In the Anthologia Graeca, we find an epigram by Gaius Lucilius, a poet active in the era of Nero, which celebrates the erection of a statue honoring Apis, an antihero avant la lettre: âHis synagonists set up here the statue of Apis the boxer, for he never hurt anyoneâ.1
In the context of Greek-antique athletics, the word antagonistai would normally be used in this context, not synagonistai.2 According to the conventions of ancient Greek theater, the synagonistai were the combatants who followed the actual protagonists, occupying the second tier. The verb synagonisomai means âto engage in struggle/contestation togetherâ, as well as âto follow someone into a battle/contest or actionâ. In theater competitions, prizes were reserved exclusively for the protagonists, and at times for directors, but never intended for the synagonists.3 The epigram may refer to a real boxer who never injured anyone, which is tantamount to saying that he never won a match, which is indeed the conventional interpretation.4 It may, however, have been a memorial for one of those synagonists who, according to tradition, never won a prize, which is to say for an actor, perhaps a shadowboxer, who was finally honored for his achievements thereby.
Up until now, antagonism â competition and rivalry between artists, and imitative gestures designed to surpass works from a shared or even a different genre â has played the primary role as a heuristic principle in the historiography of art, with synagonism, meaning comradely contestation between the arts, being relegated to a subordinate role.5 Ever since Lodovico
Not that the heuristic value of antagonism is somehow intrinsically invalid, but a one-sided insistence on it can lead to distortions in our image of an artist and his oeuvre, one that can be corrected and supplemented by a synagonistic approach. While a heuristics of synagonism is not genuinely new, it has never really functioned as an explicit category.8 In the case of Raphael as well, the task is not simply to write off paragonal approaches, and instead to identify and call attention to existing research on Raphael as a synagonist, including research into Raphaelâs relationship with sculpture, which upon closer inspection is characterized less by a paragonal dynamic, and more by a comradely competition between the respective media, seen as arti sorelle.9 Correspondences between Andrea Sansovinoâs Saint Anne group and Raphaelâs fresco of Isaiah on the Altarpiece of Saint Anne in SantâAgostino in Rome, for example, are interpreted as a sign of the sought-after unity of sculpture and painting, but at the same time as an early exemplification of paragonal relations.10
Questo è che naturalmente gli artefici nostri, non dico solo i bassi ma quelli che hanno umore dâesser grandi (come di questo umore lâarte ne produce infiniti), lavorando ne lâopere in compagnia di Raffaello stavano uniti e di concordia tale che tutti i mali umori nel veder lui si amorzavano, et ogni vile e basso pensiero cadeva loro di mente. La quale unione mai non fu più in altro tempo che nel suo.14
The panorama of synagonistic works by Raphael sketched above encompasses relations between media as well as between artists. The present investigation
1 The Structure of Light-Dark Contrasts
Until 1808, Raphaelâs so-called Mond Crucifixion â now in the National Gallery in London â remained in its originally intended place of display in the Gavari Chapel of San Domenico in Città di Castello (figure 3.1).15 The contemporary exhibition situation in the museum betrays few of the difficulties that confronted Raphael when executing the work under the unfavorable conditions of the commission and of the lighting situation of its intended location. The painting is normally displayed in diffuse toplighting (figure 3.2). In most contemporary museums, the lighting arrangement avoids directed in favor of diffuse light, which is distributive uniformly across the painting. Natural light is preferred, and it is scattered via diffusers, for example by opaque glass in skylights. The effect of such diffuse light, however, is not only to deprive objects in space of their plasticity as a consequence of the minimal formation of shadows, but paintings as well.16
Raphael, so-called Mond Crucifixion, 1503, London, National Gallery
PHOTO: FRANZ ENGEL
Current exhibition view of Raphaelâs Mond Crucifixion in the Sainsbury Wing, National Gallery, London
PHOTO: FRANZ ENGEL
In the case of the Mond Crucifixion, the gallery lighting tends to effect a visual homogenization of the figural ensemble, one that is in turn reversed into its polar opposite by a black-and-white photograph, which shows the original pietra serena aedicule frame, still in situ, with a copy of the Gavari
Unknown painter, copy after Raphaelâs Gavari Crucifixion, around 1809, put on its original spot in the Gavari Chapel, San Domenico, Città di Castello, in the 1950s by Wolfgang Schöne. The altar mensa derives from a photo of the opposite Brozzi Chapel and was added as a photomontage. Fotosammlung, Kasten 6905, Malerei Italien 16. Jhd. Raffael II, Tafelbilder 2, Altäre. Historische Bildarchive, Kunstgeschichtliches Seminar, Universität Hamburg
PHOTO AND PHOTOMONTAGE: FRIEDRICH HEWICKER
It must not be emphasized that this approach to the painting involves a methodological anachronism. During this period, chiaroscuro painting had barely begun to develop, and it seems dubious to use the category as an analytical resource, to say nothing of having recourse to black-and-white photography. Moreover, this method is hardly adequate to the task of dealing with the iconography of the Mond Crucifixion.20 Yet, the difficulty resides in reinserting the painting imaginatively, and at a distance, into its originally intended place of display, and then evaluating the relationship between the physical lighting at that location and the lighting scheme of the picture itself in relation to potentially synagonistic aspects.
2 The Unavoidable Iconic Situation
The stone frame is located on the south wall to the right in front of the choir (see figure 3.3). The frame and the picture format were predetermined by the specifics of the location, and were in all likelihood not subject to Raphaelâs
The altar mensa has not survived. The semicircular arch is carried by two composite half-columns. Between the blind arch, decorated with palmettes, and the stone frame, with its 22 heads of cherubs, the wall continues, but appears as an undecorated strip. The inner stone frame breaches the wall surface, and is set diagonally within the wall itself. Below, the frame extends to a length of approximately one head of a putto beyond the lower edge of the panel. This free space originally accommodated the predella.24 The relationship between
The lower horizontal terminus of the stone frame bears an inscription that dates the altar to 1503.25 And although this date does not necessarily correspond to the date of the crucifixion panel, it is likely that 1503 is the year of its completion.26 The Mond Crucifixion is therefore the first work by Raphael to bear his signature,27 found in gold letters below the cross: RAPHAEL / VRBIN / AS / P.28 Considering that with the processional banner for the Confraternity of the Holy Trinity and the altarpiece for the Baronci Chapel in SantâAgostino, Raphael had completed at least two major works in Città di Castello, it cannot be excluded
The current and rather austere impression of the interior of the single-nave church, with its simple, whitewashed walls, does not correspond to what we know of its original appearance in the early 15th century (see figure 3.4). Like so many churches, San Domenico was redesigned in the Baroque style during the early 18th century, its Gothic windows walled up, and altogether twenty-two altars erected along the sidewalls.29 All the same, the Brozzi Altar, like the Gavari Altar, with panels by Signorelli and Raphael, remained in situ unaltered. Only in 1912 â on the initiative of Giacinto Faeti, a priest in Città di Castello, and marking the 600th anniversary of the death of Blessed Margaret, whose relics were preserved in the church â did the church assumed its present appearance (see figure 3.5).30 As with all such cases, a reconstruction of the original iconic situation of the Gavari Crucifixion is subject to the principle that a return to an âoriginalâ state is a realized fiction, one whose constructed aspects must be made explicit in scholarly contexts. The stained-glass windows are not original, for example, but the incidence of light does correspond to the situation in the early 16th century.31
Interior view of San Domenico, Città di Castello, postcard, c.1950s. Diakartei, Kasten 6905, Malerei Italien 16. Jhf. Raffael II, Tafelbilder 2, Altäre
PHOTO: HISTORISCHE BILDARCHIVE, KUNSTGESCHICHTLICHE SEMINAR, UNIVERSITÃT HAMBURG
Interior view of San Domenico, Città di Castello, construction site 1913
PHOTO: ASCANI 1963, 51
The choir of San Domenico is shaped by the main choir chapel, with its rectangular terminus, as well as by the two half-sized chapels at the sides of the choir (see figure 3.6). The rear walls of both chapels are broken by tall, Gothic bifora windows (see figure 3.4). There are also smaller windows set along the
Plan of San Domenico, Città di Castello
ILLUSTRATION: TARCHI 1940, PL. CCVII
Not only was this lighting situation taken up in the shadowing and modeling of the individual figures. The suggested window situation also means that the light of the choir strongly illuminates the three foreground figures, namely Christ, Jerome, and Mary Magdalene â all three presented obliquely, and moreover in poses that display torsion â while Mary and John occupy a second register that is penetrated by this light only indirectly, as suggested by the slanting
That a painting appears to its best advantage only in natural light is maintained, finally, by the count in Castiglioneâs Cortegiano in a comparison that is made in passing, but whose casual nature makes it all the more telling, since it is clearly proffered as a commonplace: the ideal courtier, he says, achieves the full impact of his spoken or written words to the extent that they are fitting,
If the beholder stands in the middle of the right-hand choir chapel with the light of the window behind him and looks at the painting, the left-hand column of the aedicule obscures Mary and Jerome, and it becomes clear that the strongest light reaches Mary Magdalene (see figure 3.7). Raphael incorporated
Gavari Chapel, San Domenico, Città di Castello, seen from the right choir chapel
PHOTO: FRANZ ENGEL
The contract for the Gavari panel has not survived. But we do know that on 10 September 1502, Perugino received a commission for a painting that would serve as a backdrop for the life-sized crucifix in the church of the Franciscan Convent of Monteripido (S. Francesco al Monte) in Perugia (figure 3.8). The commission was completed only in 1504, accounting for the lack of clarity concerning the relative chronology of the Gavari Crucifixion.37 The numerous similarities between the compositions make it unlikely that neither artist was aware of the otherâs work. The contract for the Pala di Monteripido mentions the number of figures, but makes no reference to an already existing composition by Raphael. In Peruginoâs panel, the figures form an upright oval, but Mary and John do not retreat into the shadows of the second row as they do in Raphaelâs panel, and instead seem to crowd into the foreground, an effect reinforced by the fact that they are barely reduced in size in relation to the kneeling figures of Mary Magdalene and St. Francis, as actually required by the perspectival scheme.
