DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61022#0044
EARLY PICTURES
reasons for this; the existence of a very doubtful sketch1 has
caused critics to conclude that Raphael’s conception or his
commission2 changed in the course of his work, and that what
was begun as an ‘ Assumption’ ended as a ‘ Coronation.’ There
may be hagiographical reasons, for the arrangement is not unique.
But whatever other reasons there may be, it is certain that
Raphael accepted the finished picture and approved the idea
which he had represented, for some years afterwards when he
was commissioned by the nuns of Monteluce to paint for them
a 4 Coronation of the Virgin ’ his sketch embodied the same
ideas with only a change in the expression, rendering them more
dramatic. With this fact before us, all investigation into the
accidents which originated the picture becomes otiose, and it
is only necessary to inquire into the reasons which led Raphael
to adopt or accept the arrangement. These reasons immediately
mark his difference from Perugino. He desired a greater amount
of action and a greater variety of life than Perugino showed
in his work. The same tendency in him or his school which
led to exaggeration of the drama in the Monteluce ‘ Coronation ’
led him to adopt a dramatic rendering in the earlier picture ;
nor is it merely the desire for dramatic action, which, for that
matter, is scarcely as yet expressed in this picture, since the
figures of the apostles taken singly are still but actors formed
strictly according to Perugino’s precedents. It is a desire for
greater drama in the grouping, a search for a motive which
will keep the characters together, and at the same time place
them in physical relation to each other in such a way that they
occupy a definite space. The tomb affords this motive. In
the Monteluce picture its miraculous emptiness is the keynote
of the scene; here it is almost unremarked by the bystanders.
But its presence explains the grouping to the spectator, its
1 Pesth. Fisch el. No. 32.
2 Crowe and Cavalcaselle, i. 142, Morelli, German Galleries, 323, assume that the
picture passed as Perugino’s. Contract for its execution without name of painter ap.
Mariotti, Lett. 238.
22
reasons for this; the existence of a very doubtful sketch1 has
caused critics to conclude that Raphael’s conception or his
commission2 changed in the course of his work, and that what
was begun as an ‘ Assumption’ ended as a ‘ Coronation.’ There
may be hagiographical reasons, for the arrangement is not unique.
But whatever other reasons there may be, it is certain that
Raphael accepted the finished picture and approved the idea
which he had represented, for some years afterwards when he
was commissioned by the nuns of Monteluce to paint for them
a 4 Coronation of the Virgin ’ his sketch embodied the same
ideas with only a change in the expression, rendering them more
dramatic. With this fact before us, all investigation into the
accidents which originated the picture becomes otiose, and it
is only necessary to inquire into the reasons which led Raphael
to adopt or accept the arrangement. These reasons immediately
mark his difference from Perugino. He desired a greater amount
of action and a greater variety of life than Perugino showed
in his work. The same tendency in him or his school which
led to exaggeration of the drama in the Monteluce ‘ Coronation ’
led him to adopt a dramatic rendering in the earlier picture ;
nor is it merely the desire for dramatic action, which, for that
matter, is scarcely as yet expressed in this picture, since the
figures of the apostles taken singly are still but actors formed
strictly according to Perugino’s precedents. It is a desire for
greater drama in the grouping, a search for a motive which
will keep the characters together, and at the same time place
them in physical relation to each other in such a way that they
occupy a definite space. The tomb affords this motive. In
the Monteluce picture its miraculous emptiness is the keynote
of the scene; here it is almost unremarked by the bystanders.
But its presence explains the grouping to the spectator, its
1 Pesth. Fisch el. No. 32.
2 Crowe and Cavalcaselle, i. 142, Morelli, German Galleries, 323, assume that the
picture passed as Perugino’s. Contract for its execution without name of painter ap.
Mariotti, Lett. 238.
22