ROMANO, Giulio (Giulio di Pietro de Gianuzzi PIPPI) 1499 - 1546
JOSEPH REVEALS HIS DREAMS TO HIS BROTHERS
Oil and Tempera on Canvas 740mm x 973mm
FORMAL RESEARCH : Raichel A. Le Goff , Oxford University
NB: the following document is the internet version of the formal research study
TECHNICAL & SCIENTIFIC STUDY : Dr Nicholas Eastaugh, London
TREATMENT OF THE SUPPORT : Peter Newman, London
CONSERVATION : R.M.S. Shepherd Associates,
THE PAINTING to which these notices are devoted is in a private collection of Italian paintings currently being studied by Studio Veritas. In the following text the painting known as Joseph Reveals His Dreams to His Brothers (for brevity to be referred to hereafter as Joseph Dreams) will be discussed with particular emphasis on its relationship to the Vatican fresco of the same title and to the documented oeuvre of Raphael Santi and Giulio Romano. These observations, combined with detailed technical and scientific evidence are intended to verify the origins and authenticity of this painting. Studio Veritas proposes that Joseph Dreams is a presentation painting for the project of the decoration of the vatican loggia commissioned from Raphael in 1517 by Pope Leo X. We further propose that it is a work of co-operation between the master and his favoured pupil Giulio Romano; Raphael inventing the design and Giulio executing the painting under the master's guidance.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1 PREPARATORY DRAWINGS
1.2 RELATED DRAWINGS
(MARCANTONIO) (BEATRIZET) (LATER ENGRAVINGS)
3.2 A PRESENTATION PAINTING FOR THE LOGGIA
3.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF BAY VII AND POPE LEO X
3.4 THE INVOLVEMENT OF RAPHAEL
4.1 THE ICONOGRAPHICAL SOURCE
4.2 THE PROBLEM OF THE 11TH BROTHER
1.1 TECHNICAL EVIDENCE
5.1 THE HISTORY OF THE LOGGIA
5.2 POPE LEO X AND THE IMPORTANCE OF BAY VII
5.3 LEO X AS JOSEPH
5.4 THE THEOLOGICAL PROGRAM OF THE VAULTS
6.1 ROMANO, 'JOSEPH DREAMS' AND THE LOGGIA
6.2 STYLE AND STYLISTIC COMPARISON TO OTHER WORKS BY RAPHAEL AND ROMANO
6.3 COMPARATIVE WORKS BY GUILIO ROMANO POST-RAPHAEL
7.1 CONCLUSION ---------------
FULL TECHNICAL & SCIENTIFIC REPORT (coming soon to this page)
: This is a long document and has not yet been fully formatted italics, footnotes etc..
1.1 PREPARATORY DRAWINGS There are three known drawings that in the past, by one authority or another, were all ascribed to Raphael and were thought to be the original preparatory drawing for Joseph Dreams. None of them are currently accepted as such. Due to the existence of early engravings which derive from lost preparatory designs and which differ somewhat from the present composition of Joseph Dreams, we know that these three drawings do not represent the prime pensieri as at first glance, they may lead us to believe. The most widely acknowledged of the three drawings is in the Albertina, Vienna and is now attributed to Perino del Vaga by the museum. The second and in many ways, more convincing drawing, was in the collection of Sir Thomas Lawrence the 18th century English painter and was last recorded as being in the collection of Winslow Ames, Saunderston, Rhode Island. The entry for this drawing in the 1924 Ederheimer Sale catalogue, mentions that Dr di Pietro, a curator of drawings at the Uffizi, attributed it 'unquestionably' to Raphael.Whilst this attribution has since been rejected, the Lawrence drawing remains the most Raphaelesque of the three and was probably done after an original modello of Raphael or one of his pupils. In turn, the Lawrence drawing may even have served as the prototype for the Albertina drawing. The third sheet, listed as being in the M. Schiff (Cogswell) Collection, New York, is undoubtedly done after the fresco in the loggia and is of poor quality. Roughly twenty drawings exist which are acredited as being original modelli for various loggia scenes, two of which (David and Goliath and Moses Receives the Commandments) are presently attributed by Dacos to Raphael himself. If we consider that Joseph Dreams is of central importance to the loggia, it seems likely that a similar modello executed by Raphael existed for this scene. The Albertina and Lawrence drawings mentioned above are doubtless copies of this now lost modello. Penni has been suggested as draughtsman of the lost modello, largely because these copies retain something of Penni's whimsical style. The absence in both drawings of landscape and most noticeably, the prominent palm tree, suggests that this lost modello was one or two stages further removed from the completed painting which has developed and refined an original design. Consequently, the easel painting here discussed, served as a 'type' of modello for the artists who frescoed bay VII of the loggia. Perhaps one of the reasons the loggia quadro ripportato showing Joseph Dreams is widely considered the most successful and pleasing picture to be viewed in the loggia is because it alone, was copied from a highly finished oil and tempera painting and not just from an ordinary sketch.
1.2 RELATED DRAWINGS
Drawings within Raphael's known oeuvre that could relate to individual figures within the composition have not been proposed by modern scholars but Studio Veritas would like to discuss one drawing in particular that we believe ties in closely to the design for Joseph Dreams. It is a study of three naked men and the legs of another in the British Museum and is firmly given to Raphael. In essence, it responds to the four figures that compose the right half of the painting, that of Joseph and the upright trio of brothers.The figure on the right of the BM drawing is a variant on the figure of the standing brother third from the right in Joseph Dreams who supports his weight on a shepherd's crook. The contrapposto position of the shepherd with his left hip thrust out and the downward slope of his shoulders suggests strongly that of the figure in the BM drawing. Most important, is the unmistakable detail of the left hand that rests on the shaft of the crook with the little finger tucked up in an awkward curl and the two middle fingers extended along the shaft. This is an intricate digital arrangement and is not duplicated in the painting by chance. It is in fact, a detail borrowed from Michelangelo's statue of David which Raphael sketched in Florence c.1504. The upper part of the figure to the left in the BM drawing is related to the figure of Joseph in the gesture of both arms crossing the chest and one hand pointing away from the body. The lower part of this same figure gives the particular stance that is repeated in the figures of the other two brothers in the trio of Joseph Dreams. It has been suggested that the figures in the BM drawing are soldiers, the shafts they hold, swords. If one looks closely at the top of the shaft as held by the figure on the right, one can see the rounded curl of a shepherd's crook and not the hilt of a sword. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the figure would be grasping the naked blade of a sword with his fingers. The figure on the right of the BM drawing appears in a closely related pose in another drawing by Raphael of two nude men, one holding a lamb and both undoubtedly intended to represent shepherds, not soldiers. This drawing and the BM drawing, although regarded as autograph, have not been formally linked to any finished works within Raphael's oeuvre. Raphael would have referred back to folios of earlier figure studies when working out the designs fo the loggia scenes, rather than endlessly pose figures to work from life; time was simply too precious and there were too many designs to produce. So it is likely, that Raphael drew upon the BM drawing, as source material for the design of the four figures in Joseph Dreams, which surely cut the most attractive group in the overall design. _____________________________
Not only are there obvious connections to form, gesture and detail, but the strong young bodies of the nude men and the curly heads int he BM drawing answer those of the shepherds in Joseph Dreams. Furthermore, the attitude of conversation as if they were listening to someone speak and were discussing the issue, again relates to the action witnessed in Joseph Dreams. The success of the individual design for the three brothers was such that it reappears in another loggia scene in bay X The Division of the Promised Land and again in altered form in the group on the left of Giulio's The Continence of Scipio. Another drawing which must be here examined purely for stylistic comparison, is the cartoon for an angel's head in the Expulsion of Heliodorus from the Temple. When compared to the head in profile of the recumbent figure in the presentation painting, the two are strikingly similar. In the painting, the abbozzo shows through in the outline of the profile, particularly around the tip of the nose. The nose is an area where the artist's hand has reconsidered the line in both the Heliodorus cartoon and in Joseph Dreams. The two heads share the same heavy brow with a crown of tousled forelocks that wave back exposing the ear, the same dark elongated eye and the same parted lips. It is interesting to note that Crowe and Cavacaselle emphatically attribute the cartoon to Giulio whilst the Louvre and other authorities favour an attribution to Raphael. We are more inclined in this case, to consider Raphael as author of the Heliodorus angel especially as it is datable to circa 1511 when Giulio was only an adolescent. In actual size, the head of the shepherd in Joseph Dreams is many times smaller than the head of the Angel in the Heliodorus cartoon, so to render on this smaller scale, such a remarkable likeness, with such deft certainty of line, the artist either had to be one and the same or someone who was so intimately connected to another's technique that he could duplicate detail effortlessly. ______________________________
It is probably the case that Raphael undermodelled the shepherd's head on the canvas of Joseph Dreams as a guideline for his assistant Giulio to work within. It is Raphael who is responsible for the black outline th at we clearly see and Giulio who has painted over the outline in his characteristic red-brick tones. If we are to accept this hypothesis, then it follows that Raphael would not have undermodelled only one small head on the canvas, but indicated a larger part if not all of the composition for Joseph Dreams in abbozzo before its final colouring.