Perugino, Pala Monteripido, 1502â04; unknown sculptor, Crucifix, 15th century. Perugia, Galleria Nazionale dellâUmbria
IMAGE: GARIBALDI 2004, 209
In the commission for the Gavari Chapel, the margin of artistic freedom is highly restricted: Raphael was to deliver a painted Crucifixion, in accordance (presumably) with a Peruginesque schema, which would then serve as a pendant to Luca Signorelliâs Sebastian panel, and would moreover occupy a predetermined and somewhat dark location with sidelight at a prescribed height and in a stipulated framing architecture. It seems odd that this should have been the first work Raphael actually signed, for in this situation, he is far from being truly himself. But instead of so to speak painting in opposition to this constraining situation, Raphael reversed the polarity, intensifying these constraints even further, treating the site, and in particular the lighting conditions,
3 The Unione del Colore as the Synagonism of Color and Light
During his early years as an artist, it cannot have escaped Raphael that through the principle of chiaroscuro, Leonardo had given contemporary painting a
The difficulty of adapting the individual colors to a unified lighting scheme within the picture resides in the fact that the individual colors behave differently in relation to varied light intensity. A fully saturated red, for example, appears black in dark lighting, while the same red, applied more thinly, tends toward gray when viewed in the same lighting. And while the scale of tonal values of an individual color such as red in a given lighting situation does not behave precisely in accordance with the increase or decrease of light intensity, there is an additional problem as well: brighter colors such as yellow have a narrower tonal range. In his painting, Leonardo advocated the view that the individual character of one color could only be brought into harmony with the other colors by subduing it.
Under the conditions covered by chiaroscuro, the individual colors have so to speak no individual voice, and can no longer govern their own mode of appearance. The notion of an amicizia dei colori, still manifested for Alberti by each color presenting itself in its individual valence in relation to the others, was later disparaged by Vasari with reference to the âcolorful carpetâ of the Quattrocento, and would ultimately be supplanted by Leonardo through the unione del colore, the achievement of unity by integrating every point on the picture surface into a unified lighting scheme.
In contrast, it is assumed with justice that Raphael consistently strove to assert the individual valence of the colors, their âchromatic individuationâ,40
Raphael, so-called Mond Crucifixion, detail
PHOTO: FRANZ ENGEL
[I]n ogni operazion sempre una virtú è la principale; ma tutte sono talmente tra sé concatenate, che vanno ad un fine e ad ogni effetto tutte possono concorrere e servire. Però bisogna che sappia valersene, e per lo paragone e quasi contrarietà dellâuna talor far che lâaltra sia piú chiaramente conosciuta, come i boni pittori, i quali con lâombra fanno apparere e mostrano i lumi deâ rilevi, e cosà col lume profundano lâombre dei piani e compagnano i colori diversi insieme di modo, che per quella diversità lâuno e lâaltro meglio si dimostra, e âl posar delle figure contrario lâuna allâaltra le aiuta a far quellâofficio che è intenzion del pittore.43
4 Classical Clarity of Contour versus Defective Chiaroscuro
While Raphael profited on the whole from Vasariâs effusive reception, perceptions of the Gavari Crucifixion suffered from the writerâs dictum according to which the painting would have been taken for a Perugino had Raphael not inscribed his name below the cross.45 Only with the Sposalizio from San Francesco did Raphael cast off Peruginoâs maniera by means of a finesse that
Only rarely do the sources mention the painting before its removal from the Church of San Domenico in 1808, and then never with reference to its appearance in situ, but instead as part of a list of objects worth viewing.48 Johann David Passavant, the author of the first Raphael monograph, never saw the Gavari Crucifixion in situ, but instead, like Rumohr, in the collection of Cardinal Fesch in Rome.49 As he emphasizes, Passavant printed the first engraving of the Gavari Crucifixion (figure 3.10). Although the black-and-white medium of engraving would have made possible a focus on light-dark relationships, the engraver, Ludwig Gruner, did not prove very sensitive to the workâs luminous qualities. Only the figure of Jerome possesses anything resembling the
Ludwig Gruner, Raphaelâs Gavari Crucifixion, engraving, 1839
ILLUSTRATION: PASSAVANT 1839, PL. VI
Raphaels System bei seinen Gemälden bestand darin, dass er seine historischen Gegenstände und seine Gründe dadurch hervorheben wollte, dass er alle Figuren gleichsam weiss bekleidete. Nach diesem Grundsatze hatte er die ersten Lichter an die Stellen vertheilt, wo sie seiner Meinung nach seyn mussten, und von da aus liess er sie sodann stufenweise bis in die weiteste Entfernung abnehmen; man sieht deshalb auf dem Vordergrund seiner Gemälde meistens weisse oder gelblichte Gewänder. ⦠Ein weiteres fehlerhaftes Princip an Raphael war es, dass er auf der Stelle, wo das Gewand seiner Natur nach von reiner Farbe seyn sollte, ein gleich helles Licht verbreitete ⦠So werden die Farben bei den lichten Stellen bis zum höchsten Weiss erhöht, während sie bei den schattigen bis zum tiefsten Schwarz versinken. Dasselbe beobachtete er bei den dunkeln Stellen; den stärksten Nachdruck brachte er vorne an, und von da an ging er sodann stufenweise zu den lichteren über. Diese Methode entsprach seinem Geschmack besonders, weil sie die Gegenstände erhabener darstellt und kräftiger wirkt, als irgend ein anderes Mittel, indem den vorderen Partien der stärkste Schatten verliehen ist. Allein dieses Verfahren erzeugt Widernatürliches, Unwahres.51
In der Bildnerey beruhet die Darstellung auf einer gewandten Handhabung reeller Formen. Da nun hingegen die Malerey des bloÃen Anscheines von Formen sich bedient, welchen sie künstlich auf einer Fläche hervorruft, so muà einleuchtend in ihr jegliches der Apparenz Entgegenwirkende, oder sie Aufhebende, sehr ernstlich zu vermeiden seyn. Dahin gehören Localtöne, welche durch eine ungehörige Farbe, durch zu viel Dunkelheit oder Helle, Zusammenhängendes durchschneiden, also, was als Form erscheinen soll, in Flecke verwandeln. Dieses Gesetzes gewärtig suchte Raphael den Localton des Haares durch dessen Helligkeit mit dem Hauptlichte der Stirne in Zusammenhang zu bringen, die Lichtparthien seiner Gewänder, ohne linearische Schönheiten zu vernichten, mit Anmuth in breitere Flächen zu vereinigen, Eindrücke und Vertiefungen durch sanfte Uebergänge in die anstoÃenden Lichter zu verschmelzen.53
If classicizing critiques of Raphaelâs use of light and color seemed guided to an excessive degree by the aesthetic preferences of the authors, then they nonetheless give voice to a sensibility for a luminous-coloristic problem that is perceived, albeit without being understood. They therefore go further than many later interpretations that perceive primarily linear principles in the Mond Crucifixion, or instead even a kind of calligraphism.54 It was only Christoph Wagner who again conceived of the Mond Crucifixion as a coloristic problem, perceiving it however as a paradigmatic example of a âpolychoral [spaltklangliche] color composition consisting of independent local colors and characterized by varicolored [wechselfarbige] symmetries and chromatic repetitionsâ.55
