749999

7/29/2019 749999

1/16

Charity: The Case History of a Pattern

Author(s): Edgar WindSource: Journal of the Warburg Institute, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Apr., 1938), pp. 322-330Published by: The Warburg InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/749999 .

Accessed: 08/09/2013 19:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Warburg Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of the

Warburg Institute.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=warburghttp://www.jstor.org/stable/749999?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/749999?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=warburg

7/29/2019 749999

2/16

CHARITYThe Case History of a Pattern

By Edgar WindI n his Reflections n BritishPainting, Roger Fry discussed the composition ofReynolds's portrait of Lady Cockburn and her Children (P1. 57b), andsuggested that it ought to be possible to find its Italian or Flemish model.'The groupofpicturesreproducedon plates54-5 7 and 59 supplya somewhat for-midable answer. They show that Reynolds's composition is one of manyvariations of a pattern originally invented by Michelangelo.There is nothing surprisingin this discovery, for Reynolds has often andproudly confessed himself an admirer and disciple of that master. In hisself-portraitin Florence he carries a folder which has the inscription : "Dis-segni dell' immortal Buonarotti." His self-portraitin the Royal Academyshows Michelangelo's bust in the background. In his Discourseshe recom-mends Michelangelo as the greatest model of composition, and even placeshis name as a memento at the end of the last page.Yet, to say (as undoubtedly we must) that the fashionable portrait ofLady Cockburn was inspired by the austere and heroic figures of Michel-angelo is to state, rather than to solve, the riddle. For how could Reynoldsbelieve that in this flattering picture of a lady with her children he wascarrying on the Michelangelesque tradition?It is possible, with regard to this particular pattern, to reconstruct theentire line of descent which links the eighteenth century to the sixteenth,and connects, on the other hand, the period of Reynolds with the nineteenthand twentieth centuries. The place, in this genealogy, of Reynolds himselfis not one which he filled by accident. Never has an artist chosen and de-fined his position more deliberately. When he planned the portrait of LadyCockburn he was acquainted not only with Michelangelo's original group(P1.54a) and its adaptation by Raphael (P1.54c), but probably also with thebulk of the minor versions,many of which were diffusedby prints. The chiefBolognese example, Carlo Cignani's 'Charity' (P1. 56a), now in HamptonCourt, was in the possessionof George III who had acquired it in 1762 fromthe collection of Consul Smith.2 Van Dyck's composition (P1.57a), apartfrom being engraved, had found its way into English collections in no lessthan four different replicas.3 To see Reynolds administer this heritage is towatch his eclecticism in action. He was fully aware that the 'Michelangel-esque tradition' was a series of surprisingvicissitudes. He did not hesitate toadd to their number by transposinga design of Michelangelo into portraiture-the one medium to which Michelangelo himself had been a stranger.To judge the full meaning of this innovation, it would be useful to surveythe whole history of the particular design which Reynolds employed. Butthis would take a book. All that can be attempted in the confines of thisessay is to select what appear to be the four most interesting episodes.1 Roger Fry, Reflectionson British Painting,1934, P-.54.SCf. Collins Baker, Catalogue of Hampton

Court, No. 248.3 Cf. Catalogue of the Pictures at Dulwich,1926, No. 8 i.322

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.111 on Sun, 8 Sep 2013 19:00:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/29/2019 749999

3/16

54

.. .. .r ?7L

it

.........

ii:!:ii!i-i?:ii

~~j~-i?-: _ 1:~_j:

I~

i~iiii:ii~ii: iiiii! i%n4i~iiiii~'!i~~i~i~i!!iI: ! i., _-,. ,

a--Michelangelo. Detail of Josaphat-Lunette,Sistine Ceiling (Reversed) (p. 322, 329) b-School of Raphael. Charity. Drawing.Albertina (p. 323, 329)

