A Lesser Known Raphael Drawing

Reading Three Pipe Problem’s exemplary post on the Portrait of a Young Man in the Royal collection, and associated drawings, put me in mind of another drawing, in the Louvre. Catalogued also as Portrait of a Young Man, this sheet entered the Louvre collections in 1935 after Edmond de Rothschild left it to the museum. Executed in black chalk, it has a light feathery handling, and to my mind- and eye- it’s an autograph drawing. It also contains the inscription “Ritratto di se medessimo quando Giovane”-“Portrait of Himself when young.”. Now if it’s incontestably by Raphael, could it be a self-portrait? H Wagner was disinclined to think so; he said the sheet was actually the work of an unknown artist who represented Raphael at the age of 16 or 17 years of age. All these arguments are summarised in an exhibition catalogue of 1984. [1]

What might undermine its candidacy for a self-portrait is the unusual turned-up hat; this headgear helps us to connect it to a figure (the prophet Daniel) in a fresco executed by Raphael’s teacher, Perugino, in the Collegio del Cambio, in Perugia, approximately 1497-1500. As the style puts it also close to the Sposalizio (Milan 1504), the Louvre curators suggested a date between1500-04. This seems logical, and what also helps to put it in that timeframe is its stylistic, and arguably iconographic affinity, with a sheet in the British Museum, now increasingly seen as a self-portrait.[2]

That particular sheet in the British Museum (also done in black chalk, and also with the same inscription) was the subject of a hypothesis by the legendary curators and connoisseurs, Philip Pouncey and J.A. Gere. Their comments are worth quoting:

“Fischel’s dating of the verso at a time when Raphael was aged about twenty-one completely excluded, for him, the possibility of it being a self-portrait. On the other hand, he accepts as a youthful self-portrait (c.1498) another boy’s head…bearing an identical inscription in the same hand. [This is the famous sheet in the Ashmoleon, usually dated about 1500-2, and looking less like a self-portrait these days, despite its autograph status].[3] Our opinion is the reverse of his. We agree with Robinson and with Parker in dating the Ashmolean head c. 1504 and in rejecting its identification as a self-portrait, but are strongly inclined to accept no. 1 as such. The eyes, unlike those in the Ashmoleon drawing, stare intently at the spectator in a way characteristic of self-portraits (Fischel notes this trotziger Blick, but draws no conclusion from it) and Raphael in c. 1500 would have been about sixteen or seventeen, which could be the age of the boy here portrayed.”[4]

All well and good, but where does that leave the Louvre drawing? I think it’s reasonable to say that it has some connection with the British Museum variant: they’re both executed in black chalk; they both carry the same inscription. They also both show that unflinching glance out at the spectator, as Pouncey and Gere say, typical of self-portraits. And if it’s the same model as the one in London, then one might venture it’s Raphael himself. The Louvre sheet closely resembles the Daniel in Perugino’s fresco, but the way this sheet is individualised leads me to ponder its possible status as a self-portrait. My hypothesis would be that despite working under Perugino, the young Raphael wanted to assert his independence and self-reliance; something of that comes through here, despite its connection to Perugino’s commission.

 

Raphael wasn’t the kind of renaissance artist who tried to best his teacher by going up against him openly;  like the young Leonardo causing his master Verrocchio to recognise his superior talent and give up his palette in despair. This engraving by the nineteenth-century French artist, Jean Gigoux is indebted to Vasari’s account of Leonardo’s life. Raphael didn’t operate like that; he was competitive, but was always respectful of those who taught him. Perhaps the Louvre drawing should be seen in that light.

 

 

---

[1] Raphael dans les collections françaises, Paris, 1984, 167.

[2] Philip Pouncey and J.A. Gere, Italian Drawings in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, Raphael and His Circle, London, 1962, 2 vols., vol 1, pp. 2-3, no.1, verso.

[3] See in the entry in the exhibition catalogue, Raphael: From Urbino to Rome, exhibition catalogue, London, 2004, no 1, p. 68.

[4] Pouncey and Gere, Raphael and His Circle, vol 1, pp. 2-3, no.1, verso.

Comments

[Francis DeStefano]

Raphael's "Sposalizio" seems like a deliberate attempt to outstrip Perugino.