With a few exceptions,56 typological correspondences with the Monteripido Crucifix, together with Peruginoâs painted background scene, seems to have discouraged a search for alternative models, in particular sculptural ones. No documentary evidence exists for a stay in Florence by Raphael prior to his time in Città di Castello, which is to say before 1504, but a number of indications, among them the following discussion, argue for placing the future burden of proof on those who cast doubt upon such a stay.57 At any rate, the correspondences with Brunelleschiâs wooden crucifix from Santa Maria Novella are certainly remarkable (figure 3.11). Brunelleschi rotates his Christ to the right, and as a result, the axis of the breast is displaced in relation to that of the Cross. The gaping wound below Christâs right breast produces an oblique line that runs from lower left to upper right. The torsion of the hips reinforces the turn toward the right effected by the lower body. The legs are bent in such a way that in conjunction with the other extremities, they outline a nearly precise square. In contrast, Raphaelâs Christ has been rotated to conform to the vertical axis of the cross. The upper body runs parallel to the axis it circumscribes. At the same time, Raphaelâs Christ too displays the rotating hips, and the right leg forms a curve that moves toward the viewerâs left. In silhouette, it resembles an ivory tusk in shape. A number of elements point toward the model role played by Brunelleschiâs Crucifixion: to be sure, the moment in the narrative represented by Brunelleschi may arrive slightly later, for in Raphael, Christâs reddish-blonde hair â similar in both style and color to that of Brunelleschiâs Christ â is swept back over the left shoulder by a breeze, while in Brunelleschi, the corresponding two thick locks of hair âdrop like a plumb lineâ, to cite a vivid description.58
Filippo Brunelleschi, Crucifixion of Christ, coloured wood sculpture, 1410â15, Florence, Santa Maria Novella
PHOTO: FRANZ ENGEL
With reference to Brunelleschiâs Crucifix, Vasari â with his focus on a putative paragone with Donatelloâs Crucifix from Santa Croce, whose rustic face he claims was overcome in Brunelleschiâs idealizing version â has nothing to say about the more plausible model of Giottoâs Croce sagomata in Santa Maria Novella (figure 3.16).61 Brunelleschiâs Christ differs from Giottoâs through the absence of a nimbus â he wears the crown of thorns instead. The crossbeam of the Cross is higher, so that the arms fall more steeply toward the shoulders.
Giotto di Bondone, Croce sagomata, 1290â95, Florence, Santa Maria Novella
PHOTO: FRANZ ENGEL
In his analysis of the relationship between the illumination of the architectural setting and the internal lighting scheme of Masaccioâs famous fresco (figure 3.17), Paul Hills notes that a deliberate correspondence between the two was a traditional feature of painting beginning at the latest with Giotto, and that it was commended by Cennino Cennini, and he goes on to remark
Masaccio, Trinity, fresco, 1427â28, Florence, Santa Maria Novella
PHOTO: FRANZ ENGEL
Given their direct physical proximity, attention has been drawn repeatedly to similarities between Giottoâs painted Crucifixion, Brunelleschiâs Crucifix, and Masaccioâs crucified Christ in the fresco of the Holy Trinity, and inferences made about relations of dependency between them.65 When positioned in this series, it becomes clear that Raphaelâs Christ comes closer to Brunelleschiâs Crucifix then to Masaccio (figs. 3.18aâd). In relation to Masaccio, Raphael seems to have realized that a greater role in the workâs development must be accorded to an awareness of the lighting conditions of its permanent place of
Left to right: Giotto (figure 3.16); Brunelleschi (figure 3.11); Masaccio (figure 3.17); Raphael (figure 3.1)
Before Vasari, it was mainly Raphaelâs friend Baldassare Castiglione who sought to elaborate the key features of the painterâs aesthetic: in a letter that is occasionally attributed to Raphael himself, but more often to Castiglione, which appeared in 1554 in the introduction to a volume containing letters from famous men assembled by Lodovico Dolce, Raphael â after responding with a formulaic expression of modesty to Castiglioneâs praise of his Galathea â says that in order to paint a beautiful woman, it is necessary to have seen many of them.67 This passage probably forms the nucleus of the notion of Raphaelâs art (also circulated by Vasari) as an eclectic synthesis: â[Raffaello] prese da tutti il meglioâ.68 And the Gavari Crucifixion too could be regarded as such an eclectic synthesis between Peruginesque elements and the above-mentioned works in Santa Maria Novella, but this would conceal the elements of compulsion that shaped its genesis, and which had to be overcome. The achievement of
As explicitly as Castiglione favors painting in the dispute between media, often being invoked as a prominent voice in the paragone debate,69 his basic aesthetic categories â often exemplified by the works of Raphael â are strongly shaped by a fundamentally synagonistic structure: he characterizes the extraordinary personality of Elisabetta Gonzaga as a balanced tension between âgraziosa e grave maestà â (âgracious and sober dignityâ), âmodestia e grandezzaâ (âmodesty and grandeurâ), and finally âonestissimi costumi e grandissima libertà â (âdecorous customs ⦠joined with the greatest libertyâ).70 Beauty results from a âgioconda concordiaâ generated from contrasts between various colors in conjunction with light and shadow,71 and grazie through âsprezzaturaâ, a word whose wholly positive connotations can be overlooked, since Castiglione derives it from sprezzare, âto scornâ, at the same time recommending that the difficulties that often arise in relation to certain activities be greeted by cultivating complacent disdain â that they be treated as though they were not even there.72
7 The Iconosphere
In the early 20th century, Rudolf Laban developed the concept of the âkinesphereâ as the basis for his dance notation. The kinesphere is the space surrounding the human individual that lies within her physical reach. It seems plausible to posit an equivalent concept for pictures. The image does not terminate with its surrounding frame, but only at the boundaries of its âiconosphereâ. Such a move would have a substantial impact on exhibition practices. No longer would toplighting set the standard; of primary importance instead would be a reconstruction of the relationship between the original in situ lighting and the lighting scheme of the picture within its historical iconic situation.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
- Anthologia Graeca
The Greek Anthology, with an English translation by W. R. Paton, 5 vols., London & New York 1918.
- Castiglione/Barbaris 2017â
B. Castiglione, Il libro del cortegiano, ed. by Walter Barberis, 1st edition Turin 1998, Turin 2017.
- Castiglione/Singleton 2002
B. Castiglione, The Book of the Courtier. The Singleton Translation, ed. by Daniel Javitch, New York & London 2002.
- Certini 1728â
A. Certini, Origine delle chiese e monisteri di Città di Castello, Città di Castello 1728, Ms. Biblioteca Comunale di Città di Castello.
- Conti 1627
Angelo Conti, Fiori vaghi delle vite deâ santi e beati, delle chiese e reliquie della Città di Castello: con la tavola, 1627.
- Lazzari 1693/1975
F.I. Lazzari, Serie deâ vescovi e breve notizia di Città di Castello [Foligno 1693], reprint Bologna 1975 (Historiae urbium et regionum Italicae rariores 106).
- Rumohr 1831
C.F. von Rumohr, Ueber Raphael und sein Verhältnià zu den Zeitgenossen, Berlin & Stettin 1831.
- Santi/Michelini Tocci 1985
G. Santi, La vita e le gesta di Federico di Montefeltro, Duca dâUrbino. Poema in terza rima (Codice Vat. Ottob. Lat. 1305), ed. by Luigi Michelini Tocci, 2 vols., Vatican City 1985.