There have been numerous engravings of Raphael's Bible. Here follows a Chronological list of engravings after the completion of the Loggia c.1519 up to Chaperon :
1. c. 1534 - Marcantonio Raimondi (school of) - (Ill. Ba. p.13. no.28) 2. 1541 - Nicholas Beatrizet - (1507-1563) - Ill. Ba. p.13, no.28 3. c. 1607 - Giovanni Lanfranco - (1581-1647) - Ill. Ba. p.318, no.404. 1613 -Aloisi Galanini - (1577-1638) -Ill. Ba.p,275, no.405. 1615 - Orazio Borgianni - (1578-1620) - de Witt cat. 951576. 1625 - Cesare Fantetti and Pietro Aquila
MARCANTONIO : The precise date is not known for this engraving which is one of a series of scenes for the loggia engraved by Marcantonio and his workshop. Bartsch has correctly remarked that it must have been conceived from various preliminary loggia designs and not copied from the finished scenes in the loggia. As Marcantonio and his studio had access to the drawings of Raphael during his lifetime and after, this is a logical assumption. It may well be that Raphael handed over an initial series of designs to Marcantonio to be engraved as a separate project. Hypotheses aside, compositional differences between the Marcantonio engravings and the loggia frescoes are just too numerous to suppose that Marcantonio copied from the frescoes. We can further assume that Marcantonio's engravings of the loggia were completed before 1541, the date of Beatrizet's incomplete series which seem to be copied from Marcantonio's prints and which appear in the reverse.Further evidence of there having been various designs for the loggia scenes that differed from the final compositions is furnished by an engraving dated 1533 showing Joseph Sold by His Brothers by the Maitre au De which shows an extra three figures and additional landscape. There is also a drawing in the Uffizi attributed to the studio of Raphael that shows yet another variation on the Joseph theme with a naked Joseph being forced into a stone well by his ten elder brothers.Passavant comments, <
Diagram I (coming soon to this page)
Comparison of structure of the group of brothers to the left of the composition in both Marcantonio's engraving and in the easel painting of Joseph Dreams.
Engraving Easel Painting
In the engraving, the structure of the group is squared with the heads of the brothers aligned horizontally. In the easel painting the strucutre of the group is trapezoidal and angles toward the centre. The reclining figure has moved closer to the group to diminish the distance evident in the engraving. The backdrop to the group in the engraving is a cave with a grassy horizontal overedge shading the brothers. In the painting, it has changed to a sharply inclined hillock that acts as a coulisse, directing the beholder's eye toward the centre. This modification also allows more light to flow onto the scene. Another improvement to the composition was made by moving the dominant palm tree off-centre. In the engraving, the tree was centred behind Joseph causing a hiatus which virtually cut the composition into halves, and almost placed Joseph on a small 'island' of his own. Raphael has moved the tree sligtly to the right and allowed the figures of Joseph and the standing brother with the crook to block off the lower half of the treetrunk. This has the effect of tightening up the composition and moving attention away from the stark prominence of the tree as it appeared in the engraving. In closing the gap between tree and figures, the traveller's bundle which is tied to Joseph's hip in the engraving has been eliminated. This explains why Joseph appears in the final design with a sash across his torso, it remained after the bundle was erased. Like a yard-stick, the crook of the shepherd to the right shows the degree to which the gap was closed, for in the engraving, it crosses in front of Joseph's raised back foot whilst int he painting, it crosses the forward foot and almost reaches to the foot of the reclining figure in the left plane, effectively bridging the division between left and right.The silhouette of the horizon has also been modified to concentrate on a more defined landscape with a single mountain peak and a horizontal stretch of calm water that responds to the cloud formation bordering the sky, a feature totally absent from the engraving. Concerning the figures, perhaps the major difference is in the brother to the right of Joseph leaning on his shepherd's crook. In the engraving, this figure does not adopt the attractive contrapposto position and he stands uncomfortably erect like a giant towering over his brothers. The other two figures of the trio display an unnatural arrangement of legs, almost a "caterpillar" effect. This awkwardness had been rectified by the time of the painting. As Jean-Pierre Cuzin argues, <
Among the many differences to be noted in this genesis between the initial and final design for Joseph Dreams is the rearrangement of the flock of sheep. In the engraving there are fewer animals and the heads of those that are visible have curled horns indicating they are rams. Instead of the dense herd grazing in the painting, three rams lift their heads and they are solely of white fleece whereas we see a few black sheep included afterwards.
BEATRIZET : (In reverse). This image varies from the painting in much the same way as the above with the exception that here, the standing shepherd has adopted the contrapposto position. This indicates that there may have been a separate sketch worked out for these three figures in an effort to rectify the awkwardness of the earlier version as seen in Marcantonio's engraving. Perhaps a drawing by Raphael that related to the BM drawing of three figures discussed in paragraph
LATER ENGRAVINGS : After Beatrizet's series of 1541 it would appear that engravers drew their inspiration directly from the frescoes. In Lanfranco's Joseph Reveals his Dreams to his Brothers of c. 1607, (in reverse) we see the short and stocky figure of Joseph, the startled expressions of the brothers and the landscape much the same as it appears today in the Vatican loggia.
