BOOK REVIE'WS was inserted to make it more imrnediate, in 1936, in which most documents are not of the role previously played by Golzio) for all suggest that it was the fint scene to be published in full. monographic study, and can thereby assumea painted, and technical evidence prompts us to In the period since Shearman's book has canonical position which inhibits ftesh con- reconsider the sequence of the frescos inde- appeared the re-daring ofthe Monteluce doc- sideration of the evidence. pendendy oftheir preparation on paper. uments to r5o5, not r5o3 bp.sr-96),, and of In a moment of characteristic wit. Shear- If 's contemporaries averred that Raphael's appointrnent as Sctiptor Breuium in man describes what a biography of Raphael his art was not innate but born from studying I5II, not r5og (pp.r5o-52),3have made pos- based entirely upon f).lsedocuments would 'Would be other artists, they were not totally wrong, par- sible new interpretations ofthe artist's career. like (p. r 5). he have been asamused by ticularly in regard to his early career. Raphael Sadly, however, Shearman's Corpus doesn't what a student's chronology of Raphael's life seemed to need models to emulate and sur- acfually tell us very much more about based on this publication might be like? There pass. His syncretic method, by which he Raphael than we knew already. There are would be much that was good and uncon- selected from al1 available models, painting new documents in this book (for instance, tentious, but Raphael would be said to have techniques, lighting, figure moti6, poses, those connected with Alberrinelli, supplied by been in Rome in rso2/o3; in r5o4 the only 'Signed landscape motifi, backdrops, accoutrements Louis Waldman), and it is extremely useful to entry would read and dated The Spos- and cosfumes may make him particularly have them gathered together in one place (if alizio in Citti di Castello (now Milan, Brera)',6 'gilded interesting in an age of multivalent informa- not in one volume), but we do not have the wh.ile in r5o8 Raphael would have a tron. What Raphael can teach our age is his kind of material relating to Raphael that we metal garland for Michelangelo's Dauid and unique senseof quality, by which he selected have, for example, for Michelangelo: two painted a for the Audience-Cham- what he needed to form his own style and autograph letters for the former versus r,4oo ber of the Nove in thePalazzo Vecchio'. which determined everything he made. Since to or from the latter. There are several reasons These three examples are at the core of the Raphael's art has become a synonym for the for this scarcity of biographical material. problemwith a compendium ofthis nature: in classicalideal, it is with this messagethat the There is no evidence that Raphael kept a the first case Shearman followed a disputed 'classic'wi]l notion of continue to be valid. written archive, while it is quite clear that interpretation, in the second he excluded a Michelangelo kept letten as well as financial much-discussed document, and in the third ' The authon refrailed fiom giving the provenanceof accounts. Raphael also had a relatively small he included a contentious newcomer. In each the works ir the exhibition md relegated those of the family (no living parents or siblings to write case Shearman's commentary is much more 's pahtings to Nicholas Pemy's contri- to), and in one letter he makes it clear that he nuanced, but the final conclusion, or at leastthe bution. did not much like writing letters anyway.+ ostensibleconclusion, is worthy of comment. ' Sheaman: Raphael in eaily modern sources- J. Shearman, as his tide makes clear, decided ln 1977, Shearman proposed that Raphael t48j-t6oz, New Haven and London zoo3; see the to publish not just documents dating from visited Rome in r5oz--o3 and again in 15o6.z review in this issueon pp.69G-98 below. 