- Serlio 1544â
S. Serlio, Il Terzo Libro Di Sabastiano Serlio Bolognese, Nel Qval Si Figvrano, E Descrivono Le Antiqvita Di Roma, E Le Altre Che Sono In Italia, E Fvori De Italia, Venetia 1544.
- Shearman 2003â
J. Shearman, Raphael in Early Modern Sources, 1483â1602, 2 vols., New Haven & London 2003.
- The Jerusalem Bible
The Jerusalem Bible, ed. by Alexander Jones, London 1966.
- Vasari/Bettarini/Barocchi 1966
G. Vasari, Le vite deâ più eccellenti pittori scultori e architettori nelle redazioni del 1550 e 1568, testo a cura di Rosanna Bettarini, commento secolare a cura di Paola Barocchi, 2 vols., Florence 1966â1997.
- Vasari/de Vere 1996â
G. Vasari, Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, translation by Gaston de Vere, 1 st ed. 1912, 2 vols., New York 1996.
Secondary Literature
- Ambrosini Massari 2019
A.M. Ambrosini Massari, ââIllustris Raphaelâ. Raffaello, Città di Castello e il nodo della formazione di un genioâ, in: A. Delpriori (ed.), Prima e dopo Raffaello. Città di Castello e il Rinascimento, Perugia 2019, 13â73.
- Aneziri 1997â
S. Aneziri, âLes synagonistes du théâtre grec aux époques hellénistique et romaine: une question de terminologie et de fonctionâ, in: B. Le Guen (ed.), De la scène aux gradins, Pallas 47 (1997), 53â71.
- Ascani 1963â
A. Ascani, Chiesa di San Domenico a Città di Castello. Storia di un monumento, Città di Castello 1963.
- Baselitz 1979
G. Baselitz, âVier Wände und Oberlicht oder besser: kein Bild an die Wandâ, in: Kunstforum 34 (1979), 162â164.
- Bloemacher 2016â
A. Bloemacher, Raffael und Raimondi. Produktion und Intention der frühen Druckgraphik nach Raffael, Berlin 2016.
- BoeÃenecker 2020
H. BoeÃenecker, Der skulpturale Altar im römischen Seicento. Die Vergegenwärtigung des Sakralen, Petersberg 2020.
- Bonito 1982â
V.A. Bonito, âThe Saint Anne Altar in SantâAgostino: Restauration and Interpretationâ, in: The Burlington Magazine 124 (1982), 268â276.
- Brown 1992â
D.A. Brown, âRaphael, Leonardo, and Perugino: Fame and Fortune in Floranceâ, in: Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphael in Renaissance Florence from 1500 to 1508, ed. by S. Hager, Washington, D.C. 1992, 29â53.
- Cat. Florence 1977
Cat. Florence, Museo nazionale del Bargello, Brunelleschi scultore. Mostra celebrativa nel sesto centenario della nascita (E. Micheletti & A. Paolucci eds.), Florence 1977.
- Cat. London 2004
Cat. London, National Gallery, Raphael: From Urbino to Rome (H. Chapman, T. Henry & C. Plazzotta eds), London 2004.
- Cat. Madrid 2019
Cat. Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, Fra Angelico and the rise of the Florentine Renaissance (C. B. Strehlke ed.), London 2019.
- Cat.Vatican City 2020
Cat. Vatican City, Musei Vaticani, Leone X e Raffaello in Sistina: gli arazzi degli Atti degli Apostoli (A.M. De Strobel ed.), Vatican City 2020.
- De Vecchi 1986â
P. De Vecchi, âThe Coronation of the Virgin in the Vatican Pinacoteca and Raphaelâs Activity between 1502 and 1504â, in: Raphael Before Rome, ed. by J. Beck, Hannover & London 1986 (Studies in the History of Art 17; Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts. Symposium Series 5), 73â82.
- Delpriori 2019
A. Delpriori, âRinascimento nela terra di confine. Città di Castello e un percorso tra pittura e sculturaâ, in: Prima e dopo Raffaello. Città di Castello e il Rinascimento, ed. by id., Perugia 2019, 75â171.
- Fehl 1982â
P.P. Fehl, âThe Naked Christ in Santa Maria Novella in Florence: Reflections on an Exhibition and the Consequencesâ, in: Storia dellâArte 44/46 (1982), 161â164.
- Gardelli 2009â
G. Gardelli, âLa scultura nel rapporto Raffaello-Michelangelo. Una terracotta di Raffaello dalla casa natale in Urbino. Modello per la âsculptura pictaââ, in: Atti e studi. Accademia Raffaello N.S. 2 (2009), 5â20.
- Gardner von Teuffel 1987
C. Gardner von Teuffel, âRaffaels römische Altarbilder: Aufstellung und Bestimmungâ, in: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 50 (1987), 1â45.
- Goffen 2003â
R. Goffen, Renaissance rivals: Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael, Titian, 2nd ed., New Haven a.o. 2003.
- Hadjinicolaou 2017
Y. Hadjinicolaou, âSynagonismusâ, in: 23 Manifeste zu Bildakt und Verkörperung, ed. by M. Lauschke & P. Schneider, Berlin 2018 (Image Word Action 1), 149â157.
- Hall 1992â
M. Hall, Color and Meaning. Practice and Theory in Renaissance Painting, Cambridge a.o. 1992.
- Hanke 2009â
E. Hanke, Malerbildhauer der italienischen Renaissance: von Brunelleschi bis Michelangelo, Petersberg 2009 (Studien zur internationalen Architektur- und Kunstgeschichte 74).
- Henning 2005â
A. Henning, Raffaels Transfiguration und der Wettstreit um die Farbe. Koloritgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur römischen Hochrenaissance, Munich & Berlin 2005.
- Henry 2002â
T. Henry, âRaphaelâs Altar-Piece Patrons in Città di Castelloâ, in: Burlington Magazine 144 (2002), 268â278.
- Henry & Plazzotta 2004
T. Henry & C. Plazzotta, Raphael: From Urbino to Rome, in: Cat.London 2004, 15â65
- Henry 2006â
T. Henry, âRaphaelâs patrons in Città di Castelloâ, in: Magister Rafael. Gli esordi di Raffaello tra Urbino, Città di Castello e Perugia, Cat.Città di Castello, ed. by id. & F. F. Mancini, Città di Castello 2006, 25â64.
- Hessler 2014â
C.J. Hessler, Zum Paragone: Malerei, Skulptur und Dichtung in der Rangstreitkultur des Quattrocento, Berlin 2014.
- Hiller von Gaertringen 1999
R. Hiller von Gaertringen, Raffaels Lernerfahrung in der Werkstatt Peruginos: Kartonverwendung und Motivübernahme im Wandel, Munich & Berlin 1999 (Kunstwissenschaftliche Studien 76).
- Hilmer & Sattler 1998â
H. Hilmer & C. Sattler, âVier Wände und Oberlichtâ, in: Gemäldegalerie Berlin: der Neubau am Kulturforum, ed. by the Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin â PreuÃischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin 1998, 40â57.
- Karagiannis & Wagner 2005
N. Karagiannis & P. Wagner, âTowards a Theory of Synagonismâ, in: The Journal of Political Philosophy 13 (2005), 235â262.
- Karagiannis & Wagner 2008
N. Karagiannis & P. Wagner, âVarieties of Agonism: Conflict, the Common Good, and the Need for Synagonismâ, in: Journal of Social Philosophy 39 (2008), 323â339.
- Kleinbub 2012â
C.K. Kleinbub, âRaphaelâs Quos Ego: forgotten document of the Renaissance paragoneâ, in: Word & image 28/3 (2012), 287â301.
- Kummer 1987â
S. Kummer, Anfänge und Ausbreitung der Stuckdekoration im römischen Kirchenraum: (1500â1600), Tübingen 1987 (Tübinger Studien zur Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 6).
- Mancini 1983â
F.F. Mancini, âRaffaello e Francesco Tifernate: un documento e alcune precisazioniâ, in: Antichità viva 22 (1983), 27â34.