Mention should be made of a series of watercolours commissioned c. 1555, which are really the first complete record of the loggia decorations. Bernice Davidson has made extensive use of the codex in her work on the loggia. For details of landscape and expression etc. it is not really useful to compare the watercolour illustration of Joseph Reveals his Dreams to his Brothers with the presentation painting as the quality of the drawing is too poor, but it is interesting to examine the use of colour._______________________________
The robes of the eleven visible figures (the twelfth having only the head visible), match the colours of those seen in the presentation painting with the exception of the robes of Joseph and the reclining figure. In the codex, Joseph's robe is rendered in the same pink shade as the reclining figure to the left and the standing figure to the right in Joseph Dreams. Together they constitute the three central figures of the composition. As such, it is unlikely that the three would all be painted in the same rosy shades when so much care has been taken with the rest of the composition to provide strong colour contrasts; the red, yellow, blue sequence of the standing trio to the right being an example. It is more feasible that the artist of the codex was not entirely faithful to what he saw. If one looks at the fresco which although faded, still retains a fair indication of its original vibrancy, one can see that the reclining figure is dressed in a cool blue and mauve-tinted robe whilst Joseph is dressed in a green-gold robe with mauve shadows in juxtaposition to the warm red of his neighbouring brother. These shades are basically those of the presentation painting and make for a more balanced palette than is seen in the watercolour.
There is an inscription on the reverse of the 16th/17th (?) century
frame, in large painted letters. "G" the first letter is clear, but the
following letters are indistinct. The "G" could be an initial standing
for Giulio and the second letter seems to be a capital "R". As it is not
generally the practice to sign the back of a frame with the owner's name,
it would indicate that this inscription bears the name of the artist. The
last collector to own this painting, believed it to be a work by Gianfrancesco
Penni. Coupled with the history of the subject matter, this gave our researchers
a valid starting point for investigation into the authorship of the picture.
However, after a critical look at the working style of Penni for the period,
it was plain that Il Fattore could not be the artist of this vibrant work.<
3.2 A PRESENTATION PAINTING FOR THE LOGGIA
In the sixteenth century, highly finished paintings such as this one,
were produced as presentation paintings to show to the patron for approval
prior to a project being initiated. Once approved, a full scale cartoon
could then be derived to enable the execution of the fresco.Frederick Hartt
3.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF BAY VII AND POPE LEO X
Vasari writes: <
3.4 THE INVOLVEMENT OF RAPHAEL
Romano's first autograph work is thought to be the Portrait of Giovanna of Aragon, Paris, Louvre. Executed in 1518, it is a highly accomplished work for the 19 year old artist. Even allowing for faults in the general lines of the figure and the rigid pose, it is still a very worthy picture that became a very popular image. In the light of recent study, it is now considered a work of collaboration between Raphael and Romano. There are certain passages just too good for Romano to have painted. Whilst undeniably raffaellesque, the Portrait of Giovanna of Aragon should never be mistaken as a work entirely by the master, for the personality of Giulio permeates everything he does and he is never successful as an imitator of Raphael. The blatant artistic voice of Giulio has led scholars to recognize works such as the Madonna della Perla and the Uffizi's San Giovannino as works of collaboration between master and pupil.
4.1 THE ICONOGRAPHICAL SOURCE
4.2 THE PROBLEM OF THE 11TH BROTHER
The positioning of the whole cycle is articulated around the central placement of the Joseph tetralogy. It is not the result of mere chance but that of a specific intention and concerted planning of Raphael together with the Pope's theologians. _______________________________
However it is interesting to notice that there is an important error
in the biblical theme represented, a detail overseen not only by Raphael
and his contemporaries, but by the cognoscenti eversince. During those
crucial years of creativity, the Pope had appointed a scholar at the side
of Raphael. Writing on the 1st of July 1514 to his uncle, Simone di Batista
di Ciarla da Urbino, Raphael explains : <<[the Pope] He has given
me as a colleague a very learned frate, of at least eighty years of age,
and who has not long to live. His holiness gave me this man of great reputation
and great learning for a colleague, that I might profit by him.>>. We also
know, as suggested by O.Fischel, that Raphael had close contacts with a
group of priests and laymen who called their religious organisation the
Oratory of the Divine Love, this around 1517. Furthermore, the cardinal
and poet, Egidio da Viterbo 1480-1532 an Augustinian, is believed to have
been active in advising both Michelangelo and Raphael in the thematic details
of their works in the Vatican. So Raphael could hardly be ignorant of the
Holy Scriptures. Indeed, Dr Fabrizio Mancinelli of the Vatican states in
a letter to Studio Veritas, <
1 see discussion paragraph 2.12 The Albertina drawing is mentioned by Passavant, J.-D., Raphael d'Urbin et son pere Giovanni Santi, 1839, (Edition 1860, Paris) II.p.178 who attributes its execution to Raphael. Crowe & Cavalcaselle, Raphael, London 1885, Vol.II, p.514, attribute the sheet jointly to Giulio Romano and Polidoro da Caravaggio, mentioning that it came from the collection of the Duke of Ursel. N. Dacos dismisses the drawing as a copy after a lost modello by Penni. For a complete listing of refs. see N.Dacos, Le Logge di Raffaello, 1986, p. 178.
3 Passavant, 1860, II, p. 178 describes the Lawrence drawing
4 Anderson Galleries, New York 6-7 November, 1924 lot no. 252. Cat. entry reads as follows : Original drawing for the painting in the Loggias of the Vatican. While the painting in the Loggias, owing to exposure and decay, has been entirely painted over and shows no traces of the Master's hand, this drawing shows all his characteristic qualities. We know a number of Raphael drawings in the same medium (rehausse au lavis rose), and the authorities to whom this was submitted (I mention especially Dr. Di Pietro, former curator of the drawings at Uffizi and probably the best connoisseur of Italian drawings) agree that this is an unquestionably authentic work by Raphael. Pen, bistre, pink water colour, with traces of white high-lights. Height, 8.75 inches; width, 10 inches. From the Sir Thomas Lawrence Collection.
5 Details: slightly colored in red crayon, size 47/8 inches x 71/2 inches. This drawing has not been mentioned by logge scholars. A photograph of it exists in the Witt Library, London, and includes an amusing anonymous exhibition catalogue entry. This drawing has included the landscape and is more finished in detail which deprives it of any creative impetus and renders it a definite copy after the fresco. It could even be considered an attempt to concoct a "preparatory sketch".
6 Both drawings in the Albertina, Vienna. For a complete list of attributions for the loggia scenes see this report, Part II, p......
7 see the British Museum's Florentine Drawings of the Sixteenth Century, Turner, Nicholas, BM Publications London,1986, p. 40.
8 For discussion on this and another drawing by Raphael derived from Michelangelo's David, see ibid. pp. 38-40.
9 See Joannides, 1983, p.154, cat.no.89.
10 See Joannides p. 178, cat.n.184. Two nude men and a lamb, Bayonne, Musee Bonnat 1706. Raphael has obviously taken the pose of the left-hand figure from his study of Michelangelo's David, British Museum, see note 5 above and Joannides p.156 cat.n.97.
11 Continence of Scipio, Musee du Louvre, Paris. Modello for a tapestry. Attributed to Giulio Romano by Morel d'Arleux, Conservateur 1797-1827. Inventaire manuscrit des dessins du Cabinet des Dessins du Louvre, inv.no. 1924.
12 Crowe and Cavacaselle, Raphael, London 1885, vol.II,
14 <<...e finalmente (furono messe in stampa da Marcantonio) molte storie che Raffaello aveva disegnate per il corridore e loggie di Palazzo, le quali sono state poi rintagliate da Tommaso Barlacchi, insieme con le storie de' panni che Raffaello fece pel concistori pubblico>>. Golzio, Vincenzo, Nei Documenti Nelle Testimonianze dei Contemporanei e nella letteratura del SVO Secolo, Citta Del Vaticano 1936 p. 247.
