the Virgin (now in the Vatican) it was not a
very daring step to propose her as the patron of another
work of slightly later date.33 Barberi also quotes from a
letter which had been appropriated by Cardinal Borgia,
in which Raphael wrote concerning work he had to
finish for Maddalena. No such reference exists and there
seems to be a confusion with Raphael's famous letter to
his uncle dated 21st April 1508, which was owned by
29Expositiondes Manufacturees royales, 1818, no. 11. References to private
studio shows are taken fromJaquotot's correspondencewith Brongniartas cited
at note 27 above, T24, communicated by Anne Lajoix.
`0Jaquotot's correspondence with Brongniart is cited at note 27 abov, '124,
communicated by Anne Lajoix. Madame Lajoix suspects from her knowledge
of Jaquotot's circle that the owner might have been a 'Lord Seymour' - a
relative of the Marquess of Hertford (more than one of whom could have been
so styled in Paris).
nellasuaseconda
condotta
conservata
fu da Rqafaelle
3''Questapiccolatavolaperfettamente
manieraper MaddalenaDegli Oddi, Monacain Ierugia . . . innanzil'anno1636 un
franceseacquistbessodipintodaglieredidellaDegli Oddi,e lo portbsecoin Francia.. .'
(BARBERI, MS. cited at note 17 above, fol.27v).
"''2hat the Degli Oddi family were in touch with Camuccini'scircle is suggested
by the fact that LONGHENA(op.cit.at note 21 above, p1.720)records that they
owned a drawing by Raphael of the selling of Joseph (presumablypreparatory
for the narrativeon the seventh vault of the Vatican Loggia).
33For Maddalena di Guido
degli Oddi and her patronage, see A. LU(:HS: 'A note
on Raphael's
[1983],
Perugian patrons', 'HE BURLIN(GTON MA(AZINE, CXXV
pp.29-30.
du Verre,XXI [March-April 1985], pp.9-13, p.13 note 15; also Raphaelet l'art
Franfais,exh.cat., Grand Palais, Paris [19831, pp.259-61, nos.387-90 (entries by
E. FON'IANS).
79
RAPHAEL'S
'MADONNA
DEI
GAROFANI'
Cardinal Stefano Borgia in 1827 when it was etched in
facsimile. 34
Barberi concluded by observing that it was unsurprising
that so many engravings should have been made of the
painting 'di bulinofrancese',given the picture's long stay in
France. The earliest engraving seems to have been made
in Italy in the late-sixteenth century. It is very rare.35
Many subsequent ones were French, the first being that by
Jean Couvay (Fig.25). It is not certain that it was made
from the Alnwick painting. Some of the differences - the
expression of the child, the shape of the knot in the curtain,
the distinctiveness of the plaits in the Virgin's hair and of
a path in the landscape - can easily be explained by crude
drawing or careless study of subordinate areas. On the
other hand, the larger format showing the whole arch of
the window, while a natural enough alteration, does feature in copies which may well have been available to the
engraver. One other early engraving is parasitic upon
Couvay and at least two others are, in turn, parasitic
upon this.36 One further, negative, piece of evidence which
may be adduced in this connexion is that Mariette, listing
the engravings of the composition, made no note as to the
original painting's whereabouts, as he did in other cases
when it was known to him.37
The paintings's critical fortune subsequent to its arrival
in England is more easily traced. In 1854, the great German
scholar Gustav Waagen, compiling his Galleriesand Cabinets
of Art in Great Britain as a 'supplemental volume' to his
three-volume Treasuresof Art in GreatBritain, visited Alnwick
Castle where work had begun on opulent renaissance-style
interiors under the direction of the Italian architect, Giovanni Montiroli. He wrote about the paintings as if they
were already there, for he had studied them in Rome and
the Duke had let him view them again in Northumberland
House where they were in store. Waagen was not in awe
of Camuccini's attributions: he was not convinced that
the beautiful pair of shutters painted with Sts Magdalen
and Catherine in a landscape was by Raphael, as Camuccini
believed, suggesting instead an attribution to Lo Spagna.
But of the Madonna dei garofani, he noted that, 'of all the
numerous specimens of the picture I have seen, none
appear to me so well entitled to be attributed to his hand
as this'.38
More influential than Waagen, however, was Passavant's
catalogue raisonne of 1860 in which the painting was
listed as still in the Camuccini collection. He placed it first
among the copies which he knew, judging it as 'certainement
un ouvragede l'ecoledu maitre', delicate in execution, cold in
colour and with very disagreeable retouchings.39 The fact
that Passavant was ignorant of the painting's change of
ownership suggests that he was dependent upon reports
made by others for his account of its condition. In his
edition of 1858 he had not mentioned the painting at all
and he could hardly have inspected it between 1858 and
1860 without realising that it belonged to the Duke of
Northumberland.