::r _, BiigFii~~

:~":~~?"~ I ~~'T~P~- ~e :::~i-I D-= 6i:i- ia~ -rd~ 1~

i:::;:;: ?~":::-?si;~~ I

:'--=i;- ii=Pra~E~- ~p~e~ ~p~nn~-8 ananananananananr~w~gB ? I- a

ai=--~c~~ ,,;?:a;-----~:WZ:: '' r; ibb~';`7~aa rBI 11~8~r:s

s_ ? Il~jY~~

c-School of Raphael (Domenico Alfani). Charity. Vatican (p. 323, 329)


7/29/2019 749999

4/16

CHARITY 323I. Raphael and Michelangelo

It is generally assumed that both the drawing and the painted tondoreproduced on plate 54 are by Raphael's own hand. Strong arguments canbe adduced to the contrary.' Yet there can be no doubt that both of them,though executed by inferior artists, bear the marks of Raphael's invention.It is, therefore, safe to use them as examples for demonstrating the Raphael-esque transformation of Michelangelo's pattern.The drawing, although the more advanced in style, is the earlier of thetwo versions ; 2 and it is interesting to observe that the violence of Michel-angelo's composition is already toned down in this phase of the adaptation.The one gesture literally retained is that of the woman's right hand, whichclasps the children, while the poignancy of the other gestures is discernibleonly as in an echo. The woman's left arm, for instance, is bent at an anglefar less painful and forced than in Michelangelo's picture, and the childwhich grasps the mother's breast has a liveliness which both recalls andtransforms the original gesture.It appears that in this process of adaptation the influence of Leonardoon Raphael has had the effect of a 'catalyzing' force. There is a Leonard-esque aspect to the drawing3 which has vanished in the final version (P1. 54c).The ease with which the arm of the woman-originally the real crux of theadaptation-has here been made to unite and focus the movement of thewhole tondo, anticipates the 'solution' which Raphael was to offer in the'Madonna della Sedia.'It is curious to observe, however, that at the very moment when Raphaelthus overcame the power of Michelangelo's model, he found a new way ofacknowledging its force over his imagination. In the painted tondo, thechild coming from the right puts his right arm over his little brother in aforced gesture, which repeats almost literally the position of the woman'sarm in Michelangelo's group. Thus, Raphael has reintroduced in a secondaryplace a gesture which he would not accept in the centre of his composition.No doubt the whole course of this transformation is exactly the one whichone has learned to expect: the conflicting forces which pervade Michel-angelo's composition are resolved into harmony by Raphael. But this processof clarification is not confined to the formal structure alone. The meaningof Michelangelo's group was hidden under the name of one of Christ'sancestors, the significance of which could be understood only by a trainedtheologian.4 Raphael makes the meaning explicit. He calls the group byan ordinary name, intelligible to every Christian: 'Charity.'

2. The Division of CharityUnder the name of Charity the group was copied and transformed by

1 See the Appendix on p. 329 : "A StylisticRetrogression in Raphael's School."2 For the solution of this paradox, see theAppendix, p. 329.3 Cf. Leonardo's group of 'St. Anne,' thecartoon as well as the sketches. It is very

likely that Michelangelo's own compositionwas already meant as an 'answer' toLeonardo.4 In a forthcoming book on 'The ReligiousSymbolism of Michelangelo,' I shall give akey for the interpretation of these names.