'V/hile Raphael's liferime, : See M. Mena Marqu6s, ed.: exh. crt. Rafael en but also material dating this reviewer is not especially resistant to Espafia,Madrid (Museo del Prado) 1985. from the eighty years that followed the artist's the idea, the philological proof (in which, + SeeSheaman, oqt.cit. (note 2), pp.g7-98. death (these documents and sources make up incidentally, Shearman's position has changed j A new presentation of the drawings of Perugino and more than two thirds of the book). lt is over time)8 is difFsult to accept. I cannot see Raphael in theseyears, oudined in the present writer's questionable if it was really worth reprinting how tJre relevant phrase in Raphael's (and lecture'Raphael md Perugino'at the Raphael Slmpo- Vasari's r55o and 1568 lives here - they are Castiglione's) letter to Leo X (pp.Soo-+S) - 'poi sium held at the Nacional Gallerv. London. in Novem- readily available elsewhere and Shearman did ch'io sono in Roma' followed by a varying ber zoo4, is forthcoming. not attempt to comment on their texts as he number of yean depending on which manu- did for other documents and sources - but script one is reading - can be related to any- much of this posthumous material is fascinat- thing other than the artist's definitive transfer to Raphael in Early Modern Sources ing and opens up new lines of inquiry; for Rome in r5o8.e Sirnilarly, the relegation to the (1483-16oz). ByJohn Shearman. 2 vols. xii + example, the will of Cardinal Ferrero made in section of false documents of the letter from 'il 1706 pp. with 37 b. & w. ills. flale Univenity 1584 which leaves quadro della Madonna di Giovanna Feltria della Rovere of rst October Press, London and New Flaven, zoq, d7). Rafaeled'Urbino ched in Roma' to his executor, r5o4 in which Raphael is recommended to ISBN o-3oo-o99r8-j. Virgilio Crescenzi (pp.r3o9-ro). Virgilio's Soderini and said to wish to'stare qualchetempo son, Pier Paolo (1572-1645, from 16rr a in Fiorenzaper imparare',runs the risk of being Reviewedby TOM HENRY cardinal), apparendy owned Raphael's Sr taken as definitive (pp:a57-62). Yet, as Catherine,now in the National Gallery, Lon- Shearman's four-page commentary on this cRowE AND cAVALCASELLE's description of don, in the early seventeenth century (the pic- document makes clear, the case against its Raphael's pursuit of artistic perfection can ture has a wax sealon the reverse which could authenticity is not proved, even if Shearman - 'no reasonably be applied to John Shearman's only belong to this cardinal or Iessprobably himself entertained doubt that the letter is a thirry-yean' pursuit of Raphael documents: - to Cardinal Marcello Crescenzi; Fig.36).s lf forgery' (p.r3). In the absenceof a manuscript 'Between lJrbino and Rome ffor which read these picrures were identical it might provide that can be properly studied, it is very hard to Aldenhot and Harvard], the poles of his exis- some early provenance for the St Catherine? assesssuch anomalies as speaking of Giovanni tence, he wandered with but one apparent While the subjects do not match, Raphael's Santi (who died in August r4g4) n the present pulpose in life, the pu{pose - diligently pur- Catherine could have been mistaken for an tense (p.r457), but it must be acknowledged sued and never abandoned - of studying enraptured Madonna, and the Crescenzi con- that, if it is a fake, it brilliandy anticipates gen- everlthing that had been done by others nection is striking. Altematively the farnily uine documentation that was published only before him, of assimilating the good and elim- may have owned two paintings by Raphael, subsequendy.roThis is not to tum a blind eye inating the bad amongst the numerous exam- which would be equally interesting. to the document's deficiencies, but keeping an ples which had come within his ken." It is a pity that the author is no longer with open mind in the absenceof a manuscript. Some idea of Shearman's extraordinary us, so that one could debate some ofthe more The case for identifying Raphael as the 'RffieIIo odyssey may be gleaned from his ninety-nine contenlious points contained in these fwo di Giovanni dipintore' gilding metal- 'per page bibliography and the philological and volumes. He would have