- Meyer zur Capellen 2000
J. Meyer zur Capellen, Raphael. A Critical Catalogue of His Paintings. Volume 1: The Beginnings in Umbria and Florence ca. 1500â1508, Landshut 2000.
- Nova 2020â
A. Nova, âRaffaello a Firenze e la scultura del Quattrocentoâ, in: Raffaello. 1520â1483, Cat.Rome, ed. by M. Faietti & M. Lanfranconi, Milano 2020, 423â433.
- Pfisterer 2017â
U. Pfisterer, âDer Paragoneâ, in: Handbücher Rhetorik, vol. 2: Handbuch Rhetorik der Bildenden Künste, ed. by W. Brassat, Berlin & Boston 2017, 283â312.
- Preimesberger 2011â
R. Preimesberger, Paragons and paragone: Van Eyck, Raphael, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Bernini, Los Angeles 2011.
- Quednau 2019â
R. Quednau, ââParagoneâ: gleichkommen und übertreffen. Beobachtungen und Anmerkunger zu Raphaels wettstreitender Kreativitätâ, in: Raffael als Zeichner = Raffaello disegnatore, Cat.Florence, ed. by M. Faietti & A. Gnann, Florence & Milano 2019, 359â383.
- Robert 1968â
L. Robert, âLes épigrammes satiriques de Lucillius sur les athlètes. Parodie et réalitésâ, in: Entretiens sur lâAntiquité classique 14 (1968), 181â295.
- Roy, Spring & Plazzotta 2004
A. Roy, M. Spring, & C. Plazzotta, âRaphaelâs Early Work in the National Gallery: Paintings before Romeâ, in: National Gallery Technical Bulletin 25 (2004), 4â35.
- Salmi 1920â
M. Salmi, âDipinti del Quattrocento a Città di Castelloâ, in: Bollettino della Regia Deputazione di Storia Patria per lâUmbria 24 (1920).
- Sarnecka 2014â
Z. Sarnecka, âMonteripido and the Identity of Wooden Crucifixes in the Culture of Fifteenth-Century Umbriaâ, in: Arte medievale IV serie, 6 (2014), 209â230.
- Shearman 1961â
J. Shearman, âThe Chigi Chapel in S. Maria del Popoloâ, in: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 24 (1961), 129â160.
- Shearman 1962â
J. Shearman, âLeonardoâs Colour and Chiaroscuroâ, in: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 25 (1962), 13â47.
- Shearman 1986â
J. Shearman, âThe born architect?â, in: Raphael before Rome. Atti del Congresso, National Gallery of Art Washington 1983, ed. by J. Beck, Hanover & London 1986 (Studies in the History of Art 17), 203â210.
- Slater 1993â
W.J. Slater, âThree Problems in the History of Dramaâ, in: Phoenix 47/3 (1993), 189â212.
- Slater 2015â
W.J. Slater, âVictory and Bureaucracy: The Process of Agonistic Rewardsâ, in: Phoenix 69 (2015), 147â169.
- Speranza 2018â
L. Speranza, âI Crocifissi di Donatello e Brunelleschiâ, in: OPD Restauro 30 (2018), 141â150.
- Tarchi 1940
U. Tarchi, LâArte nellâUmbria e nella Sabina. Vol. 4: LâArte medioevale nellâUmbria e nella Sabina: architettura religiosa (dalla metà del sec. XIIal principio del sec. XV), Milano 1940.
- Tönnesmann 2002
A. Tönnesmann, âHumanismus und Kunstpraxis: Brunelleschi im Konflikt mit Donatelloâ, in: Florenz in der Frührenaissance, Kunst, Literatur, Epistolographie in der Sphäre des Humanismus. Gedenkschrift für Paul Oskar Kristeller (1905â1999), ed. by J. Müller Hofstede, Rheinbach 2002, 131â149.
- Traeger 1997â
J. Traeger, Renaissance und Religion. Die Kunst des Glaubens im Zeitalter Raphaels, Munich 1997.
- Van Gastel, Hajinicolaou & Rath 2014â
J. van Gastel, Y. Hadjinicolaou & M. Rath (eds.), Paragone als Mitstreit, Berlin 2014 (Actus et Imago 11).
- Weddigen 1998â
T. Weddigen, âTapisseriekunst unter Leo X: Raffaels Apostelgeschichte für die Sixtinische Kapelleâ, in: Hochrenaissance im Vatikan. 1503â1534, Cat.Bonn, ed. by the Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH, Ostfildern-Ruit 1998, 268â284.
- Weil-Garris Brandt 1994
K. Weil-Garris Brandt, âCangianti e cambiamenti nei colori di Michelangelo sulla volta della Cappella Sistinaâ, in: Michelangelo. La Cappella Sistina. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Roma, marzo 1990, ed. by id., Novara 1994, vol. 3, 167â188.
For hints and comments I would like to thank Arnold Nesselrath, Ian Pepper, Alexander Röstel, Clara Sawatzki, and Tristan Weddigen.
Anthologia Palatina XI.80; Anthologia Graeca, vol. IV, 111, English translation slightly altered by the present author.
Robert 1968, 233f.
Aneziri 1997, passim; Slater 2015, 148; Slater 1993, 192.
Aneziri 1997, 57, with further literature.
From the comprehensive literature on the paragone, see Preimesberger 2011; Hessler 2014; Pfisterer 2017.
Pfistererâs recent monograph (2019) considers Raphael primarily from the perspective of competition; see also Kleinbub 2012; Quednau 2019.
After initial use of the keyword âMitstreitâ (comradely contestation) in Van Gastel, Hadjinicolaou & Rath 2014, Hadjinicolaou first introduced the term âsynagonismâ into art history in 2017. Categorizations harbor the danger of schematization, hence a decisive emphasis on heuristics. Nevertheless, the clarity offered by this category might conceivably have proven useful earlier, one example being Hankeâs 2009 study of painter-sculptors, which employs the notion of a competition between media in order to elaborate what is actually a synagonistic type of artist who operates in relation to a cooperative relationship between the diverse media. There have already been attempts to render the concept of synagonism productive for political science; see Karagiannis, Wagner 2005; id. 2008.
In an epitaph composed on the occasion of Raphaelâs death, Celio Calcagnini, a humanist scholar and friend of the artist, refers to him first as a veritable sculptor who is said to have fashioned living countenances from marble, and only then as a painter, architect, and conservator of ancient Rome; cf. Shearman 2003, doc. 1520/77, 647; Francisco de Holanda maintained that the famous painter Raphael also taught sculpture and architecture; Shearman 2003, vol. 2, doc. 1548/5, 958â962, here 959f. On Raphael as a sculptor, Gennarelli 1873; Astolfi 1935; Serra 1941, 148â152; Shearman 2003, doc. 1523/10, 749â752; Gardelli 2009.
Bonito 1982, 268â270. Recently, however, BoeÃenecker 2020, 80â87 and 361â366, has interpreted the Saint Anne Altarpiece in the context of a comradely contestation between the arts.
On the Cappella Chigi, see Shearman 1961; the Chigi Chapel has often been seen as anticipating the intermedial chapel decorations of the Seicento; Lavin 1980, vol. 1, 24; Kummer 1987, 9.
On print works by Raphael and his workshop, see Bloemacher 2016; on the tapestries depicting the Acts of the Apostles, see Weddigen 1998, as well as more recently, Cat. Vatican City 2020.
For a recent and extensive discussion of Raphaelâs workshop, see Nesselrath 2020, 42â105, who attempts to characterize Raphaelâs work in relation to his workshop, an essentially synagonistic approach.
Vite 1568, II, 88; Shearman 2003, vol. 2, 1166. Vasari/de Vere 1996, vol. 1, 746f.: âwhich was that our craftsman â I do not mean only the lesser, but also those whose humour it was to be great persons; and of this humour art creates a vast number â while working in company with Raffaello, felt themselves naturally united and in such accord, that all evil humours vanished at the sight of him, and every vile and base thought fell away from their minds. Such unity was never greater at any other time than hisâ.
For the most exhaustive provenance on this work to date, which includes hitherto unexploited source material related to its commissioner, Domenico Gavari, see Henry 2002, 270â274, and id. 2006, 37f.