15 Bartsch Ouevre de Maitre au De/ Vol.p. 185 No.1, <
16 Uffizi, no. Uff 527 E Sopr. 111440.
17 Passavant, p.417. <
18 The Cup of Joseph found in the sack of Benjamin, see Passavant, 1860, Vol. II, p. 474 (g). There are differences between the drawing and the engraving. Passavant suggests that the drawing is in the style of Perino del Vaga but that Bonasone's engraving could be taken from an original sketch by Raphael. The drawing is in the Musee du Louvre, inv.3851. The engraving by Bonasone: Bartsch, 1813, XV, p.113, no.6.
19 J-P Cuzin, Raphael His Life and His Works, New Jersey, 1985, p.215.
20 Raphael's original source for The Judgement of Paris arose from a Medicean antique bas-relief. This has been widely discussed by Raphael scholars, see Crowe and Cavacaselle, pp. 311-313 and G. Becatti, Raffaello e l'Antico in Raffaello, ed. M. Salmi, Novara 1968, II, p. 660. For further comparison between joseph Dreams and Paris see this report, section 5.2.
21 Catalogue des estampes gravees d'apres Rafael par TAURISCUS
EUBOEUS 1819 Francfort, p. 78 III Bible - Ancien Testament. <
22 Codex min. 33. see Albendlandische Buchmalerei, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, 60, no. 156. 23 B. Davidson, Raphael's Bible, a Study of the Vatican Logge, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1985.
24 We must allow for error with the artist of the watercolours, as Bernice Davidson found when studying the codex, The artist of the Vienna codex who copied the vault of the first bay became confused; he transposed the scenes of God separating the Earth from Water and the Creation of the Animals. B. Davidson, Ibid., pp. 48-49n.
25 The inscription, faint but discernible, was discovered under a watersoluble ochre paint that was painted over the back of the frame.
27 Vasari, 1568, ibid.
29 Vasari lists The Creation of Adam and Eve, Noah Building the Arc, The Sacrifice of Noah and The Finding of Moses in the Waters.(III, p.264, ed. Milano, 1964).
30 Passavant, II, p.167.
31 see Vault I, Dio separa la luce dalle tenebre, Vault VI, Sogno di Giacobbe, Vault IX, Adorazione del vitello d'oro, etc. Dacos, see Tavole IX, XXV, XXXVI.
32 F. Hartt, History of Italian Renaissance Art, London , p.518
33 For discussion on the symbolism of the seventh loggia see Bernice Davidson p. 72-75. and this report Part II, Section....
34 'Perche volendo Papa Leone mostrare la grandezza della magnificenza, e generosita sua, Rafaello fece i disegni degli ornamenti degli stucchi, e delle storie, che vi si dipintero,' Vasari, Firenze 1771. p. 204
35 G.Vasari, Lives of the Artists, Vol 1. [Penguin Classics, London 1987 ed.] p.311.
36 See B. Davidson, 1985, p.73-74.
37 Madonna della Perla, ca. 1520, Madrid, Prado.
38 see N. Dacos, 1986, pp.73-76, ill. fig.16.
39 Genesis XXXVII:740 Ibid., 9-10
41 see Becatti, Raffaello e l'antico, 1968, p.509, fig. 26 & p.510, fig.27.
42 G. Vasari, V,p.411 (Golzio, p.245).
44 see L. Bianchi, La Fortuna di Raffaello nella incisione, 1968, pp.647-690.
45 The fresco, The Council of the Gods, features in the Loggia di Psiche, Villa della Farnesina, Rome and is a creation of Raphael with the greater part of the practical execution being ascribed to both Giulio Romano and Penni. The Farnesina was completed in December 1518, but work had probably commenced in 1517, the same year as work commenced on the decoration of Leo X's private loggia. As both projects would have had their designs made up prior to work commencing, it is therefore impossible to say which composition, Joseph Dreams or The Council of the Gods, precedes the other. Rather, the basic similarities in both compositions reflect the tight working schedule of Raphael and his bottega where for economy of time, it was necessary to adapt the same designs to both sacred and profane subjects.
46 B. Berenson, Italian Painters of the Renaissance,London, 1952, p.129
47 The letter is not preserved in the original, the text is from Nel Centenario di Raffaello da Urbino, Roman 1883. Author's source, V. Wanscher, Raffaello Santi da Urbino, His Life and Works, London 1926, p. 145.
48 O. Fischel, Raphael, (translated by Bernard Rackham), London 1948, p.317.
49 Musee de Beaux Arts, Dijon
50 Passavant, 1839, p.178, no.145, <
51 See The Dream of the Young Scipio : National Gallery/ La Belle Jardiniere: Louvre/ St. Catherine: Nat. Gall. London/ Les Trois Graces: Chantilly/ The Madonna of Alba: Washington, etc...
52 St.John, Ch.XXI.
1.1 TECHNICAL EVIDENCE
Dr Nicholas Eastaugh was in charge of the technical investigation conducted over a period of six months in 1990 incorporating X-ray, infra-red reflectography, pigment analysis and canvas identification. His findings to date confirm that the painting is contemporary with the activity and geographic origins of Raphael. In summary Studio Veritas has established :i) That the canvas support is of a type used by Raphael and studio.ii) That the high quality pigments used are consistent with those found in other Raphael paintings.iii) That mixed media has been used: both tempera and oils, reflecting the trend in technique c.1517.iv) That the undermodelling is most probably by a hand other than the executor of the painting.v) That the chromatic modelling is representative of Giulio Romano's technique.
DISCUSSION: It is our opinion, that Giulio in this instance,
assisted Raphael, painting with him over the master's underdrawing, which,
because of its specific colouring and of the relatively thick layer of
paint, cannot be detected unless means which would greatly endanger the
painting were employed.When this painting underwent infra-red reflectography,
no definite underdrawing could be observed. This shows that, like numerous
other cases, the underdrawing was made with a material which does not absorb
infra-red light, such as lapis rosso, umber, sepia ink or simply white
chalk. Raphael's graphic work employed a wide variety of techniques including
the common use of these materials. To best illustrate this, lets listen
to what Hacquin had to say after he had, in 1767, transferred onto canvas
the Holy Family of the Louvre, then in the possession of the Marquis of
Pimodan : <
Analysis indicated that no pigments were found which it would have been
impossible for Raphael or Romano to have used. Thus we find rare and expensive
natural ultramarine, lead tin yellow, vermilion, yellow ochre, terre vert,
bone or ivory black. The particle size of the pigments was generally fine.