been the first to work and receiving forty-two kre una historiographical commentaries which fol- aglee that this publication would be a failure Nostra Donna' in r5o8 was originally pub- Iow each document included in this monu- ifit acted as an obstacle to further research or lished by Francesco Caglioti; Louis Waldman 'I mental piece of scholarship, which runs to reflection, writing, have never felt that it is instead idenrifies this artist as the Florenrine over r,7oo pages,and a measure ofits impor- a mark of respect to suspend criticism' (p.r). Raffaello di Giovanni Riccomani.rr Shear- tance is the impossibility of returning to This is all the more important because books man's commentary on these documents Vincenzo Golzio's earlier corpus of Raphael of this type tend to act as comerstones (or as makes it clear that he did not believe that they 'our documents and sources, first published bible' to borrow Shearman's descriotion refer to Raphael, and it was therefore an

696 ocroBER 2oo6 cxLvrrr . THE BURLTNGToN MAGAzTNE -e

BOOK RTVIIWS reveal strong Flemish influence, the one in its status of the painting, may always have served And ifbefore, then we would have to associ- motifs, the other in its sharp and enamel-like only to give texture to the green wall cloth ate him very closely with Perugino before he technique. Although the underdrawings of above it. The Donna velata (no.ror) gave a reverted his father's stylistic idiom, which so the Madrid painting made visible by infrared glimpse into Raphael's future and his most strongly pervades his own first commission. reflectography3 seem very similar to those in fertile period aspainter, architect and sculptor. It is possible that Raphael's capacity to 'W'hat the Madonna oJthe pinks,I would be inclined impression of Raphael emerges from draw - for which he was soon exploited by to date it earlier, for the very odd and unre- the catalogue? Three points are worth exam- his colleagues and superiors; Pintoricchio and solved diagonal composition, which does not ining in detail. The first regards Raphael's Domenico Alfani are the most famous to do unfold in space. The strange date inscribed in artistic training. In its reconstruction, the so - may have first been recognised by Perug- 'MD the neckline of the Virgin, VII. IV'was authors follow a theory launched by RudoH ino. If the designs for the Fano predella, explained by Tom Henry asreferring to r 5o7, Wittkower and John Shearman which has a work comrnissioned from Perugino in the fourth year of Pope Julius II's reign. convinced many scholars, including the pres- 1497, are attributed without reservation to Flowever, it is advisable to be sceptical about ent writer: after his father's death the eleven- Raphael by renowned scholars, one may 'prehistory' the dates deciphered in the gold embroideries year-old boy was not trained in Perugino's have to try out a more complex on hems, and often it is necessary to add or shop, as Vasari claimed, but remained in for Raphael, one in which he was already discard a-'I' or fvvo to make the numben IJrbino and was educated in his father's involved with Perugino's arristic practices coincide with our own idea of the date the workshop by Evangelista di Pian di Meleto. before t4gg/r5oo.s This would not mean 'While work should be given on srylistic gtrounds.4 Vasari's account of Raphael starting that we have to return to Vasari's story that Apart from the possibfiry that they could his apprenriceship with Perugino as a child Raphael was apprenticed to Perugino for have been manipulated in later years, could was widely accepted in the nineteenth centu- many years and that he had to comply with they not have been intended as plaful ry, in the early twentieth centlrry, documents the guild regulations while in Perugino's allusions rather than as exact dates? were discovered for the commission of the shop. But if he wanted to leam by practice, Raohael's most ambitious altamiece of the altarpiece of the Coronation of St Nicholas in why should he not have tried to meet