The Judgement of Paris. A Summing Up.

Att. to Raphael, previously att to Giorgione, The Judgement of Paris, Private Coll., 1512.

There's no doubt that the Malmesbury Judgement of Paris is a controversial painting. The series of posts started last year have examined every aspect of it. AHT has attempted to reconstruct its stylistic milieu, identify the context in which the picture was received, and tried to unravel its technique and iconography.

The dispute revolves around whether this disregarded picture was painted by Raphael. But even if we discount that attribution, I think we have to face the fact that the composition, models and sources are connected with Raphael’s workshop. I won’t repeat all that has been written in the lost four posts; but I did ask Graeme Cameron if he had anything else to add, or wanted to indicate material that had got left out of the previous posts. I’m quoting GC verbatim here:

1. Dating and Style.

“To assist with the scientific verification of both the date and style of the dress depicted within the "JoP", as worn by Raphael, it can be actually scientifically proven as certainly deriving from the years 1500 to 1520 in the High Renaissance. Most fortunately,my research is also dealing with yet another significant work from this period on an oak panel, which concerns "Three Saints", which has been accurately dated by leading Dendrochronologist, Prof. Dr. Peter Klein, to the 1500 to 1510-20 period.

Attribution to be advised, St James from “Three Saints”, oil on oak, dimensions not known.

The Saint depicted here, "St. James" ( with the Scallop Shell), wears the same White Hose and Slashed Doublet/Tunic style, and even more so, the same soft style Suede Boots/Shoes, as does Raphael in the "JoP". In this composition, St.James like Raphael, has likewise been updated to the contemporary early 1500's Renaiisance dress, for this purpose, rather than retaining his actual Biblical Garb. It is worth noting this important fact for definitive dress dating purposes of the "JoP."

2. Monogrammes. I didn’t get a chance to show images with the Raphael monogramme “"Rv", reproduced in GC’s book- so here they are.

Monogrammes from GC’s book.

Ditto

3. Physiognomy and Identification.

“It's perhaps worth adding to the remarks on physiognomy, that proof of the difficulty of rendering on a small scale an accurate likeness of young "Fornarina" was a very skilled task for Raphael, as some of the poorly rendered faces of some of the versions in these images attest. In the case of the versions, it is clear the Malmesbury prototype alone has these pivotal physiognomies of Fornarina and Raphael, whilst they all vary in both the quality and "type" of their respective renditions, but obviously have all derived from it, either as a versions or variants.

These images are "Age & Date Specific" with Fornarina's the youngest known image of her.

Raphael's Physical Concordances at various ages.

The comparisons show clearly "Age/Date Specific Physiognomic Concordances" which are entirely unique to the Malmesbury work, providing both dating confirmation and direct evidence of the 1512 evolution of this composition and of Raphael's certain involvement in its "original" creation in Rome at that time. These are in fact actual portraits of both Fornarina and Raphael, albeit small, yet so accurate in their Age and Date features, they could only have been painted from "life" sittings in Rome in 1512. The Fornarina is clearly a more naive and youthful portrayal than any previously known image of her and is therefore neither a copy nor any "chance resemblance", but a unique visage of her in 1512. It is self evidently an "Age and Date specific portrait, which most accurately records her actual physiognomy at that time, which may well include her naked countenance, from this original sitting. Accurate portraits are difficult enough to create, yet both these are finely wrought, true to life renditions and dateable to Rome in 1512. Likewise Raphael's countenance, which as proven by its subsurface pentimenti, was added into the composition to join that of Fornarina, and is also a unique portrayal, in that it is not a copy of any previously known image of him, either in its dress or "type", It too is an "Age and Date specific "original" portrait like Fornarina's of 1512. His physiognomy is consistent with with that of "Stanza" version, with the garb datable to this period, however he is clearly younger and in better health than seen in the 1519 joint portrait. None of these could be claimed as "chance" likenesses but were purpose created portraits for this painting.In the case of the versions, it is clear the Malmesbury prototype alone has these pivotal physiognomies of Fornarina and Raphael, whilst they all vary in both the quality and "type" of their respective renditions, but are obviously all derived from it, either as a versions or variants.”