The identification of the natural ultramarine is of particular importance
because of the nature of the pigment particles. Microscopically these appear
to be extremely small for the pigment, which was prepared from the mineral
lapis lazuli by grinding and a complex process of separation. A similarly
fine natural ultramarine has been found on a painting by Perugino. It was
a very costly pigment, dearer than gold, and only the most prestigious
artists could afford to paint with it.Perugino was the master of Raphael
and it is rational that the pupil would adopt his master's techniques and
sources of material as reciprocally, Romano was to adopt the traditions
of his master. The generous application of this rare form of ultramarine
led Dr Eastaugh to conclude, <
It is instructive to compare the pigments existent in the presentation painting with those of another "preparatory work" in colour that was executed around the same period and with the prominent assistance of Giulio Romano. The Vatican tapestry cartoons were preparatory for another decorative project close to Leo X's heart, to cover the walls of the Sistine Chapel. The tapestries were one of the first artistic improvements commissioned by Leo after he was elected Pope. The biblical narratives portrayed in the tapestries although taken solely from the New Testament, are similar in format tand feeling to many of the loggia scenes as we see in particular when comparing Joseph Dreams and Christ's Charge to Peter which incidentally is one of the two major cartoons for which samples were taken for pigment analysis by the V & A in 1965-66. _____________________________
Natural ultramarine has been found in : The Dream of the Young Scipio ( few scattered particles of natural ultramarine). The Crucified Christ with the Virgin Mary Saints and Angels ( Ultramarine is confined to the bluest touches of the distant landscape ). The Aldobrandini Madonna or the Garvagh Madonna ( both the blue of the cloak and that of the underdress are based on very high quality natural ultramarine brightened and lightened with the addition of a little lead white. Saint John the Baptist Preaching ( ultramarine was present in one sample only ). La belle Jardiniere ( Le Lapiz-Lazuli est pur, superpose a une couche d'azurite ). La Grande Sainte Famille ( la couche de laque rouge et de blanc de plomb est travaille puis recouverte d'une couche de lapiz-lazuli dont les effets sont exaltes par la couche sous jacante ). La Madone au Voile [Penni] ( le lapis-lazuli est pose sur une sous couche rose carmin ). La Grande Sainte famille ( les marbrures bleus du pavement sont faites d'une mince couche de Lapis-lazuli pose sur fond beige ). Madonna in the Meadow ( the topmost layer is composed of a thin final glaze of genuine ultramarine ). The Canigiani Holy Family ( it appears that the ultramarine present in the topmost layer, over thick azurite underpaint has undergone partial discoloration ). Santa Cecilia ( blue top layer formed by two imperfectly divided sublayers, the lower one containing azurite and the upper one ultramarine). The Transfiguration ( a relatively thick layer of ultramarine alone, mixed with lead-white..). The Madonna di Foligno ( shows a thiner ultramarine ).
Table I Pigment Comparisons : (Not yet available on this site)
TAPESTRY CARTOONS/ JOSEPH DREAMS : EASEL PAINTING
1515 /c. 1517/18
carbon black/ bone or ivory black
yellow, red and brown, /yellow ochre, red ochre(earth colours - iron oxide,)
azurite /natural ultramarine
malachite /terre vert
lead tin yellow Type I /lead tin yellow Type I
red lead gamboge (vegetable)vermilion/ vermilion
red lake, pink lake/ red lake (vegetable)
From the above table, we can see that although there is a basic palette of nine pigments in both works, Raphael has used less costly substitutes for colours in the cartoons, whereas for the easel painting, he has made use of the best pigments then available : Cartoons Joseph Dreams
Joyce Plesters :<
Scientific evidence, which confirmed the proposed dating for Joseph
Dreams, combined with the visual examination reveals that the painting
procedure of this canvas is consistent with Raphael's late period, when
he had adopted a style where <
NB : FOR MORE DETAILS ON THE TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION PLEASE REFER TO PART IV : STUDIO VERITAS' REPORT PREPARED BY DR. EASTAUGH (Not yet published on this site)
FOOTNOTES FOR TECHNICAL EVIDENCE (PART II)
1 Dr Nicholas Eastaugh Ph.D.Dip.Cons.Courtauld Institute; B.Sc. and now in private practice in London specialises in pigment analysis and has considerable experience in the scientific examination of paintings. A comprehensive report of Dr Eastaugh's findings is available upon request from Studio Veritas.
2 eg. See portrait Pope Julius II, National Gallery London,
3 See drawings for The Battle of Ostia: Albertina/Villa Farnesina : Louvre/Chigi Chapel : Ashmolean Mus. & British Mus./Madonna Alba : Musee Wicar (Lille)/Madonna and Child with the Infant St.John (for the painting known as Madonna of the Belvedere, Vienna) : Metropolitan NY
4 We reproduce in the original Hacquin's own statement:
5 Analysis indicated that the warp and weft fibres were of hemp woven into a plain or tabby weave canvas. For Italian paintings of this period we would expect hemp rather than linen or flax.
6 see Studio Veritas' technical report.
7 Raphael, Portrait of Andrea Navagero and Agostino Beazzano, 76 x 107cm, Galleria Doria Pamphilj, Rome as compared to 74 x 97.3cm for Joseph Dreams.
8 This has been investigated further and confirmed on the basis of a communication from Madame Lola Faillant-Dumas, head of the research laboratory of the Louvre.
9 for Madonna of the Meadows see Wolfgang Prohaska, Princeton Raphael Symposium, 1990, p.62., for St. John the Baptist Preaching see Joyce Plesters, Princeton Raphael Symposium, 1990, p.36. and Allan Braham & Martin Wyld, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, v.8, 1984,p.23.
10 The Virgin and Child with St. John: National Gallery London, No. 181
11Source : The Princeton Raphael Symposium, op.cit. at note 2.
12 J. Plesters, ibid., p.112.
13 J. Plesters, ibid., p.115.
14 Shearman, ibid., p.12.
5.1 HISTORY OF THE LOGGIA
The Vatican loggia was originally a creation of Bramante but was modified
and completed by Raphael after Bramante's death in 1514. It is situated
on the second floor of Nicholas III's palace, adjacent to the papal apartments
and overlooking the Court of St Damasius. In a letter written on the 19th
of July 1517, Bembo informs Cardinal Bibbiena that the building of the
Loggie is in progress.The Vatican records two payments for flooring to
Lucca della Robbia, in 1518 and mention is made of a present of 25 ducats
made on the 11th of June, 1519, <
5.2 POPE LEO X AND THE IMPORTANCE OF BAY VII
Leo X was passionate for astrology and numerology. They were concepts
that he embraced as an integral part of his religious belief. The pursuit
of esoteric studies was not unusual for a learned man of the period, as
Janet Cox-Rearick explains: <
5.3 LEO X AS JOSEPH
The patriachal figure of Joseph was seen as a prefiguration of Christ.