period, the Entombment of Chiit. comrnis- Citti di Castello, in which Raphael appeared Perugino and learn from him as much as 'magister' by Atalanta Baglione for S. Francesco as and signed the contract jointly possible, either in Fano or or in both sioned 'We in Perugia, is at present in restoration and was with Evangelista di Pian di Meleto. This places? only have to imagine that represented by the Cavalier d'Arpino's copy suggested the possibfiry that he received Raphael was as quick and versatile before (no.65). The two predella scenes,today in the his first artistic training in Urbino, an idea r 5oo as he was afterwards. Vatican Museum (nos.66 and 67), with their corroborated by the very obviously un- The authors take a brave stance on the figures in grisaille set against subtle shades of Peruginesque qualities apparent in the frag- question of Raphael's move to Florence. green marble, foreshadow Raphael's later ments of the St Nicholas altarpiece and in the Admitting that Raphael would have had obsession with antique coloured stones. Six closely related Gonfalone of the Holy Trini- knowledge of Florentine works, particularly of the nearly twenty sheets connected with ry. That Raphael, the son of a court painter by Leonardo, at an earlier point in his career, this work charted the progress of the compo- with literary and humanistic aspirations, was nonetheless they question, in my view rightly, sition from a static lamentation to a dramatic trained in Urbino corresoonded much more Shearman's inclusion among the forged letten transportation in full movement, achieved to the Nventieth-century discipline ofart his- of the famous letter of recommendation writ- by incorporating motifs from Perugino, Sig- tory when the relationship ofRenaissance lit- ten on rst October r5o4 by Giovanna Feltria norelli, Michelangelo, the Antique and other erature and the visual arts came to the fore. della Rovere to the Gon{bloniere Soderini in sources(nos.68-73). Yet if we are to believe that Raphael was Florence. That Raphael went to Florence Raphael invented by drawing, and contin- trained in Urbino, and that his earliest artistic some time beflveen late r5o4 and early r5o5 ually found inspiration in the inventions of creations should demonstrate how he studied with the intention of staying has hardly ever others but also created his own solutions, as the art available in Urbino at the time - been quesrioned, and the reasons that this the drawings made in preparation for the Dr- Piero della Francesca, Melozzo da Forli, Joos document has been doubted seem unjustified puta show (nos.78-86); they leave no doubt van Ghent, Francesco Laurana, Francesco di in the light of possible erron in its transcrip- that he was one of the draughtsmen geniuses Giorgio and others - then we have to admit tion. The arguments given by the authors of all time. Raphael's self-propagation of his that not a single work has come to light. Only in their introductory essayweigh heavily in inventive powers through the mefium of the the serious evaluation of the drawings in favour of the document being genuine. print was also illustrated; hardly any other the so-called Venetian sketchbook (Gallerie Another debate is generated by Amold subject demands the visualisation of such dell'Accademia, Venice), which correspond Nesselrath's stimulating essayon'Raphael and extreme passionsand emotions asthe Massacre in their variety of motifs to those works Pope Julius II'. Following the restoration of oJ the innocents,and before handing over the which Raphael might have studied as an the frescos of the Stanza della Segnatura, Nes- final composition to Marcantonio Raimondi autodidact, could sustain the theory that selrath has argued that Vasari was right in pro- for the print, Raphael repeatedly revised the Raphael was trained in Urbino; yet this posing that the Schoolof Athens was the trial composition (nos.87-9o) to tum a cruel event assemblage of copy-drawings was not taken piece that Raphael carried out for the pope, 'icon into a powerful of passion', as