	Three Graces, J of P and Farnesina nudes.

4. Poses, Sources and Copies.

“This image above shows Raphael's unique "Contrapposto" pose shared between all three compositions, from the earlier 1508 Venus, to the 1512 JoP. These anatomical pose Hallmarks are quite distinctive to his oeuvre. “

J of P and Entombment sketch

A further "Raphael "cut & Paste compositional source for the painting showing direct links & concordances evident between his earlier 1508 'discarded' Entombment Sketch and the later 'recycled' 1512 'JoP' figure group.”

Copies. See post 1 for details.

“Comparison with the Copies & Versions show the precedence of The Malmesbury original viz a viz the versions.”

5. Quality Issues and Connoisseurship.

“Not just Waagen & Eastlake, but other great connoisseurs, Ridolfi, Passavant, Sir Martin Conway, and Millions of admirers at two major National Art Treasures Exhibitions at Manchester & Leeds, & in was singled out for praise in subsequent Press Reviews. Also at the two Royal Academy Exhibitions it was greatly admired as a Giorgione and even given the privilege of a Full Page Engraved Plate. Its qualities were so self evident, as indeed they still are today, that The Louvre was honoured to exhibit it in Paris, and later many visited Lord Mamesbury's Mayfair mansion just to admire it as well. Therefore those who are unable to appreciate its inherent beauty are obviously in the minority, as the majority always appreciated its qualities.”

6. VegaScan and “Vested Interests.”

I did ask Graeme Cameron if he had anything further to add on the VegaScan issue amid concerns about “vested interests.” He referred those concerned back to the technical blog's images, “where the capabilities of the VegaScan process, in regard to the effectiveness of its image penetration, compared with Infra-reds, provides the most self evident demonstration".

In response to concerns expressed about the “vested interest” issue, GC said:

"How it (VegaScan) achieves this is presently subject to confidentiality provisions, whilst the necessary proprietary measures are being determined".

This is the situation at the present- that’s all I can report.

7. The Next Book.

Finally, Graeme tells me that in Volume 2 of his series, “that not only will an important new direct link back to Raphael and his "Judgement of Paris composition be revealed, confirming it has everything to do with Raphael and Rome, with only its palette and Piombo/Macantonio's ( Giorgione) "influence" representing its earlier explained Venetian elements, but not its actual origin”.

AHT’s Final Thoughts.

For myself, I think this case raises four important questions:

1. If this wasn’t painted by Raphael, then why are there physiognomic, stylistic and iconographic links between the Malmesbury painting and designs produced by his own hand, e.g. the Adam and Eve, and now as we can see above, the Entombment sketch?

2. Can we accept that Raphael- with all his exposure to Venetian painting- may not have sought to fashion a personal, erotic subject based upon some of Giorgione’s pastoral mythologies?

3. Leaving aside the issue of its authorship, and turning to the issue of quality: why was it endorsed by connoisseurs of the first rank like Waagen and Eastlake, not to mention good enough to go in the Manchester Art Treasures exhibition? See GC’s comments above.

4. How do we explain the facial resemblance between the left goddess in the Judgement of Paris and portraits of Fornarina; the same goes for portraits of Raphael and the “Paris” figure? Again, see above.

As for the attribution, the main bone of contention, I fully understand that people are protective of Raphael, but I’m a huge fan of the painter too- and I would never do anything to harm his reputation. I appreciate that it’s important to give a balanced, objective view of a painters development, weeding out the copies and variants from the true originals, which I’ve started with the Poussin project. In my own speciality as Poussin scholar I’m learning all the time, especially about the question of Poussin copies, which is clearly an emerging concern over at the PCP. We don’t yet have the “full picture” of Raphael too, which is a point that I’ve stressed again and again throughout the series of posts.