The placing of Joseph in the pit, his suffering and subsequent re-emergence
leading to eventual glory were paralleled to the crucifixion, entombment
and resurrection of Christ. It is interesting to note that out of the four
chosen scenes to illustrate the saga of Joseph, which was heavy with fabulous
episodes, two of the scenes deal with the interpretation of dreams. Encompassed
in cosmic spheres, the symbolic imagery announces Joseph's predestined
rule over his people and over Egypt. This is intended to allude to Leo
X's own predestined Papal rule. When still a child Ficino predicted that
the then Giovanni de'Medici would become pope. In Zaccaria Ferreri's panegyric,
Lugdunense somnium, which celebrates Leo's election, there are numerous
heroic, visionary and astrological references that could be linked to the
Leo-Joseph correlation. In the lines :<
5.4 THE THEOLOGICAL PROGRAM OF THE VAULTS
Bernice Davidson explores the symbolic nature of the logge program and
arrives at the conclusion that <
6.1 STYLE AND STYLISTIC COMPARISON TO OTHER WORKS BY RAPHAEL AND ROMANO
There are no reasons to doubt that as Vasari indicated, Raphael was
responsible for the conception of all biblical scenes in the loggia. Each
one encapsulates a story, each bay of four paintings follows a specific
theme, the thirteenth bay celebrates the New Testament with the birth of
6.2 COMPARATIVE WORKS BY GIULIO ROMANO POST-RAPHAEL
Easel paintings by Guilio are rare, his talents having been more in demand as a decorator on the grand scale. Post-Raphael, it is from the executed frescoes and studies for decorative projects, rather than the few existing easel paintings that we can draw stylistic parallels with Joseph Dreams. In the Vatican's Sala di Constantino we can identify the particular masculine physiognomies of the brothers in those of the soldiers in the Continence of Scipio and The Cross Appearing to Constantine 1520-21. Here, his hyper-expressive tendencies emerge, which are to extend to the realm of caricature in later works. Giulio is undoubtedly best known for his work in Mantua at the Palazzo Te. Although his style here is diametrically opposed to the grace and good taste of his master, Giulio cannot help but borrow time and time again, Raphael's inventions. The head of the recumbent shepherd in Joseph Dreams which originated with the avenging angel from Heliodorus (see paragraph...) resurfaces as Venus in the Banquet scene of the Sala di Psiche in the Palazzo Te and also as a female river divinity to the left in the very same scene.The effeminate head of Joseph, seen in profile with his precious features and long golden curls, has its descendants in the head of a nymph next to a satyr at the table of the banquet scene, Il banchetto rustico and in the head of Paris (?) seated to the left in Il banchetto nobile.The enlarged ear lobes, turgid foreheads, parted lips and long straight noses of the brothers in Joseph Dreams are given greater emphasis in the roman soldiers of the Camera dell'Imperatore and also in the scenes of the sala di Troia at Mantua's Palazzo Ducale, such as Laocoon and his sons 1536-40.When Joseph Dreams was being cleaned a slight but significant error was brought to our attention by the conservationist, an error only an inexperienced and hasty young artist could have overlooked on such an important painting. The large toe on the right foot of the reclining figure is placed incorrectly on the outer side. This error must have existed in the original lost modello as it is also evident in the Albertina drawing which would lead one to think that perhaps Giulio too, was responsible for the modello, probably working up an idea by Raphael. The present unstable attribution for the lost modello is given to Penni. Although too cluttered to be wholly faithful to any design by Raphael, there is a good deal of influence from the master around the head of the Madonna and certain passages of the drapery which points to this being a painting perhaps commissioned from Raphael and which Giulio may well have started work on before his master's death.36 In fact, the head of Venus in Palazzo Te is a blatant borrow from that of the Apollo in The Banquet of the Gods, Farnesina. Both are closely linked to the head of the recumbent shepherd in Joseph Dreams.In the two early engravings done by Marcantonio and Beatrizet, the toe is correctly placed which coincides with the theory that these engravings were done after other designs that were rejected by Raphael for the final version of Joseph Dreams. After Beatrizet's engraving of 1541, the toe reappears on the wrong side of the foot, as in Lanfranco (1607), Chapron (1649), etc. It is strange indeed that a perfectionist like Chapron, who was the first to idealize the loggia designs to classical perfection, should carefully incise such an inaccuracy on his plate. As these engravings were done after the fresco and not after lost preparatory designs, it would appear that the fresco also originally shared in the error of the big toe. The fact that it was later corrected, points to the restoration attempt of Carol Maratta at the beginning of the 18th century for after this date, as in the splendid engraving executed by Volpato (1782), we see a strangely shaped foot, destined to be the left instead of the right foot with a small toe added onto the side, in front of the big toe. The angle and shape of the foot is entirely wrong for a right foot. The addition of a small toe on the side is a poor attempt to correct the error. Volpato, working after a drawing by Savorelli, has faithfully copied the foot as corrected in the loggia and the same odd foot can be seen later in 19th century engravings. This quirky error, clearly originating with the preparatory drawing for Joseph Dreams, further attests to the authenticity and dating of the easel painting.In Joseph Dreams, the musculature is rendered after the often criticized style of his Master, although Raphael himself could never have been responsible for the distortion of the back muscles in the recumbent shepherd. A drawing in the Uffizi of a River God by Romano testifies to this very distinctive way of dislocating the head to a right angle above the massive shoulders, the spine lost under an impossible crevice of muscle. Romano seems to be more interested in conveying a sense of power and physical grandeur rather than portraying a natural anatomy. This characteristic boursoufle treatment of the back is seen again in the figures of Hercules, Hebe and Apollo in the Farnesina's Feast of the Gods. It reappears in the fourth bay of the loggia with even greater distortion, in the kneeling figure to the right foreground of Abraham and Melchisedech, a peculiarity which reinforces this fresco's attribution to Giulio Romano._______________________________
6.3 ROMANO, 'JOSEPH DREAMS' AND THE LOGGIA
One's first impression upon viewing the easel painting Joseph Dreams is that it is a far finer work than the loggia fresco and one tends to believe that the painting and the fresco could not be by the same artist. There are several reasons for this reaction. We must allow first of all for the limitations of fresco technique, secondly for the fact of the alteration of fresco pigments producing a bleached effect which is also due to the exposure to foul weather before the loggia was enclosed in modern times, and lastly, for possible restoration attempts. We know for instance, that in 1701, Carlo Maratta was commissioned to restore works by Raphael in the Vatican and his pupil Guillaume Vallet, who worked together with Maratta on the restorations, made engravings of the frescoes in the loggia, (one of which, Samuel Anoints David, belongs to the owner of Joseph Dreams). Factors of conservation aside, the important reason for such a large gap in quality between easel painting and fresco is that Raphael was probably involved on a technical level with the easel painting but hardly at all with the loggia fresco. Thus, Raphael's personality is more strongly felt in the painting even if he only was involved at the laying-in stage then as advisor to Giulio who completed the work. In Joseph Dreams one can identify the psychological overtones captured here as in all of Raphael's narrative paintings. As we recognize the technique and personality of Giulio Romano in the easel painting so we recognize the absence of Giulio's personality in the fresco. He is not considered the author of the loggia fresco which is more often given to the older Gianfrancesco Penni. Among others, Nicole Dacos, has proposed that the fresco is most likely the work of Gianfrancesco Penni.The fresco in the loggia cannot be by Giulio Romano as it is lacking the characteristic turgid foreheads of the figures as seen in the easel painting and in most all works by Romano. The foreheads of the fresco are straight and flat in the style of Penni.
Diagram 2 (not yet available on this site)
Profile in fresco /Profile in easel painting
This further proves that the easel painting cannot be done after the loggia fresco, as if it were, the foreheads would be drawn in the same manner as the fresco, just as they appear in the engravings of Lanfranco, Borgianni, Chapron etc. This further proves that the easel painting cannot be done after the loggia fresco, as if it were, the foreheads would be drawn in the same manner as the fresco, just as they appear in the engravings of Lanfranco, Borgianni, Chapron etc.
Table II (not yet formatted)
The following is a table of authorship for preparatory drawings and fresco execution of the Vatican loggia of Raphael that follows current attributions given by Nicole Dacos. Works by Romano are highlighted.
