DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61022#0057
THE MADONNAS
head of the Virgin in the 4 Sposalizio,’ which comes near to one
of Perugino’s most happy figures in the 4 Vision of St. Bernard ’—
or to that in the Pavia altar-piece—is not the head of any of
these paintings. Nor is the head of the Virgin in any of these
the characteristic variation from the Peruginesque type which
occurs in the angels and the St. John of the 4 Crucifixion,’ the
angels and certain of the heads in the 4 Coronation,’ and passing
through the last attendant maiden on the left, and the youth
with the bent rod on the right of the 4 Sposalizio ’ becomes the
type of the other attendant maidens in that picture and of the
4 Madonna del Granduca.’ In no case is it the head which recurs
in the group of paintings which is next to be considered. It is
not Pinturicchio’s type nor the type of Raphael’s father. Above
all, it is not the type of Timoteo Viti, although, had he been
Raphael’s master for the years before his entry into Perugino’s
studio there would be no more likely place to find his influence
than in these divergences from Perugino’s practice in pictures
which, if they are Raphael’s, must date from his earliest days in
Perugia. The group, therefore, stands almost isolated, and the
only close parallel to it that can be found occurs in a picture so
obscure and undistinguished that to mention it in connection with
Raphael’s work is at once to emphasise the multitude of hidden
possibilities which must exist in the development and the
associations of Raphael’s youth. It is a 4 Madonna and Child ’
which is now apologetically attributed to Raphael in the gallery
at Perugia, and comes from the Convent of the Misericordia in
which Perugino had his studio (Plate xx.). Coarse and ill-
executed, its forms but half-understood, it impresses almost as a
parody of the 4 Madonna Connestabile ’ and the 4 Madonna with
two Saints,’ and yet has variations and touches of independent
feeling which mark it as a work with an origin of its own. To
assume that it is a copy based upon Raphael’s pictures is to give
the boy of under twenty-one years too great importance. But if it
is an independent work, its existence, like that of the anonymous
35
head of the Virgin in the 4 Sposalizio,’ which comes near to one
of Perugino’s most happy figures in the 4 Vision of St. Bernard ’—
or to that in the Pavia altar-piece—is not the head of any of
these paintings. Nor is the head of the Virgin in any of these
the characteristic variation from the Peruginesque type which
occurs in the angels and the St. John of the 4 Crucifixion,’ the
angels and certain of the heads in the 4 Coronation,’ and passing
through the last attendant maiden on the left, and the youth
with the bent rod on the right of the 4 Sposalizio ’ becomes the
type of the other attendant maidens in that picture and of the
4 Madonna del Granduca.’ In no case is it the head which recurs
in the group of paintings which is next to be considered. It is
not Pinturicchio’s type nor the type of Raphael’s father. Above
all, it is not the type of Timoteo Viti, although, had he been
Raphael’s master for the years before his entry into Perugino’s
studio there would be no more likely place to find his influence
than in these divergences from Perugino’s practice in pictures
which, if they are Raphael’s, must date from his earliest days in
Perugia. The group, therefore, stands almost isolated, and the
only close parallel to it that can be found occurs in a picture so
obscure and undistinguished that to mention it in connection with
Raphael’s work is at once to emphasise the multitude of hidden
possibilities which must exist in the development and the
associations of Raphael’s youth. It is a 4 Madonna and Child ’
which is now apologetically attributed to Raphael in the gallery
at Perugia, and comes from the Convent of the Misericordia in
which Perugino had his studio (Plate xx.). Coarse and ill-
executed, its forms but half-understood, it impresses almost as a
parody of the 4 Madonna Connestabile ’ and the 4 Madonna with
two Saints,’ and yet has variations and touches of independent
feeling which mark it as a work with an origin of its own. To
assume that it is a copy based upon Raphael’s pictures is to give
the boy of under twenty-one years too great importance. But if it
is an independent work, its existence, like that of the anonymous
35