The Duke himself died in 1865, just before the last
essential item of the new interiors he created for Alnwick
Castle, the damasks made to Montiroli's designs by the
Milanese firm of Osnago, arrived.40 The Raphael would
by then have been ready to hang: Montiroli's full-size
drawing for its boxwood frame, which was to be carved in
the Duke's school of woodcarvers, had been sent before
the end of 1862 (Fig.27).41 The Guideto the Castle published
in the year of the Duke's death records that the painting
was hung, together with other small devotional works from
the Camuccini collection, in the Duchess's private sitting
room- 'not shown to general visitors', but certainly available to any scholar who requested permission to study
34'in unalettera,qualea Perugiaquasiaforza tolseil Card.Borgia,scriveva,"avereda
terminare
un quadroper DonnaMaddalenaDegli Oddi,donnapotentechepotevaad esso
procurare
de'lavori"'.BARBERI,MS cited at note 17 above, fol.27v. The etched
facsimile dated 1827 is included in LONGHENA,op.cit.at note 21 above, opposite
p.526. In his letter Raphael referred to a Madonna for 'la Prefetessa',i.e.
Giovanna Feltria della Rovere, not Maddalena degli Oddi.
35RaphaelInvenit:Stampeda Rajfaellonelle collezionidell' institutonazionaleper la
grafica,Rome [1985], p. 184,III, i.
36The most notable, but not the
only, copy of which this is true is that in the
Museo Tosio-Martinengo, Brescia- see the Appendix, below. Couvay's engravSculp.. . E. PoillyEx.' is
ing is likely to date from 1670. That signed '7. Boulanger
in reverse and probably based on Couvay but with variations in the bunch of
flowersin the Virgin's left (previouslyher right) hand. This in turn was repeated
in a print by E. Heinzelmann but with a bird's eye view of a convent in place of
the landscape. Alvise Povelato's engraving dated 1780 must be derived from
Jean Boulanger's, for it repeats the form of the tower and idiosyncrasiesof this
drapery style, but it is reversed back to the original direction. For the engraving
byJ. Morin often said to be of the MadonnadeiGarofanisee note 7 above. Among
other prints of the composition, that by A.F. Semmler was probably taken from
Faruggia (Fig.22). I am grateful to Nicholas Turner for his help in examining
prints after Raphael in the Department of Prints and Drawings of the British
74 for Alnwick, p.466 for Lo Spagna and Raphael. The shutters are likely to be
by Perugino. A misprint in Waagen is responsible for the much-repeated error
that the Camuccini collection was acquired in 1856.
39J.D. PASSAVANT: Raphael d'Urbin et son pere Giovanni Santi, Paris [1860], II,
pp.62-64.
40AlnwickCastle Archives, Box 798, Montiroli correspondence 1855-67. The
fabric was ordered on 17th August 1864. A bill for it is dated 14th February
1865. It is still in place at Alnwick Castle. The maker was Ambrogio Osnago of
Via S. Radegonda. This file of correspondence also includes a touching letter
from Elisa Chiaiso, Montiroli's widow, of 1st March 1893 mentioning the
fourth Duke's death and the damasks.
Museum, especially those in the corpus assembled to illustrate Ruland's The
['orks of Raphael Santi da Urbino as representedin the Raphael Collection in the Royal
Library at [Vindsor Castle formed by His Royal Highness the Prince Consort 1853-1861
and completedby Her Majesty Queen Victoria (1876).
37'Tables des Ocuvres de Raphael Sanctio d'Urbin gravees par les maistres
modernes
. . .', reproduced
in facsimile
in P.-J. MARIETTE: Les Grands Peintres, I
(Ecoles d'Italie), Paris [1969], p.139, nos.38 and 39. The previous entry, for the
Holy Family with a rose, is annotated as after a painting in the 'Cabinet de M. Le
Duc d'Orleans'; this annotation is erroneously connected with the Madonna dei
garofani in the exh.cat. cited at note 28 above, p. 199, no.268.