David into consideration at all. and not, as Bellori claimed, the Disputa. This Rosand aptly put it. As a kind of concession to admitting that might seem at first incompatible with our Raphael's paintings of Madonnas and por- there is a problem, the curators did, howev- nolion that the hemispheric arrangement traits from his early years in Rome were rep- er, include the processional cross from the of the divine vision in the Disputa seems to resented by the , from the Museo Poldi Pezzot (no.r4), dated it follow on direcdy from Florentine models, 'Washington National Gallery of Art in r498-r5oz and linked it to a drawing by such as Fra Bartolomeo's LastJudgment,r'ot to (no.S:). Specifically restored for this show, it Raphael for such a cross, but of a later date mention the elaborate sequence of drawings wonderfully complemented the G"-"gh (no.r3). Although of very high qualiry, the unique to the Disputa (nos.78-86). Following Madonna from the National Gallery, London matrix is so totally Peruginesque that its attri- Bellori, it has been generally accepted that (no.gr), in its pastel colour scheme, emotion- burion to Raphael would actually put the the airy architectural setting of the School of al tenderness and in Raohael's new accom- curators' argument of Raphael's training in Athens wx the result of Raohael's encounter plishment of harmoniously blend of apparent Urbino into question. Should it be dated with Rome's past, in archiieccure, sculpture naturalness with abstract form into a wholly before or after the first comrnission in Citti di and leaming. Yet, the adherence to a strict new aesthetic. This was the aesthetic of the Castello? If after, why should an independent perspectival setring into which the figures poffiait ofJulius II. The bright blue and gold and already higbly individual ani::.ry so hard are added, including Raphael's self-portrait underpaint with impreseof the pope's portrait to hide his own personality, after he had suc- among the philosophen and scientists,and the (.ro.SS),which further confirm the autograph cessfirlly procured commissions for himselfr fact that, after its completion, an extra figure

THE BURLTNGToN MAGAZTNE . cxlvrrr . ocroBBR 2006 695 idiosyncratic - even misleading - decision to famous are likely to be mentioned). Fra include them among the accepted documents. Jacopo, who died in 1537,was a contempo- It is extremely dificult to believe that rury of Raphael and the inventory probably Raphael's IJrbinate origins would not be preserves his attributions. FIe was an active referred to when he appeared as a newcomer and apparendy rather sophisticated collector in Florentine comrnunal payments. 12 ofpaintings, whose taste and patronage ran to In effect the above criticisms are about the young and innovative artists.,, This reference criteria for inclusion or exclusion in the (which could result in the identification of sequence of accepted documents and about another of Raphael's Florentine Madonnas) is the separation of documentary fact from akin to the inventory of Silvia Piccolomini's scholarly interpretarion. Shearman may have possessions of r54z where, pace Shearrnan, 'tondo come to believe in his interpretations, but that I still believe that the bello di casa,con has not transformed them into facts. Similarly la Mailonna, il Signorepiccolo che dormee Santo there are other instances where knowledge of Giovanni, opera di Rffiello di Urbino' shodd the author's other publications highlights be identified as the Madonna del Silenzio pattems in the intelpretation of documents. (pp.9za-277.u He attempted to redate a seriesofpre-Roman Given that this book appeared four months 36.Wu seaion the reverseof St Catheine, works a year or more later than other scholan by Raphael(National Gallery, London). after Shearman'sdeath, the standardsof consis- but, as Caroline Elam pointed out to me, this tency are impressively high. Nevertheless, the creates a log-jam in r5o8.r: This is duly indexing is not faultless. The reference to reflected in Shearman's interoretation