7/29/2019 749999

5/16

324 EDGAR WINDartists all over Europe. It appears in Florence (P1. 59a, c), Bologna (P1. 56a,b), and Genoa (P1. 56c, d), as well as in Naples (P1. 55d, 59d). It travels tothe North and affects the imagination of Cranach (P1. 55b), and even ofGrfinewald (P1. 55a). In the Netherlands it can be traced in Massys andHeemskerck, and continues its influence down to Van Dyck (P1. 57a, c), whocarried it over to England. But it was not until Reynolds (P1. 57b) that itreceived its distinctly English form.By that time the theological conception of Charity had undergone aprofound transformation. The union of the two forms of love, which togetherconstitute Charity-the love of God and the love of one's neighbour-hadassumed a new mystical significance, so that the old symbols no longersufficed. Giotto, in the Arena Chapel in Padua, had represented Charityas a woman who holds in one hand a basket of fruit, which refers to theearth, and in the other hand a heart, which she is receiving from heaven.This union of the two attributes in her person corresponds to the scholasticdoctrine of Thomas Aquinas, who had taught that Heavenly Charity (gener-ally represented by a flame or a flaming heart) enables and entitles men tobe charitable on earth, so that the two forms of Charity are fundamentallyone.' The design of Raphael still expresses this view; for in the predellapainted by his pupil (P1. 54c), the tondo of Charity is supplemented on eitherside by a putto : the putto on the left carries a flame, the one on the rightpours out a basket of fruits. The figure of Charity herself, however, is neutralto this distinction. As a modern theologian has put it : "La charite de cettevie, dans ce qui la constitue essentiellement, n'est point sp6cifiquement dis-tincte de la chariti b6atifique." 2But though theoretically the Church has always sustained St. Thomas'sview of the unity of Charity, it has practically permitted and even encouragedits believers to think of the two forms of Charity under two separate figures.Divine and human Charity were compared to Mary and Martha in theGospel of St. Luke, or, by a subtle and long-winded argument, to Racheland Leah, the wives of Jacob. The names of the three patriarchs Abraham,Isaac and Jacob were said to signify allegorically the three virtues of Faith,Hope and Charity, and a profound meaning was attributed to the fact thatJacob, who represents Charity, wooed and served seven years for Rachel,the heavenly Love, while Leah, the earthly Love, was given to him in herstead. Hugo of St. Victor8 has given to this story the most subtle andelaborate interpretation. The barrenness of Rachel, who bears but two childrenbefore she dies, the prolificness of Leah, who has a wealth of offspring, signifythe contrast between Heaven and Earth. Leah is the 'literal' sense of theScripture, Rachel its 'mystical' significance; and the student who tries topetetrate the mystery of his faith is a second Jacob who, in the bridal chamber,longs for Rachel while he embraces Leah.With the growth of mysticism in the Counter-Reformation, this inter-pretation became the predominant one. (Witness the biblical commentary

1 Summa Theol. Ha IIae, q. XXIII, a. 5.Onaest. disp., de Caritate, a. 4.2 E. Dublanchy in Dictionnaire de ThdologieCatholique,s.v. Charite(after Thomas Aquinas,

Summa Theol. Ia IIae, q. LXVII, a. 6).3De Ra'l et Lea. Tractatus de lya et rachelStrassburg. 1475 (?). fol. 1oov ff.


7/29/2019 749999

6/16

55

"AN,

MI.

----------

NA~... ...

Ain,

b-Cranach. Formerly Private Coll.,Sweden (p. 324)-Grtinewald. Drawing. Berlin (p. 324)

. . . . . .

tqii;~~~"?":A

c-B. van Orley. Rotterdam, Boijmans-Museum. Detail (p. 326)

-;-~-:-- :8::i-?"

:~~aewi~;-?~~ei

~1;-??~~:;i--~--~6 ~?:?:~~a :w:?:~

;:=a--.?-

a~ I -g~~

;,

d-Luca Giordano. Eisner Sale, 1928 (p. 325)


7/29/2019 749999

7/16

4-A'v

a-Carlo Cignani. Charity, Hampton Court (p. 325)

IIF.Al

b-Carlo Cignani. The Five Senses. Engraving (p. 325)