Fresco Prep. Drawing Subject--------------------------------------------------------------
VAULT I Romano Penni God separates light from darkPenni Penni " " earth from watersMarcillat - God creates the Sun and Moondell Colle + da Udine - " " " animals
VAULT II Vincidor Tamagni Creation of Eveda Modena + Vincidor - Original SinVincidor Penni Adam & Eve expelled from EdenVincidor - " " " at work
VAULT III Romano + Penni? - Noah building the ArkRomano + Penni? copia Raffaello The Delugeda Udine - Leaving the ArkPenni + Romano? Penni Sacrifice of Noah
VAULT IV Romano - Abraham & MelchisedechRomano - God's promise to AbrahamPenni Penni Abraham and the AngelsRomano + Penni? Penni Lot's Flight
VAULT V Penni copia Penni God Appears to IsaacRomano - Isaac & RebeccaMachuca - Isaac blesses JacobPenni Penni Isaac & Esau
VAULT VI Romano Penni Jacob's DreamVincidor Penni Jacob & Rachel? - Jacob asks for Rachel's handVincidor - Jacob on the way to Canaan
VAULT VII Penni ? copia Penni Joseph Reveals his Dreamsda Caravaggio - Joseph sold by his BrothersRomano - Joseph and Potiphar's WifePenni ? - Joseph Interprets Pharaoh's Dreams
VAULT VIII Romano Penni Moses found in the WatersMarcillat copia Raffaello The Burning BushRomano Penni Crossing the Red Seadell Colle Penni Moses strikes water from rock
VAULT IX del Vaga Raffaello Moses receives the CommandmentsRomano Penni Adoration of the Golden Calfdel Vaga - The Pillar of SmokeRomano copia Penni Moses presents the Commandments
VAULT X da Caravaggio - Passage to Jordandel Vaga - The Battle of Jerichodel Vaga - Joshua halts the Sun & Moondel Vaga del Vaga Division of the Promised Land
VAULT XI Marcillat - The Anointing of David del Vaga Raffaello David & Goliathdel Vaga del Vaga Triumph of David del Vaga Penni ? David & Bathsheba
VAULT XII Tamagni - Consecration of Solomonda Modena copia Penni Judgement of Solomonda Caravaggio - Construction of the Templedell Colle - Solomon & Queen of Sheba
VAULT XIII del Vaga? - Adoration of the ShepherdsTamagni? ? Epiphanydel Vaga + del Colle? copia del Vaga? Baptism of ChristTamagni? - Last Supper
Vasari says that Giulio was appointed in charge of painting of the figures. In the light of recent study, it has become more apparent that Giulio, acting on instruction from Raphael, worked out preparatory drawings with Penni as the main draughtsman. As we can see from the above table, it seems that Giulio would himself then paint one, possibly two scenes of each bay in the loggia, by way of example for the other garzoni who would then complete the bay. He seems fairly consistent in this pattern up till bay IX whereafter Perino del Vaga seems to have taken over as captain of works. This is possibly because Giulio was in greater demand at the Farnesina or perhaps had been instructed by Raphael to travel to Napoli where he was to paint the portrait of Giovanna d'Aragon.Working with this theory, it seems that when Giulio arrived at bay VII, the key decorative bay of the loggia, that he painted Joseph Interpreting the Dreams of Pharaoh as example for the others to be guided by and left the painting of Joseph Reveals his Dreams to His Brothers to the reliable Penni. We suspect that there was no need for Giulio, who was just as busy as Raphael, to waste precious time painting the loggia scene of Joseph Dreams himself as Penni could have easily worked on it using Giulio's easel painting as a modello. All this is reason why, discounting Raphael's actual involvement, the canvas painting seems far more Raphaelesque in substance than the fresco and is artistically superior. In painting, it is never the case that a copy can improve to that degree on the original. This fact considered, it is clear to appreciate that the easel painting here discussed precedes the Vatican fresco. In the visual analysis of the composition we see the centre plane features the figure of Joseph and is the main point of focus. The easel painting portrays this figure with more elegance, the left arm and hand are in proper proportion to the right one as opposed to the stockier, shortened treatment of the limb in the fresco. Thus, in the painting, Joseph's left forefingers rest on his right arm. In the fresco, Joseph is seen with a more rigid profile. A raised neckline to the green robe which he wears, shortens the whole grace of the youth's exposed throat and shoulders. This could be due to a previous restoration attempt on the loggia. Joseph's robe is bland and flat in appearance compared to the soft robe in the easel painting with its pleating, its many folds to the material and the way it falls in a more natural manner around the body. Here he is wearing a long sleeve robe, a sleeveless garment was the attribute of the workers. Overall, Joseph Dreams presents the personage of Joseph in a more refined almost effeminate attitude than seen in the fresco, similar to the portrayal of Francesco Maria Della Rovere in the Theophany of the Stanze, (commonly called La Disputa), a model seen again in The School of Athens.One other Raphaelesque trademark in the composition is the whimsical placement of a solitary tree in the background. The finely painted foliage and trees, the carefully delineated pebbles scattered in the foreground display Raphael's fondness for delicate, almost fanciful portrayal of scenery. In the easel painting, the palm tree in the centre seems slightly smaller, the palm fronds are lighter and the tree does not dominate the composition as greatly as in the fresco, but rather fulfils its purpose as background scenery. It is also more evenly centred between the two dream bubble motifs.One major dissimilarity is in the distant topography of the water plane and mountainous horizon. In the fresco there is a bluish extension of the mountainscape to the left side of the mountain peak. This bluish extension appears to depict a tall mountainscape in the far distance. In place of this, the easel painting has an area of luminous white light consistent with the early morning light depicted in the rest of the painting. _______________________________
This whitish light radiating from behind the mountain and breaking on the top line of clouds is indeed crucial as it sets the time of the day for the scene depicted, bathing the entire setting in a sun-tinted hue suggestive of morning i.e. the morning after Joseph has dreamed his dreams. This missing feature of the light may also account for the fresco's more timid treatment of shadows and contrast. The flatter tones of the fresco, taking into consideration the bleaching effect, render a different ambience to that in Joseph Dreams, where the dramatic effect of contrasts emphasizes the theatrical composition of this narrative painting.It would appear in the fresco that the sun is much closer to the zenith hence the day more advanced, though this optical effect does not marry with the length of the shadows. One can see that in the easel painting, Joseph's own shadow is well-defined and longer than in the fresco where his shadow is almost missing. This feature accounts for the sense of depth perceived in the easel painting.The composition of Joseph Dreams extends further on the left plane than in the fresco and is painted from a slightly different angle of perspective, with the kneeling figure of Rueben seen almost in full, his body and yellow tunic longer and the arm of the tall standing figure on the extreme left, is also seen in full. This feature verifies the fact that the fresco was painted after the presentation painting had been executed and not in a very faithful manner. It was probably cropped to adhere to the confines of the loggia ceiling.The bodies and the faces in the presentation painting are rendered in a more dramatic light. This applies particuarly to the treatment of muscular formation. This is in accordance with the use of light, which suggests the rising of the sun when shadows are thrown into highlight and faces are flushed, lit from underneath.The hillock that forms a backdrop to the group in the left plane differs in shape and contour. The fresco has also additional foliage painted in this area which is in heavy contrast to the lighter umbrian style of the greenery in the Joseph Dreams.The fresco dream bubbles are proportionally of a larger size and the left one is suspended closer to the hillock. Here, we see a noticeable pentimento to the circumference of the sphere in the modello, when Raphael shifted its position more to the left. Again, in the right plane, the fresco dream bubble is placed closer to the side landscape than in the fresco. One major difference and somewhat gross omission in the fresco is that the figure on the extreme right has lost his toes. It is unlikely that the toes in the fresco were meant to be left out or concealed by the front leg as the foot in the modello is anatomically correct. This points to an oversight by the fresco artist when referring to the presentation painting as modello. It would appear that Penni, left to himself on the scaffolding did not match the quality of Giulio's easel painting over which Raphael had exercised a closer control and involvement.The outstanding pictorial representation of the group painted in the right plane, as well as the representation of the figure of Joseph points to the influence of Raphael. We can reasonably affirm that the supervision of the master is cause for the margin of skill between the presentation painting and the fresco. ______________________________.