of Paola Barocchi and her colleagues resolved Raphael staying in Taddeo Taddei's house in Raphael's letter to his uncle of April r5o8 in this for Michelangelo by having separatevol- Florence (added by Raffaello Borghini in r 584) which he proposed that the Small Cowper umes for the Cartegio Indiretto, but quickly is not picked up in the index (p.r3z3), 'W'ashington and the Madonna in might have been encountered problems of where to draw the and Nicolini-Cowper painted c.r5o7--o8 for Giovanna Feltria, line and, as a result, that carteggio is as much Madonna have also been amalgamated into a instead of the preferable date of c.r5o5, and incompletoas indiretto.In the case of Raphael's single work in the index. None of the preced- 'Ia might therefore be Nostra Donna delapro- portrait of PopeJulius II, it is surely relevant ing comments is intended to belittle Shear- fettessa'mentioned in that letter (pp.rrz-r8). that the Pope presented his portrait - by an man's extraordinary scholarly monument The other great debating point in this letter is unnamed artist - to the church of S. Marcello which will provide the backbone for Raphael the identification of'una certastanza d.a lauorare, in Rome in December r5rr.re This aspectof studies for many years to come. The invest- la quale t[oc]ha a sua S. d.ealocare' (pp.rrz-r8). the book is most unlike Shearman's great ment of time, thought and energy is exempla- It has occasionally been suggestedthat this was studies of the Raphael Tapestry Cartoons or ry, ar'd it deserves to be emulated by future the Sala del Gran Consiglio in Florence and of the Vatican Stanze,'o which are so rich in generations of archival scholars. Shearman's that Raphael was lining up to take over where contextualising material. His stated aim in this Raphael will not go uncorrected, but it may 'the Leonardo and Michelangelo had left ofl or to compendium of documents was restitu- well be unsurpassedfor centuriesto come. obtain some other commission in the Palazzo tion of context' (p.7), but a monographic Vecchio.'+Flowever, as Shearman argues, the focus only highlights how much context lies ' J.A. Crowe md G.B. Cavalcaselle:Raphael: His Life room that Raphael alludes to in the letter was with patrons, contemporaries and events. andWotks, London r882, I, pp.+-s. ' 'On probably not the great hall (which would It is also worth pointing out the limits of a See J. Shearman: Raphael's Chronology never have been referred to as a'stanza'), but stricdy chronological approach. This ordering r 5o3-r5o8',in ed.V. von Fleming:Ars naturam adiuuans. FestschiftfirMatthias Winner, Mainz pp.2or-47. one of the Vatican Stanze.'j of the material suits anyone who wants to ry96, : This reviewerindependendy published the correct In this publication inscriptions in paintings study the life as a whole. I{ however, one 'Reflections date; seeT. Henry: on Il Marcillat's work are rightly omitted. Annotations on drawings wishes to for see, example, the documentation in the Vatican PaTace',Apollo r5z (Jawary zoor), are included, whether the drawing is datable or for Raphael's dispute with Sebastiano del pp.r8-27, esp.p.25, note 23. not, and apparently regardless of the signifi- Piombo and Michelangelo, then one needs a + See the apparent self-criticism of his letter to his cance ofthe annotation, but there is a problem different kind ofordering (one that was occa- uncle Simone Ciarla of rst July r5r4 (pp.r8o-84);see of inconsistenry. Perhaps the inscriptions on sionally adopted by Golzio) in grouping refer- also the analysisofthis letter by C. Elam in her review undisputed drawings in Oxford (Ashmolean, ences to one project together. In the future, ofthe book under review here in RdmisdtesJahrbuch der PII 5orv) and Paris pouwe, inv.no.3856r) such documentation will be published on BibliothecaHertziana 3 5 (zoo3--o4), pp.27-3 r. have been omitted because they are fairly CD-roms or websites, which allow one to : C.Plazzotta, in H. Chapman, T. Henry and C. Plaz- insignificant (although this is debatable; the order the