The continuing success story of toplighting as the preferred source of illumination for galleries of paintings begins in the 16th century with Sebastiano Serlioâs interpretation of the oculus lighting in the Pantheon, found in his Terzo libro di architettura, about which he claims that it is not only particularly well-suited for illuminating sculptures, but is well-adapted as well to all types of painting (Serlio 1544, fol. V). Inaugurated around the same time in Venice the Palazzo Grimani was the first proper exhibition space configured with toplighting on the model of the Pantheon. With the Tribuna in the Uffizi and the Salon Carré in the Louvre, great museums took up this tradition as well. Adopted for the new building of the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin in the late 1990s as well was the motto âfour walls and toplightingâ (Hilmer/Sattler 1998, 40); here, the architects invoked a dictum of the painter Georg Baselitz (1979), and were evidently unaware of the 400-year-old tradition and of an idea deriving from the reception of an antique monument that is inherent in this maxim.
The photomontage was made by Wolfgang Schöne together with his photographer Friedrich Hewicker in the 1950ies. On a trip to Città di Castello he was able to have placed the 19th century copy of the Gavari Crucifixion by an anonymous to replace the original beginning in 1809 and now preserved in the Pinacoteca Comunale next to the church into the original frame (cf. Schöne 1958, 35, illustration 48). I thank Anke Napp for delivering me copies of Schöneâs photomontages. Today the frame houses a facsimile of the London panel which was donated by the Università delle Tre Età , Città di Castello, and printed by the local company Lino Service. According to Meyer zur Capellen 2000, vol. 1, no. 7, 120â125, 122, beside the above mentioned copy another copy realised by Francesco Oliva can be found in the church of Battaglia, near Urbino.
According to the terminology used by Johannes Itten in his visual analyses (Itten/Wick 1988, 135), the term âwarpageâ (âVerwerfungâ) used in the context of the arrangement of light and dark within a picture, refers to the compositional distribution of bright spots within dark areas and of dark spots within bright areas.
Given the striking differences between this early work and the Transfiguration, Raphaelâs last painting, it seems all more astonishing that the two display a similar light-dark structure: below, bright figures on a dark ground; above, dark figures on a bright ground, while the backlit apparition of Christ generates dark shadows in the modeling of the figure which, like the dark cross in the Mond Crucifixion, serves as a darker mass for the brighter areas of the face and the white garments.
The term âiconic situationâ was coined by Haas in 2015.
Shearman 1986, 209, maintains that the frame of the altarpiece too was designed by Raphael, and that the altarpiece opposite, containing the panel with the martydom of St. Sebastian by Signorelli, was constructed around the painting only subsequently. Shearman argues for the less likely scenario, but his emphasis on Raphaelâs sensibility for the interplay of place, architecture, frame, and painting is shared by the present author. As the possible creators of the pietra serena altars, Henry 2006, 44f., proposes the Florentine stonemasons Clemente di Taddeo Rinaldi and Geremia di Francesco, who were responsible for the capitals in the Cathedral of Città di Castello, but also refers to a local tradition, which assumes Raphael to be the creator (F. titi, Ammaestramento utile e curioso di pittura, scoltura et architettura nelle chiese di Roma, Rome 1686, 439, cited in Henry 2006, 61, n. 78). Casting doubt on Shearmanâs scenario, Ambrosini Massari 2019 , 18â20, calls attention to the circumstance that this type of altar architecture was used not only for the main altar, no longer existent, which contained the panel by Francesco Tifernate, preserved today in the Pinacoteca Comunale in Città di Castello, but also for two altars in SantâAgostino and San Francesco. This multiplicity of altars of the same type at various locations argues against Raphaelâs authorship, while the reliefs of cherubs suggest artists from the circle of Luca della Robbia.
A crucial piece of evidence suggesting that Raphael was indeed present in San Domenico, and was hence fully aware of the intended place of display of the commissioned painting, is a pen and ink drawing of an archer, seen from the back, from Signorelliâs Sebastian panel (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, inv. P II 501, recto).
My thanks to Tristan Weddigen, who introduced the term âinversionâ into a discussion. Henry, Plazzotta 2004, 20, had called attention to the fact that after Signorelli left Città di Castello in 1496, Raphael probably sought to fill the resulting artistic vacuum on at least equal terms.
Two predella panels have survived. They show scenes from the life and the works of St. Jerome: first, Eusebius awakening three corpses to life (Lisbon, Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, inv. 586 Pint.), and secondly St. Jerome Punishing the Heretic Sabinianus (Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Art, inv. G.65.21.1). A silverpoint drawing in Ashmolean Museum in Oxford (inv. WA1846.153; for reproduction see https://collections.ashmolean.org/object/72187; accessed 1 April 2022) that shows a kneeling saint, his forearms upraised in prayer, is generally regarded as an early study for a figure from the Gavari Crucifixion. If we consider the hatching lines, evidently added after the execution of the figure itself in order to indicate cast shadows, which suggests incident light arriving from the right and casting a shadow on the ground to the figureâs left, it appears unlikely that this drawing is indeed a study for the Gavari Crucifixion, since here, the light arrives from the left; cf. Cat. London 2004, 125, cat. no. 28 (Carol Plazzotta).
Shearman 2003, 82f., mentions that the date of 1503 found on the stone frame refers to the date of the altar as a whole, and should not be taken automatically as referring to the painting. The case of the main altar in the same church demonstrates that it is entirely possible for a painting to be completed only after the consecration of the altar itself. Until the 18th century, a date of 1504 was legible on the Magalotti Altar, but it is well-documented that Francesco Tifernate completed his Annunciation panel only in 1505â06. The inscription is reproduced in Certini 1728, c. 47r, and is first cited in Mancini 1983, 29; Shearman 2003, 83; Delpriori 2019, 140f.
The earliest dating, by Conti 1627, 156, who also proposes the year 1503, is rarely addressed in debates concerning the dating of this work. Conti presumably relies upon the inscription on the altar, but perhaps, writing 120 years after the panelâs creation, he had access to other sources as well. Contiâs Fiori vaghi constitutes an important source; among other things, the Gonfalone panel is attributed to Raphael for the first time (179); it is missing from the bibliography in Shearman 2003.
It may be that Raphael omitted the date from his signature because it was already inscribed on the altar; a year later, he inscribed the date prominently under his name on the temple in the background of the Sposalizio panel. The relative chronology prior to the Sposalizio also corresponds to the information in Vasari.
Cf. Shearman 2003, vol. 1, doc. 1503/3, 82f.
Ascani 1963, 44f.
Ibid., 49â55; the photo on p. 51 (here figure 3.5) shows the state of construction work in 1913: Baroque altars are still visible in the three choir chapels, although it is clear that the primary light falling from the right-hand side choir window and onto the Gavari Crucifixion was blocked by the altar. During the âde-Baroquificationâ of the church, a number of mid-15th century frescoes reemerged to light on the sidewalls (Salmi 1920), among them a Crucifixion that includes the Good and Bad Thieves, its narrative character contrasting markedly with Raphaelâs version, with its emphasis on the devotional aspect and the exclusion of anecdotal detail.
The parameters for documenting a concrete iconic situation cannot be fixed in advance, but must be determined on a case to case basis. The lighting conditions of a restored medieval church interior are highly complex and difficult to evaluate, consisting â like those in San Domenico â of a mixture of directed and diffuse light sources, and are moreover dependent upon the time of day. In order to school oneâs vision, it would be helpful in the future to compile empirical data on location in collaboration with experts in natural light, with the aim of comparing our subjective impressions of a specific timeframe with objective data. In any event, the key question is: At what point, and at what level of intensity do the in situ lighting conditions become relevant to the depicted lighting situation, and perhaps even semantically relevant?
Traeger 1997, 294, in one of the few attempts to characterize the original lighting situation, also concludes that the main light arrives from the choir, and elevates its significance to the semantic level, arguing that Raphael defines the lighting situation of the choir symbolically.
Shearman 2003, document 1515/11, 216. âNow, in confirming this, he [Raphael] also writes that I should send him the pictureâs measurements and the lighting [situation], since he wants to start work soonâ (translation by the author).
Cortegiano I.33; Castiglione/Barbaris 2017, 73. â[L]ike paintings displayed in good, natural lightâ (translation by the author).
See the conservation report with information about the pigments used, Roy, Spring, Plazzotta 2004.