Perhaps the Malmesbury case illustrates the adversarial nature of attribution culture, and I’ll put my hands up and say that I've been guilty of rubbishing somebody’s attribution in the past. This time I’ve used my knowledge and judgement to try to negotiate between those who agree with the attribution and those who resist it. Everybody is entitled to their view, but I have to say that I think this case should be less a judgement on Graeme Cameron’s connoisseurship and the technology he uses, and more about the issues it raises for studying Raphael in the 21st century.

Stressing the positive, which I’d rather do, it’s interesting that the appearance of the Malmesbury picture has set some scholars on new paths of investigation. Though wisely keeping out of the attribution debates, Frank DeStefano has incorporated the Malmesbury painting into his thinking on Giorgione. I think that is the spirit in which to approach the problems surrounding this controversial canvas.

Many thanks for reading the posts and commenting on them.

Thanks of course to Graeme, and Norm Cameron for plentiful material,images and supplying answers to all my queries.

We now wait for GC’s new findings in the next volume of his research.

Comments

[Storiedellarte]

I apologize for the incursion. :)

There would be many things to discuss about this new attribution to Raphael of the Malmesbury "Judgement of Paris". For example, I never seen such a landscape into the signed and dated paintings by Raphael. Moreover, the comparison with the details of the "Madonna Sistina" and "Fornarina" shows me a manner, a formal construction, which is venetian, "tizianesca", not "raffaellesca". Unfortunately, I do not have time now to explain why the invention of the painting must still be assigned to Giorgione or one of its two "creati" (pupil), Titian and Sebastiano del Piombo.

For now, I would just note that the detail of the painting of "Three Saints" here published is an undoubted derivation from the famous altarpiece by Giovanni Antonio Pordenone in the church of San Giovanni Elemosinario in Venice (http://goo.gl/HROoc).
The detail here published shows St. Rocco, not St. James. And, of course, it must be dated after the Venetian altarpiece, which was painted between 1535 and 1539. I'd like to have a full image of this painting. Thank you very much I did not know it.

With best regards,
SM

[Francis DeStefano]

David:

Thanks for the mention of my work but I only raised the issue of the Malmesbury JOP at Giorgione et al because the costume of Paris resembles that of the man in the "Rustic Idyll" usually attributed to Giorgione or a follower.

I wonder if Cameron has commented on this similarity especially since he puts so much stock in the leggings of St. James (St. Roch). The subject of the JOP is obvious, and if the men are the same the subject of he Rustic Idyll must have to do with Paris. This does not solve the attribution issues around both paintings but either the same man painted both, or different painters were using the same color template for Paris.

Finally, my eyesight is not the best but it is impossible for me to see a RV monogram in the pubic area of one of the nudes.

Frank

[GED Testing system]

I'm seriously happy to discover this great site the future of this discussion is getting good and more useful for me. Thanks for sharing.

[dzone]

What a great site this. I love the neat layout? Thanks for the comments too.
http://haitong.exblog.jp/
http://liushu.jugem.jp/
http://jimu.blogguan.com/
http://blog.livedoor.jp/zhangshu11/

[tophoustontexansjerseys]

You can get what you want.But who will do all the house work? I love you!No wonder people say that computers are taking over the world.None of your business!I hope we can see each other again some time.I think so.Many young girls dream of being a fashion model.How are you recently? The enormous increase of population will create many problems.
tophoustontexansjerseys http://tophoustontexansjerseys.blogspot.com/

[Dypeinhette]

Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive read anything like this ahead of. So nice to acquire somebody with some original thoughts on this subject. realy thank you for starting this up. this webpage is something which is required on the internet, somebody having a small originality. helpful job for bringing some thing new to the internet!

[url=http://cheapchinajordansbb.2kool4u.net]retro jordans[/url]