38G. WAAGEN: Galleries and Cabinets of Art in GreatBritain, London [1857], pp.465-
80
it.42
Eugene Miintz in his monograph of 1881 trusted Passavant and declared that the composition was known only
in old copies.43 Crowe and Cavalcaselle in their twovolume book on Raphael of the following year believed
that the best surviving version was that belonging to Count
Luigi Spada in Lucca (see Appendix). Cavalcaselle had
certainly studied both this painting and that at Alnwick
but his notes on the latter seem to have been confused with
41
Montiroli charged f6 for the full size drawing (accounts presented 28th June
1865 in Montiroli correspondence cited above). He refers in a letter of 22nd
December 1862 to the frame for the 'Raphael' shutters which should be in 'busso
comee stattofattoperl'altracornicedellaMadonnadeiGarofali'.The earliest reference
I have found to frame designs by Montiroli is 1861. The Tuscan carver Bulletti
who had superintended the Alnwick woodcarving studio (established in 1855
above the hunting stables and employing 24 men in the late 1850s) returned to
Italy in 1860; the frames are largely the work of John Brown his chief assistant,
later employed as curator of the paintings at Alnwick.
42C.H. HARTSHORNE (A Guideto AlnwickCastle, London and Alnwick [1865],
pp.69-70) mentions that the Giotto, now regarded as by Giovanni da Rimini,
was in the same room, along with a small 'Correggio' and 'Salviati', but his list
is not complete. In fact, another small painting at Alnwick is framed as a
pendant to the Raphael - a fine, sixteenth-century version on panel of Michelangelo's Silenzio, with the name Sebastiano del Piombo carved on the frame
(more recently it has been attributed to Venusti). This painting was not part of
the Camuccini collection and was perhaps acquired by the Duke soon after he
bought the fragments of Sebastiano's Visitationfrom the Rev. Davenport Bromley
in 1853.
43E.
MuNTZ:
Raphael, sa vie, son ouvre et son temps, London
[1882],
p.200.
RAPHAEL
S 'MADONNA
DEI
GAROFANI'
Appendix
Old copies of the 'Madonna dei garofani'
This list (which is arranged alphabetically by place) does not
claim to be exhaustive, but it is more complete than any previously published. Many items I have only seen as photographs
(most of those in the Witt library and in the dossier of the
Department of Paintings in the Louvre). In some cases I have
not even seen photographs, and some paintings may well be
listed twice. I have not included drawn copies (of which a
careful and fine example in black chalk is in the Musee de
Lyon) nor the versionson a large scale with numerousvariations
by Sassoferrato,of which one example is in the Detroit Institute
of Art, and another was in the Haeglin Collection in Basle
(during the 1920s in private collection in Paris and perhaps
identical with lot 5 at Versailles, Palais des Congres, 19th November 1979). I have made much use of the lists in PASSAVANT
cited at note 39 above, s. DE RICCI:Cataloguedes Peintures,Musee
du Louvre, Paris [1913], no.1513B, and elsewhere. My impression after compiling this is that a dozen or more good
copies, some of them on copper, were probably made from the
original in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century
beforeits export from Italy.
27. Frame for the Madonnadeigarofani.Boxwood with some matt gilding,
designed by Giovanni Montiroli, probably carved byJohn Brown, c. 1861.
45.7 by 40.3 cm. (outside measurements). (Alnwick Castle, Northumberland).
those on the former.44 In any case they wrote that the
Alnwick version was 'only a little inferior' to that in Lucca,
and 'probably by a Florentine assistant of Raphael'. They
added the reflection that Raphael may already, when a
young painter in Florence and Perugia, have 'thought it
pardonable to stock his painting-room with school-pieces
which, if designed by himself and issued with the stamp of
his workshop, were not always marked with the true impress
of his hand', proposing that the design for the Madonnadei
garofani was an 'early specimen' of such a practice.45
Raphael's drawings were certainly used early in his career
by other artists, but these seem to have been independent
artists rather than subordinate ones and the authors were
surely projecting back to Florence in 1507-08 the circumstances of Raphael's later years in Rome. This may have
suggested to Berenson the attribution of the painting to
Giulio Romano, a proposal published in 1897.46 It seems
to have been soon after this that the painting was removed
to a corridor. Thus the judgments of scholars, some of
whom had not seen the painting, contributed to make it
less likely that their successors would see it. The name of
Raphael, however, remained carved on the frame.
NationalGallery,London
44Cavalcasell's annotated drawingsof the compositionand detailsof the Madonna
deigarofaniare in the Biblioteca Marciana, Venice, cod. It. IV. 2033 (12274),
no.20. Photographs of them were kindly transmitted to me by Donata Levi.
Cavalcaselle noted the 'conservazione
perfetta'.From the context this must be the
Alnwick painting but the drawing recordsareas of paint loss which correspond
with those revealed in old photographsof the version in Lucca. He was puzzled
by the support ('parequercia... olivo'),found much of the painting 'bello'but a
few details such as the Virgin's ear and hands defective.
45J.A.