material in different ways. zotta: exh. cat. Raphael:from Urbino to Rome, Itndon former supports the somefimes questioned It was said, probably apocryphally, that (National Gallery), 2oo4, pp.2z2-24.; for the biogra- phies of these clvo cardinals, see I. Polverini Fosi: attribution to Raphael of the Gonfalone in Shearman would ask his doctoral students to 'Crescenzi, Pier Paolo', DizionarioBiograjco degli ltaliani, Citti di Castello, while the latter points to the discover at least one new Raphael document 'Crescenzi, Rome, XXX, 1984, pp.64r-45 and idem: correct idenrification of the subject),'6 but in the course of their researches.He was sure Virgilio', ibid., pp.6 48- 49. leaving them out poses unresolvable questions that there were more to be found. At least one 6 The good student would have alsoread the Addenda such as whether or not Shearman had doubts published reference was missed in this trawl. on p.r642 and noted that Raphael was residentin Peru- 'New about the drawing or its inscription. Signa- David Franklin published some entries from gia on rzth January r1o4; see also D. Cooper: tures are included 7fz- date appears, but not if the r538 posthumous inventory ofFraJacopo they are undated (thereby omitting the signa- di Batrista de' Rossi, a Servite in Florence i#ffi:i#:snHl,ffi"'Raphael, iJ,:::;:i;,:::r'' ture on the Mond Crucfrxion, although this from 1499, prior of SS. Annunziata in r5o3 7 J. Shearman: Rome and the Codex Escu- does appear in the commentary to the dated and again in r5r5-r7, and a notable patron. rialensis',Master Drawings rS (1977), pp.to7-46. 'Una 8 inscriprion on the picture's original frame). One entry rcads'. Nostra Dona con San Sheman (pp.S:q-+:) datesMS. I to c.r5r6 and One also finds strange situations such as the Giouanni d.i mano di Rafaello'.^ Although it is arguesthat its fourteen yeils refersto a visit in r5oz. He datesMS. II to the period May-November r5r9 (here acceptance of the date of r 5o8 on a variant of prudent to be cautious regarding attributions acceptingthat the elevenyean relateto Raphael setding t};.eMadonna of thepinks that Shearman rejects in inventories, a number of pointers suggest 'r in the city in r 5o8).Di Teodoro obseruedthat ro' was as a later painting (p.rzz)'z and the unneces- reference that this should orobablv be taken at Castiglione's autograph conection of his earlier' r4o'; sarily restrictive reading of the date on the facevalue. By r 538 on. ."]'r reasonablyassume 'Rafaello' seeF.P. Di Teodoro: Rffiello, BaldassareCatiglione ela Madrid Holy Family uith the lamb (pt.rro).'8 that is Raphael and not some other letteraa Itone X, Bologna rgg4, p.44; therefore the date The other problem in such a publication is artist with the same name (it is rare for early of r probably can be dismissed. 'indirect' 5oz how one deals with documents. inventories to name an artist so only the most q This hasbeen the objection o{, interalia, C. Thoenes:

THE BURLTNGToN MAGAZTNE . cxlvrrr . ocroBER 2006 697 BOOK REVIEWS

'La 'lettera' a Leone X'. in C.L. Frommel and Corp. Relig. Soppr. da1 govemo ftancese,rr9.5z, replicas ('not inspiring 'Winner, boilers and work but M. eds.: Rafaello a Roma, Rome 1986, RicordanzeB, 15ro-r559, fols.135v-36v(roth Febru- Drofitable - however I have forsworn all such pp.373-8r, and Di Teodoro, op.cit. (note 8),pp.++-s6. ary r 538).This Sewite hassometimes been brought into 'Raphael: 'The igain & again, but find myself at it now and 'o See T. Henry and C. Plzzzotta: ftom discussionofRosso's origins; seeL. Waldman: ori- then still'; Ietter 7r.ir7; seealso 64.rzl.The Urbino to Rome' in Chapnm, Henry md Plazzotta, gins and family of Rosso Fiorentino', lut nueuNc.rot t letters also begin to sound a new note, often o?t.tit. (note p.63, note rz9. An argument in favour MAGAZINEr (2ooo),pp.6o7-rz. 5), 42 to be repeated: in September 1867 Rossetti ofthe letter's authenticity is Raphael'sietter to his uncle " Franklin,op. cit. (notezr), pp.r4-r5. complained about his difficulty in sleeping Simone Ciarla, first published in ry79, over