DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61022#0041
INTRODUCTORY
The very characteristics of the doubtful pictures upon which
one party bases its theory of dating or of influences are to the
others definite proof that the picture is not by Raphael. Thus,
any argument from the style of a picture to its date or to
the influence under which it is painted, is based upon a
vicious circle, in which the authenticity of the picture rests
wholly upon a theory of the painter’s history, and the theory
is proved by a reference to the picture. The drawings are
of even less value than the pictures in such an argument as
this, because their slighter and more personal nature, while
it would, if they were certain to be genuine, throw more
light upon the artist’s life and circumstances, only gives, in
the general uncertainty, more opportunity for variation and
confusion.
The series of paintings, which is now generally ascribed to
Raphael, is based largely upon theoretical argument of this doubt-
ful description. The group is largely the result of compromise,
for it is seldom that the theory of the painter’s life used by any
critic is not based upon, or largely influenced by, some picture
or group of pictures which the particular theorist includes, and
others necessarily expunge, from the list. For example, the
writers who placed Raphael in the studio of Perugino immediately
after his father’s death attributed to him, wholly or in part, a
number of drawings and paintings which later critics declare
to be entirely the work of his masters. The presence of t^ese
works gave probability to their arguments, and now that they
have disappeared from the list of his achievements their departure
has largely strengthened the force of the theory which excludes
them. In their place other works have stepped in which are
not universally accepted, and, even if they were, would not be
less conjectural. Both parties, in the case of a master like
Raphael, can always invoke tradition to support the attribution
to him of any likely picture. In such uncertainty the only safe
course would be to sweep over a far larger field of possible
19
The very characteristics of the doubtful pictures upon which
one party bases its theory of dating or of influences are to the
others definite proof that the picture is not by Raphael. Thus,
any argument from the style of a picture to its date or to
the influence under which it is painted, is based upon a
vicious circle, in which the authenticity of the picture rests
wholly upon a theory of the painter’s history, and the theory
is proved by a reference to the picture. The drawings are
of even less value than the pictures in such an argument as
this, because their slighter and more personal nature, while
it would, if they were certain to be genuine, throw more
light upon the artist’s life and circumstances, only gives, in
the general uncertainty, more opportunity for variation and
confusion.
The series of paintings, which is now generally ascribed to
Raphael, is based largely upon theoretical argument of this doubt-
ful description. The group is largely the result of compromise,
for it is seldom that the theory of the painter’s life used by any
critic is not based upon, or largely influenced by, some picture
or group of pictures which the particular theorist includes, and
others necessarily expunge, from the list. For example, the
writers who placed Raphael in the studio of Perugino immediately
after his father’s death attributed to him, wholly or in part, a
number of drawings and paintings which later critics declare
to be entirely the work of his masters. The presence of t^ese
works gave probability to their arguments, and now that they
have disappeared from the list of his achievements their departure
has largely strengthened the force of the theory which excludes
them. In their place other works have stepped in which are
not universally accepted, and, even if they were, would not be
less conjectural. Both parties, in the case of a master like
Raphael, can always invoke tradition to support the attribution
to him of any likely picture. In such uncertainty the only safe
course would be to sweep over a far larger field of possible
19