Ambrosini Massari 2019, 55; on the landscape, and also the landscapes in the predella panels, see Pope-Hennessy 1970, 83.
Hiller von Gaertringen 1999, 46â54; the contract with Perugino is published in Sarnecka 2014, 209, 227, n. 3.
Although Raphaelâs presence in Florence prior to 1504 has not been documented, it still remains possible that he was indeed there earlier, as argued again most recently by Nova 2020, 423. In his Vita (XXI.XCI.374) of Federico di Montefeltro, Giovanni Santi, Raphaelâs father, numbers Leonardo among the most important painters of the time: Santi/Michelini Tocci 1985, 674. Like Leonardo, Perugino had studied with Verrocchio, and he opened a second workshop in Florence in 1493, the same year during which he married Chiara, the daughter of the architect Luca Fancelli. A visit by Raphael to his teacher there cannot be ruled out.
For an extensive discussion of this issue, see Shearman 1962, as well as Wagner 1999, 375â378, upon which I rely in the following.
Henning 2005, 11f.
On cangiantismo in particular in Michelangelo, see Hall 1992, 95, 123â129; Weil-Garris Brandt 1994.
With the benefit of the original iconic situation, it seems possible that Hall 1992, 108, would not have perceived the cangiantismo in the Mond Crucifixion as being âharsh and abruptâ.
Cortegiano II,7; Castiglione/Barberis 2017, 128; Castiglione/Singleton 2002, 71: â[E]ven though in every act one virtue is chief, still all the virtues are so conjoined as to move toward the same end, informing every effect and furthering it. Hence, he [the courtier] must know how to avail himself of them and, by the test and, as it were, the opposition of the one, cause another to be more manifestly known; as good painters who, by their use of shadow, manage to throw the light of objects into relief, and, likewise, by their use of light, to deepen the shadows of planes and bring different colors together so that all are made more apparent through the contrast of one with another; and the placing of figures in opposition one to another helps them achieve their aimâ.
Vasari 1568, I.48; Vasari/Bettarini/Barocchi 1966, vol. 1, 124; âUnity in painting is the discordance of diverse colours tuned togetherâ (translation by the author); cf. Wagner 1999, 375.
Vasari/Bettarini/Barocchi 1966, vol. 4, 158: âà cosa notabilissima che, studiando Raffaello la maniera di Pietro, la imitò così a punto e in tutte le cose, che i suoi ritratti non si conoscevano daglâoriginali del maestro, e fra le cose sue e di Pietro non si sapeva certo discernere, come apertamente dimostrano ancora in San Francesco di Perugia alcune figure che egli vi lavorò in una tavola a olio per madonna Madalena degli Oddi; e ciò sono: una Nostra Donna assunta in cielo e Gesù Cristo che la corona, e di sotto, intorno al sepolcro, sono i dodici Apostoli che contemplano la gloria celeste; e a piè della tavola, in una predella di figure piccole spartite in tre storie, è la Nostra Donna annunziata dallâAngelo, quando i Magi adorano Cristo, e quando nel tempio è in braccio a Simeone: la quale opera certo è fatta con estrema diligenza; e chi non avesse in pratica la maniera, crederebbe fermamente che ella fusse di mano di Pietro, là dove ellâè senza dubbio di mano di Raffaelloâ. Vasari/de Vere 1996, vol. 1, 711f.: âIt is a very notable thing that Raffaello, studying the manner of Pietro, imitated it in every respect so closely, that his copies could not be distinguished from his masterâs originals, and it was not possible to see any clear difference between his works and Pietroâs; as is still evident from some figures in a panel in S. Francesco at Perugia, which he executed in oils for Madonna Maddalena degli Oddi. These are a Madonna who has risen into Heaven, with Jesus Christ crowning her, while below, round the sepulcher, are the Twelve Apostles, contemplating the Celestial Glory, and at the foot of the panel is predella divided into three scenes, painted with little figures, of the Madonna receiving the Annunciation from the Angel, of the Magi adoring Christ, and of Christ in the arms of Simeon in the Temple. This work is executed with truly supreme diligence; and one who had not a good knowledge of the two manners, would hold it as certain that it is by the hand of Pietro, whereas it is without a doubt by the hand of Raffaelloâ.
Brown 1992, 30.
Recently, Pfisterer 2019 attempts to solve the âVasari problemâ (p. 12) â which amounts to the difficulty of knowing when to take him seriously as a source, and when to reject him for propagating fables â by simply ignoring the writer in the hope that a Raphael âwithout Vasariâ will yield a fresh perspective onto his pictures. In the case of the Mond Crucifixion, which is taken up in the context of a paragone with Perugino (p. 32), it becomes clear just how deeply rooted Vasariâs point of view has become. In an overview of motivic sources for the Mond Crucifixion, Hiller von Gaertringen 1999, 46â54 considers paintings by Perugino exclusively.
The first mention is by Conti 1627, 156: âIn questa Chiesa di S. Domenico, oltre lâaltre belle pitture, vi è vna Tauola dâvn Crocifisso sopra lâAltare, dellâEccell. pittore Raffaello da Vrbino nel 1503. & vnâaltra per rincontro di vn S. Bastiano di Luca Signorelli da Cortona, nel 1497â. As mentioned above, Conti situates the painting across from Signorelliâs panel of St. Sebastian, and dates it to 1503. A collocation that is no longer reconstructable today âsotto allâOrgano in S. Domenicoâ (âbeneath the organ in San Domenicoâ) appears in Lazzari 1693/1975, 286. As mentioned above, the church was redesigned in the Baroque style during the 18th century. According to Ascani 1963, 51, an organ in the main apse was demolished during restoration work undertaken in the early 20th century. I was unable to discover whether an organ once existed in the right-hand side choir chapel, or even closer to the Gavari Chapel.
Passavant 1839, vol. 2, 12f., cat. no. 7; engraving by Ludwig Gruner, pl. VI.
Whether Mengs ever saw the Gavari Crucifixion in situ has never been determined.
Mengs 1843, 132f. âRaphaelâs system in his paintings consists in striving to emphasize his historical objects and their causes by cladding all of his figures, so to speak, in white. According to this principle, he then distributes the first highlights at those places where, in his view, they needed to be, and from this point, allows them to diminish stepwise into the furthest distance; it is for this reason that we see mostly white or pale yellow garments in the foreground of his paintings ⦠A further faulty principle adopted by Raphael was the application of bright highlights to those parts of the garments that, according to their nature, ought to be in pure colors ⦠In the brighter areas, the colors are heightened to the point of the brightest white, while sinking in the shadowed areas to deepest black. He did the same in the dark areas; the strongest emphasis is applied at the frontmost areas, from which point he proceeds stepwise to the highlights. This method corresponds to his taste, in particular because it allows objects to appear more noble and powerful than would be possible with other means, since the frontmost parts are given the strongest shadows. This procedure alone generates things that are unnatural, untruthfulâ. Translation by Ian Pepper. In another passage (âÃber Schönheit und guten Geschmack in der Malerei, Dritter Theil. Beispiele des guten Geschmacksâ; ibid., 231), Mengs finds fault with Raphaelâs painting on similar grounds.