Frank

[David Packwood]

Hi Frank,

I'm not saying Raphael isn't competitive- of course not. It might be significant that his Spozalizio is still recognizable as deriving from Perugino. Raphael's artistic advancement comes out of both innovation and tradition. Also in the Vatican, he painted around "around" Perugino rather than over him. Michelangelo of course simply wiped out Perugino when he came to paint the Last Judgment.

David

Best,

David

[H Niyazi]

Thank you for this outstanding post David, and thanks also for the mention.

A deeper familiarity with these drawings can tell us much about the development of Raphael's technical abilities as a drafstman. I am also curious to know what Joannides says about this drawing - I don't have a copy yet - is it not the most recent and complete catalogue of Raphael's drawings?

In interplay between Raphael and his teachers is an interesting one. This was perhaps one of the strengths of Talvacchia's recent catalogue volume, which does a far better job at exploring Raphael himself than his works.

This idea of him being an affable, gentle soul largely derives from Vasari's accounts. If you go a level deeper you also see how it aligns quite cleanly with Leona Battista Alberti's parameters for the ideal temperament of an artist as outlined in 'De Pictura'.

For example: one of Raphaels most famous quotes(described in a letter if memory serves), that his females are idealised hybrids of the parts of many beautiful women is lifted directly from Alberti's famous treatise.

We can only surmise the degree to which both Vasari and Raphael himself were familiar with Alberti's work. As Talvacchia explains, the master from Urbino would not have reached the dizzying heights he did were he not ambitious and calculating. That he wasn't "hangman" like in his disposition is as much a reflection of his great business savvy than evidence of a gentle spirit.

I would generally concur with Frank(and Vasari), the inscription on the temple on 'Sposalizio' says much about what Raphael was trying to prove.

Fascinating topic!

Kind Regards
H

[David Packwood]

Hi H,

I am near a library- so I've had a quick look at Joannides. No. 65, catalogued as "Head of a Youth". He links to the Spozalizio and the modelo for the Journey of Aeneas Silvius, which I recall Beck rejected.

Other comments, J says Raphael was capable of this kind of drawing in 1500, though it could be earlier.Then there's just some favourable comments on the rhythm of the drawing.

J catalogues BM and Ashmoleon drawings as both self-ports, but this was 1983 and opinions have changed.

david

[H Niyazi]

Interesting! Many thanks for the update. Sounds like Joannides's definitive catalogue needs a revision.

Even some of the entries in Capellen's 1st vol catalogue raisonne(paintings in Umbria/Florence) are in need of tweaking, and that was 2000!

Yes, Beck definitely was not keen on that Aeneas Silvius drawing, he even pointed out some issues with Shearman's magnum opus of source docs on Raphael.

He definitely didn't mind treading on a few toes in the interests of critical analysis, which is always a good thing. A shame there isn't anyone around like this for Raphael at the moment.. (barring the DeFeo/Exekiel research in Italy perhaps)

I'm also waiting with baited breath to see if anyone scholar of note will respond to this Salvator Mundi business...

H

[David Packwood]

H, re your earlier comment.

I know the kind-hearted image of Raphael comes from Vasari. I don't dispute that. But there must have been some reason Michelangelo didn't like him. Was it his graceful manner, wether part of a business strategy or not. have you read Rona Goffen's Renaissance Rivals?
Talvacchia is v good on this too, especially the studio.

By the way I noticed that Gigoux's engraving emphasises the palette, when of course Verrocchio was famous as a sculptor as well. I must come back to this in another post.

[Alberti's Window]

Great post! I like your interpretation of Raphael's self-reliance and independence. Such an interest in individual achievement (and a focus on the individual via self-portraiture) ties well with humanism, doesn't it?

On a side note: I often wondered why Michelangelo disliked Raphael so much. Perhaps the sentiment is similar to the Bernini vs. Borromini rivalry - kind of an extrovert vs. introvert dynamic? I'm curious to look at the Goffen book that you suggested to H.

[H Niyazi]

@M/David - aside from more intrinsic emotional and personality factors(sometimes explored to painful unquantifiable detail by Goffen), there are some very concrete facts that can explain Michelangelo's dislike of Raphael - not the least of which was Raphael's affiliation with Bramante, also from (near) Urbino and possibly family friends (some have suggested distant relatives)

Then there is Michelangelo's disapproval of Raphael's amorous nature.

I truly wonder how much of this is rivalry is from secondary sources? We all know Vasari capable of spinning yarns for the sake of a good story

H