twenry 'r For a difi'erentinterpretation ofthis inventory refer- 'Raphael yearsafter Bottari published Giovanna Feltria'sletter. In ence, see T. Henry: and Siena', Apollo t55 and made the first of many appointments with ttris, Raphael himself sought another letter of recom- (October zoo4), pp.5o-57. oculists. In the letten that follow we read of mendation ftom Giovama's son FrancescoMaria. For nervous depression.insomnia, eyestrain.spec- this request in the autograph letter of 2rst April r5o8, seepp.rr2-r8. " F. Caglioti: Donatelloe i Medici, Florence zooo, I, Tft 'A pp.336-38; L. Waldman: Raphael riddle resolved', Rc THEBURTTNGTON MAGAZTNE 146 (2oo4), pp.7y-56. 'New Ed " SeeT. Henry: perspectiveson Raphael before - pp P.ome' , Atti del Conuegnointemazionale su Rffiello plu- pl. raliti e unitd, BibliothecaHertziana, z-4.5.2oo2,kome, T (forthcoming; seehttp://colosseum.biblhertz.itlevent/ Raffael/texte/Henry/henry.htm, note r 2), and Chap- 2Ol mm, HenrymdPlazzottt, op-cit.,p-63, note r3r. (r) 13 Shearman,op. cit. (note z),pp.2or-47i Caroline Elam (verbal comunication). Re 'a Caglroti,op. cit. (note rr), p.317. -A/ar 's G. Vasari: It Vite de' pil eccellentipittoi, satltori e architettori:nelle relazioni del t55o e t568, ed. P. Buocchi RC and G.G. Berteli, Florence ry97, IY, p.r65, also 'cefie in refened to stanze'when describing Raphael's call a;d' to Rome. Raphael's allusion in the letter to the patron Elr of the prcject as 'sua S.' has sometimesbeen taken to let refer to Soderini himself(standing for suaSignoria, orhis de Lordship), but it is far more likely to be shorthmd for sua Santiti (His Holiness), the pope. Soderini was the th, most powerfi.rl penon in Florence for Raphael to rurn to when seekinga recomendation for employment at Cr the papal court, and he had involved himself inJulius's br relations with other artists at the Vatican. Soderini's Srr relationshipwith the pope was important for his foreign de 'Michelangelo policy in these yean: see M. Hint: in Iat Florence:"David" in r5o3 and "Hercules" in 15o6', M THEBURTTNGTON MAGAZTNE r 42 (2ooo),pp. +87-92. 'Caissimo', OI '6 The inscriptions on the fomer read 'Carissimo m quantoJratelo';see Chapman, Henry and Plaz- se zotta,op. cit. (note 5), pp. ro6--o7.The inscription on the 'Raphael's latter reads'pnnvsn avcvsl'; seeT. Henry: be "Siege of Perugia"', .rttr BURTINGToNMAGAzINE 146 te p€ (zoo4), pp.7 45-48. For the attribution ofthe banner, see 'd A. Marabottini in F.F. Mancini, eds.:Pinacoteca Comu- naledi Ckti di Castello:Dipinti, Perugia 1989,pp.r7o-72. n( 'z 'Raphael: SeeP. Joannides: a sorority of Madonnas', pl THEBLTRTTNGTON MAGAZTNE t 46 (zoo4), pp.749- 52. te '8 For an altemative reading of the date, seeChapman, Henry and Pltzzotta, op. c;t. (rrcte 5), pp.r94j5, and lis T. Henry's review ofJ. Meyer zur Capellen'sRaphael. fo The Paintitxgs, I. The Beginning in Umbia and Florence ca.15o0-1508,THE BTJRTTNGToNMAGAZTNE r43 \zoor), R pp.575-76. Another example of a papal indiction el appearing in the date on a picture is Fra Angelico's Lementation for S. Mria de11aCroce al Tempio dr (S.Marco, Florence),which is dated r44r in the hem of sr the Virgin's mantle and precededby the indiction ('IND. tt IV'); see G. Bonsanti: BeatoAngelico: catalogo completo, Florence ry98, pp.r4r-42, no.6z, md the detail on p.7o. ir 'e M. Sanuto: I Diaii, ed. R. Fulin et al., Yensce r 'The r 879-r9o3,XIII , fol.tgz, co1.3Jo; seeB. Kempers: s1 Pope's rwo bodies.Julius II, Raphael and Saint Luke's p Maria del Popolo', in E. Thuns and G. Virgin of Santa o Wolf, eds.: The MiraarlousImage in the bte Middle Ages tl andRenaissance, Rome zoo4,pp.r89-213. 'o c J. Shearman:Raphael's Cartoons in the CollectionoJ Her Maje*y the Queenand the Tapenriesfor the Sistine Chapel, 'The London r97z; and idetn: Vatican Stanze:Functions p and Decorations', Proceedingsof the British Academy57 tI 1, (r97r), pp.369-424. l( ,' D. Franklin: Rossoin ltaly, New Haven and London ) rgg4, p.272, note J9. Archivio di Stato di Firenze, d

6S8 ocroBER 2006 . cxlvrrr . THE BURIrNGToN MAGAZ