Rumohr 1831, 15f.: âDas erste, was hier auffällt, ist jenes an Nachahmung grenzende sich Anschmiegen an Vorbilder, welche im Laufe seines [Raffaels] Jugendlebens ihm sich dargeboten haben, besonders an Pietro Perugino, welcher, seit Vasari, für Raphaels Lehrmeister galt. Diese Erscheinung indeà kann nur auf den ersten Blick befremden, da es bey näherer Untersuchung sich zeigt, daà dem Lehrling, Schüler und Gehülfen im alten Sinne des Wortes die Kunst und Art des Meisters für einige Zeit der Gegenstand war, den er vor anderen ins Auge faÃte, wetteifernd zu erreichen, man könnte sagen, darzustellen strebte. Daà Raphael hierin es weiter gebracht als, selbst den Spagna nicht ausgenommen, alle übrigen Schüler und Gesellen des Perugino, begründet demnach keinen Einwurf. Zudem zeigt sich gerade in seinen frühesten Arbeiten viel unabhängiges Urtheil; denn das Einzelne, der ganzen Zusammenstellung Untergeordnete, ist darin häufig durch Vergleichungen mit dem Leben verbessert, zu gleichgültigen oder ganz widrigen Manieren des Meisters ausgewichen, so daà man sagen dürfte, Raphael habe in den Arbeiten der bezeichneten Art den Perugino zugleich erreicht und übertroffenâ. â âThe first thing that becomes noticeable is a clinging to models that approaches imitation, particularly models available to him during his youth, in particular Pietro Perugino, who has been regarded as Raphaelâs teacher since Vasari. This appearance may seem disconcerting at first glance, but upon closer examination we realize that the apprentice, student, and assistant in the older sense of the word, took the art and the manner of his master for his subject for a period of time, allowing it to occupy his attention more than others, striving competitively to equal it, striving to duplicate it, so to speak. That Raphael achieved more in this regard than any other student or apprentice of Perugino, not excepting even Lo Spagna, is accordingly no grounds for reproach. His earliest works, moreover, display much independent judgment; for the individual element, which is subordinate to the larger composition, is often enhanced through comparisons with real life, thereby avoiding the indifferent or even repugnant manner of the master, allowing us to say that in his works, Raphael simultaneously equals and surpasses the characteristic manner of Peruginoâ. Translation by Ian Pepper.
Ibid., 20f. âIn painting, the depiction is based on the skillful treatment of real forms. And whereas painting makes use of the pure appearance of forms, which it evokes artfully on a surface, it should be self-evident that everything that counteracts this appearance, or annuls it, must be avoided in all earnest. This includes local colors which, by virtue of an indecorous tone, or through too much dark or light, disrupts the pictureâs coherency, transforming what should appear as a whole into patches. Aware of this principle, Raphael sought to bring the local color of the hair into harmony with the main highlights of the forehead through its brightness, and to unify the brighter parts of his garments, without destroying their linear beauty, gracefully with the broader surfaces, using gentle transitions to merge depressions and concave areas with the contiguous highlightsâ. Translation by Ian Pepper.
De Vecchi 1986, 75.
Wagner 1999, 395â397.
Recently, Ambrosini Massari 2019, 56, proposed Benedetto da Maianoâs Crucifix in the Chiesa della Madonna Bianca in Ancarano as a model for the Christ in Raphaelâs Gavari Crucifixion. Similarities are indeed present. Evident upon closer inspection, however, are a number of differences: the position of Christâs arms comes close to paralleling the transverse member of the cross, the characteristic hip muscles are absent, as is the rotation of the hips, while the big toe is less splayed in relation to the others.
See above, n. 38.
Exhib. cat. Florence 2008, cat. no. 2, 170â174, Filippo Brunelleschi, Crocifisso (Luciano Bellosi). Raphael follows a similar procedure regarding the wafting of the hair and beard in the Paris drawing after Donatelloâs seated figure of John the Evangelist (Museo dellâOpera del Duomo in Florence). In this drawing, Raphael varies his subject rather than reproducing it faithfully: the feet are retracted further underneath the robe, and the left hand, which rests on the spine of the book, seems more relaxed, while Johnâs gaze, fixed resolutely on the distance in Donatello, is translated by Raphael into a more introspective gaze that avoids eye contact with the viewer, and moreover emerges more powerfully due to the sparser beard and head hair; resolute self-assurance seems to have been converted deliberately here into phlegmatic self-doubt, with the form being preserved, but the expression reversed into its opposite. On the drawing, see recently Nova 2020, 424f.
The crown of thorns of Brunelleschiâs figure of Christ is removable; for an image without the crown, see Fehl 1982, 164.
Regarding the question of the type of this loincloth in Brunelleschiâs crucifix, see Fehl 1982; Speranza 2018.
On the paragone between Donatello and Brunelleschi, see Tönnesmann 2002.
Cat. Florence 1977, cat. no. 4, 33â38 (Antonio Paolucci), 35ff. On Brunelleschiâs Crucifix as the work of a âpainter-sculptorâ, see Hanke 2009, cat. no. 1, 83f. The issue of synagonism within painted crucifixes should be investigated independently. An early reference is the Madonna di Bugnara (1262) in Abruzzo, a polychrome wooden figure signed by Machilone and his son with âdepinserunt hoc opusâ, and not âsculpseruntâ (cf. Sarnecki 2014, 213).
Hills 1987, 134; Cennini/Brunello 1971, chap. IX, 10f.
Hills 1987, 134.
Speranza 2018, 149.
The series of Crucifixions produced by Giotto, Brunelleschi, Masaccio, and Raphael also includes Francesco Franciaâs Crucifixion panel for the Oratorio di Santa Cecilia in Bologna, presumably created in dependence upon the Gavari Crucifixion. On this painting, see Negro/Roio 1998, cat. no. 31, 159f. In his vita of Francia, Vasari (Vite 1550, 530, Shearman 2003, 969f.; 1568, I 505, Shearman 2003, 1132f.) reconstructs the very late friendly correspondence between the Bolognese artist and Raphael, which took place when the latter was already in Rome, and which kindled Franciaâs desire to see works by Raphael. Vasari concludes from this that Francia had seen no works by Raphael previously. In Vasariâs account, Raphael finally asked his friend to inspect his painting of Saint Cecelia upon its arrival in Bologna to see whether it has survived the journey undamaged, and to assist with its installation. When Francia finally saw the painting, he was so strongly affected âper il terrore, e per la bellezza della pitturaâ that he died just a few days later âdi dolore e malinconia [â¦] essendoli advenuto nel troppo fisamente contemplate la vivissima pittura di Raffaelloâ. Strehlke, in Cat. Madrid 2019, no. 14, 110f., claims that the figure of the Crucified in Fra Angelicoâs crucifixion painting in the Metropolitan Museum of Art New York, is also based on Brunelleschiâs Crucifix. The provenance of the painting is uncertain but Strehlke supposes that it was probably commissioned by a Dominican patron, perhaps for a friar of Santa Maria Novella.
â[L]e dico che per dipingere una bella, mi bisogneria veder più belle, con questa conditione, che V. S. si trovasse meco a far scelta del meglioâ. (Shearman 2003, doc. 1522/16, c. 1522, 734â741, here 735. Shearmanâs main argument against Raphaelâs authorship is that Castiglione was in Rome continuously between January and at least 17 August 1514, while Raphael informs his friend in the letter that he has just been appointed architect of St. Peterâs (ibid., 739).
Proem to the Vite 1568, II, no pagination; Proemio della Terza Parte, Shearman 2003, 1133: âma più di tutti il graziosissimo Raffaello da Urbino, il quale, studiando le fatiche deâ Maestri vecchi e quelle deâ moderni, prese da tutti il meglio e fattone raccolta, arrichì lâArte della Pittura di quella intera perfezione che hebbero anticamente le figure dâApelle e di Zeusi, e più, se si potesse dire, o mostrare lâopere di quelli a questo paragone. Laonde la natura restò vinta dai suoi coloriâ. Vasari/de Vere 1996, vol. 1, 620: âBut more than all did the most gracious Raffaello da Urbino, who, studying the labours of the old masters and those of the modern, took the best from them, and, having gathered it together, enriched the art of painting with that complete perfection which was shown in ancient times by the figures of Apelles and Zeuxisâ. Here, Vasari varies a topos that had been a commonplace since Pliny (Nat. Hist. XXXV.64) and Cicero (De inventione II.1), according to which, while preparing to execute a portrait of Helen, the Greek painter Zeuxis, then in Crotone, had the five most beautiful women in the town brought to him. Both Ariosto (Orlando furioso XI.71) and Castiglione (Cortegiano I.53) take up this topos.
Cortegiano I.50. In his Lezzioni (in Scritti dâarte del Cinquecento, ed. P. Barocchi, Milan/Naples 1971, 524f.), Varchi invokes Castiglione with reference to the superiority of painting in relation to sculpture.
Cortegiano I.4; Castiglione/Barbaris 2017, 22; Castiglione/Singleton 2002, 12f.
Cortegiano IV.52; Castiglione/Barbaris 2017, 416; Castiglione/Singleton 2002, 244: â[A] certain radiant harmony of various colors set off by light and shadowâ.
Cortegiano I.26â28; Castiglione/Barbaris 2017, 58â64; Castiglione/Singleton 2002, 31â35.