CRO)WE
and G.B. CAVALCASELLE: Raphael, his life and works, I, London
Raphael,London [1948],
[1882], pp.343-44. ''his view was shared by o. FISCHEL:
I, p. 127.
London and New
4"B. BERENSON: The CentralItalianPaintersof the Renaissance,
York [1897], p. 146. 'lhe attribution is retained in the second impressionof 1899
but was later dropped.
Altena, ''homee collection 1930s (as Sassoferrato); Berlin, Jaffe collection
(sold Lepke, October 1912); Bilbao, Urquijo collection (exhibited Seville 1930);
Brescia, Museo 'l'osio-Martinengo, inv. 128 (an early copy and of high quality,
the composition somewhat extended at the top; see Raphaelloe Brescia: echi e
presenze, cxh.cat., Brescia [1986], p.38); Buenos Aires, Museo Nacional de
Bellas Artes; Chalons-sur-Marne,
Mus6e, inv.899-11-235; Craches, NotreDame de La Creche (in reverse, with different colours, perhaps from a print);
Dijon, Mus6e des Beaux-Arts (copper, traditionally attributed to Garofalo);
Falkirk, Forbes Collection, Callendar House, sold 1963; Florence, Dr Adolf
Gottschewski (1920s), published in A. ROSENBERG: Raffael, Klassiker der Kunst,
4th ed. with additional notes by G. GRONAU, Stuttgart [1909], p.201; Geneva,
Duval collection see Paris; London, Samuel collection sold Christie's, 25th
March 1927, lot 25; Loreto, Casa Santa, 'Ireasury; Lucca, Count Francesco
Spada (by 1840s, still in that collection when reproduced in ROSENBERG, loc.cit.
above, under Florence; said to have been with the French Gallery, New York
and by 1938 in South America; Liitzschena
(near Leipzig), Speck-Sternburg
collection (by 1840s - previously Setta collection, Pisa and Fries collection,
Dorset, Weld collection (formerly Blundell collection,
Vienna); Lulworth,
probably purchased late-eighteenth century); Macerata, Pinacoteca; Milan,
Foresti sale, 1913; New York, Mrs Drury Cooper (purchased through Mortimer
Brandt for 60,000 dollars at the American Art Association auction at Anderson
Galleries on 20th April 1939 - previously in the collection of Felix Lachovski in
Paris who purchased it from Marie Orloff, a Russian emigre in 1922; in this
version the dress is pink; it was said to have been certified by both Venturi and
Fischel); New York, PJ. Higgs Gallery, 1928; New York, Christie's 11th
January 1989, lot 29a (as after Leonardo); New Zealand, Private collection;
Nice, Private collection (published in Combat [18th February 1957]); Paris,
Lachovski collection (see New York, Mrs Drury Cooper above); Paris, Private
collection (copper); Paris, sale of collection of Francois Duval of Geneva, 12th
May 1846 (see CONSTANTIN,op.cit. at note 22 above for a reference to this version);
Paris, Musee du Louvre, R.F. 341 (acquired 1882, see s. BEGUIN: Les Peinturesde
Raphael au Louvre, Paris [1984], p.76); Paris, Lise Graf Gallery, 1981; Paris,
special sale of version in the collection of the industrialist Lughen-Leroy, Drouot,
25th March 1909 (puffed by L. KLOTZ in L'Eclair [17th, 20th, 24th and 30th December 1908]; the painting was reputedly bought by M. de Roussainville in 1686
with its authenticity certified by Largilliere); Perugia, Borbone-Sorbello collection (from the 1850s to at least the 1950s, copper); Rome, Galleria Nazionale,
Palazzo Barberini; Rome, Palazzo Albani, l'orlonia collection; Stockholm,
Norberg collection (a canvas, in the
Bystroem collection, 1850s; Stockholm,
Bukowskisale, Stockholm, 9th- 12th November 1966, lot 173;perhapspreviously
Bystroem collection); Urbino, Casa Giovannini, c.1900; Urbino, Budassi collection 1958 (perhaps previously Casa Giovannini); Wiirzburg, Froelich collection, 1840s; Wiirzburg, Martin V. Wagner Museum (perhaps previously
Froelich collection); Zagreb, Strossmayer Gallery, inv.386 (published by
G. GAMULIN: 'Una copia della Madonna del garofano', Commentari,
IX, fasc. 3
[July-Sept. 1958], pp.160-61); Zurich, private collection (published by
G.
GRONAU,
W.
SUIDA,
G.
FIOCCO:
'Interessante
Probleme
II: Nochmals zur
"Madonna mit der Nelke'", Belvedere,XII [1934-35], p.105, with the claim
that this painting is intermediate between Leonardo's Benois Madonnaand
Raphael's painting).
81