The conclusive supporting scientific evidence allows us to date this painting to the period of Raphael's intense artistic activity - that of 1516 to 1519 - and the comparisons between modello and fresco make the graphic intelligence of this painting on canvas even more evident. It could not have been painted after the fresco by a mere contemporary copyist. Its execution obviously precedes the painting of the fresco, its creator was Raphael in symbiosis with his pupil Giulio Romano.The publication of this presentation painting by Giulio Romano, fills an evident gap in the corpus of study on Raphael. It also enables us to recognise an early canvas painting in which Giulio, Raphael's joint-heir and favourite pupil, played a leading role. A documented work of this kind is unique. Thus, the chance to conduct extensive studies on this modello is inestimable in terms of knowledge into the creative technique and special inter-relationship of the talents of both artists.This study consequently brings us to confirm the traditional attribution of this painting as a work by Giulio Romano. It is a perfect example of a work dating from the period of the maturity of Raphael, remarkable by the cohesion of its well ordered composition and by its narrative vitality. It is a work painted, we believe, with the assistance of Raphael for we have recognized, in the execution of the underpainting, the hand of the Master.
These were the preliminary findings that Studio Veritas has been able to uncover. We have, by no means closed the file and we are hopeful that contributions from researchers shall continue to enrich this sum of data. A special effort is being made to compile information relating to the provenance of this painting which is incomplete. By consent from the owner, who wishes to remain anonymous, major museums and galleries are welcome to borrow this work for loan exhibition. We are thankful to the authors mentioned in this study who by their works have helped us to contribute to the enrichment of Raphael's corpus.
FOOTNOTES FOR PART III
15. J-P. Cuzin, op.cit. at note 6 above, p.207.
16. Bembo to Bibbiena , July 19, 1517, in B. Opera, u.s., v.p.59
17 Aug. 15 and Sept. 10 Muntz, Raphael, note to p. 452.
18 V. Zahn, Notizie Artistiche tratte del Arch. Vatic. p. 24, and Giorn. di Erud. Tosc., u.s., vol. vi. p. 280.
19 Archivio Vaticano : on the 11th June 1519 an order
of payment of 25 ducats was made to the garzini who had worked on the loggia.
On the 4th May 1520 Marcantonio Michiel wrote to Antonio Marsilio in Venice
20 Janet Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, Princeton, 1984, p.161.
21 P. Giovio, Le vite de Leon X et d'Adriano VI sommi Pontefici, et del Cardinale Pompeo Colonna, Florence, 1551, III, p.152.
22 ref. Janet Cox-Rearick, 1984, p.52
23 Bernice Davidson, Raphael's Bible, A study of the Vatican Logge, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1985, p.43-44.
24 G. Vasari, ......date, p. 300
.25 As Berenson comments: <
26 The cartoon was painted in reverse to be used by the weavers for the tapestry, thus the sheep appear in the same aspect in the finished tapestry as they do in Joseph Dreams. There are other scenes in the loggia with sheep grazing: Jacob Meets Rachel, The Burning Bush and Jacob Returns to Canaan, with animals that bare no resemblance to the sheep of Raphael as seen in both the painting Joseph Dreams and the Christ's Charge to Peter cartoon. Of further interest is a painting in Dresden's Gemaldegalerie, attributed to Giulio Romano called Pan and Daphnis which includes a single sheep grazing, again to the right side of the composition, the head of the animal quite in the style of the grazing sheep in Joseph Dreams.
27 See the blonde youth in profile placed to the left of Plato in The School of Athens, Vatican; the figure supporting the Virgin in Christ Falls on the Way to Cavalry, Prado and the St. John the Evangelist in Saint Cecilia, Bologna.
28 In a letter to his friend Baldassare Castiglione from
Rome, 1514, Raphael writes: <
29 The drawing is in the Raphael "notebook" of the Accademia in Venice. (Passavant, 1860, p.408, no.5). A related drawing in reverse position from the Venice notebook is also mentioned by Passavant, ibid.,no.4 and corresponds closely to a figure painted by Signorelli in the Sistine Chapel of a nobleman standing to the left of Joshua kneeling in The Last Days of Moses. Perugino finished work on the Sistine Chapel in 1483 and in 1495 brought his related sketches back to Perugia where the young Raphael copied them.
30 St. Apollonia, ex-Contini-Bonacossi collection, recently acquired by the Uffizi, Florence. St.John the Baptist Preaching, National Gallery London, no. 6480.
31 Dacos, 1986, Sogno del Faraone, tavola CL fig. 16.
32 Abate Luigi Lanzi was born in 1732. In 1773 he was appointed keeper of the Galleries of Florence. He wrote The History of Painting in Italy, Translated from the Italian by T.Roscoe, 6 vols. London . His work on Raphael is amongst the most reliable of books of reference on the subject.
33 Felix Lavery, Raphael, 3rd Edition, 1922, London, p.107. For one example of Raphael's technique in painting the eye "somewhat long" see The Entombment (1507), particularly the eyes of the Magdalene.
34 See in particular the round protruding eyes of all figures in Cristo in gloria con quattro santi, 1521-22, Parma, Pinacoteca Nazionale. After a drawing by Raphael in the Paul Getty Museum, Malibu.
35 Madonna della Quercia, ca.1520, Prado, Madrid.
37 Anatomy and rendering of musculature was not Raphael's
forte; see Fire in the Borgo, the figure hanging from the wall, as Vasari
38 A River God(?), Uffizi no. 576 E. Sop. 377312. Attributed to Giulio Romano, the iconography of this drawing is ambiguous but stylistically, it shares much in common with the monochrome relief paintings of Hercules that appear in the Sala dei Cavalli of the Palazzo del Te. Possibly, it was a preparatory design for the same room that was not executed.
39 F. Mancinelli and F. Rossi comment in reference to
the fresco, <
40 (36) '...ma forse falsato da qualche restauro, fra l'altro sul viso di Giuseppe', N.Dacos, loc. cit at note 3 above.
41 (37) Genesis XXXVII:3
42 (38) See The Dream of the Young Scipio : Nat. Gall. London/ The Taking of Christ for Entombment: Gallery Borghese/ The Solly Madonna: Staatliche Museum Berlin/ Parnassus: Vatican, etc.
43 (39) There are few pentimenti in this modello as observed in other works by Raphael. Segolene Bergeon in discussing the Grande Sainte Famille comments 'Sur de sa technique, Raphael change peu de composition au cours de sa creation: on observe peu ou pas de repentirs dans son oeuvre, a peine ici quelques millimetres a propos de l'index de la main auche de la Vierge; cette authorite est-elle due a la maitrise de frequiste qui sait qu'il ne peut se corriger', op.cit. above at note 22, p.50
44 See Studio Veritas' technical report
45 J-P. Cuzin, 1983, p.207