4

c-Luca CFriedrich

d-BernardoRosso (p. 325


7/29/2019 749999

8/16

CHARITY 325of Ascanio Martinengo, which in the passage on Rachel and Leah is analmost literal transcript from Hugo of St. Victor). To the fervent mysticwho desires a direct union with the essence of God, the whole visible worldbecomes a symbol of the transcendent. As Leah is the earthly adumbrationof Rachel, she is not merely her opposite, but also her sign. In fact, theseeker after a sign for Rachel, who herself transcends the world of visiblethings, cannot do better than choose Leah. The mystical contact with thetranscendent essence throws the vision back upon the earthly form.This is the religious background of that realism which found its strongestpictorial expression through Caravaggio. The Charity of Cignani (P1. 56a)is conceived in this spirit. In order to convey the idea of heavenly charity,it depicts a scene of terrestrial poverty and love, which is so far removedfrom the supernaturalrealm that Cignani himself could transformit by onlya few alterations into a picture of the Five Senses (P1.56b). The form ofthe composition is taken almost literally from a painting by Albani, whichin French engravings is explicitly called 'La Charite humaine.' In Cam-biaso'sand Strozzi'spictures (P1.56c, d), the sorrowfulsentimentalpose of thewoman would have no meaning unless she were meant to represent theterrestrial form of love which finds its foremost expression in Misericordia.St. Thomas had warned men against the error of considering Misericordia,i.e. pity for men, as a higher virtue than detachment from the world in thelove of God.' He argued that only in a being superior to all other beingscould Misericordia hold the first place among virtues; for such a beingcould only look down, and never up. Therefore, to define Misericordia asthe chief function of Charity, would be to forget the intermediate positionof Man, who has much below him, but more above. However, this forcefulreasoning had no power over the religious enthusiasm of the Counter-reformers. The contrast between Upward and Downward had faded away,for the mystic union with God was so close that Misericordia with men wasits most direct expression.2By its concern for men, this extreme mysticism paved the way for thesecularization of Charity. For it conceded to earthly love a sort of autonomousexistence. What had once been only an aspect of Charity, a human andtherefore inferior attribute of that virtue, now became a substantial virtuein its own right. It is characteristicof this view that Luca Giordano, in orderto express the old contrast between the two 'components' of Charity, nolonger united, as did Giotto and Raphael, two different attributes in onefigure. He rather represented two separate persons (P1. 55d). While humanCharity is nursing the children, divine or 'beatific' Charity appears in thesky, holding a twig.3 The two figuresareconnected by the gestureof the child

1Summa Theol., IIa IIae, q. XXX, a. 4.2 El Greco managed to evade the rule ofS. Thomas by accepting his argument. Inhis representation of the three Christianvirtues in the Hospital Church of Illescas,the place of Charity is occupied by the MaterMisericordiae. According to St. Thomas, it isnot permissible to let Misericordia assume the

whole function of Charity (even in a HospitalChurch). On the other hand, he himselfhad admitted that this would be permissibleonly in a being superior to all others : whichapplies to the Virgin Mary., For the twig as an attribute of Charity,cf. Pl. 55c.22


7/29/2019 749999

9/16

326 EDGAR WINDwhich, running towards the nursing mother, points upwards to the figure inHeaven.This gesture is the traditional one of Hope ; and it is very likely that thebeholder was meant to associate with this whole group the triad of Hope,Faith and Charity. Hope is mediating between Faith in Heaven and Charityon Earth, and all three are united in that mystical power of Charity whichSt. Paul holds to be greater than either Hope or Faith, and which is, accord-ingly, also greater than Charity's heavenly or earthly component. Thiscorresponds to the meaning actually attributed to Van Dyck's composition(P1. 57a). The inscription on a contemporary engraving (by A. van Die-penbeck) after that painting explicitly says that the three children representCharity, Hope and Faith. They appear as the three offspring of that divinemother who shows her union with Heaven by her upward glance. Incontrast to Cambiaso's and Strozzi's pictures (P1. 56c, d), this figure ought tobe called 'La Charite cdleste.'No matter whether so detailed a literary programme was in Van Dyck'sown mind or only in that of his engraver-the gestures of the figures clearlyexpress the contrast between Heaven and Earth.' This sense of divisionhad to be fully developed before the theme could be treated in a secularform. Not until 'La Charit6 humaine' had been well established in herown right was it possible to apply the pattern to fashionable portraiture.2Van Dyck might be said to have anticipated Reynolds in this respect (P1.57c), but his portrait, like Cignani's picture of the Five Senses (P1. 56b), retainsthe connotation of a sacred scene. It was only with Reynolds's 'Lady Cock-burn' (P1. 57b) that the secularization became absolute. Being well acquaintedwith the pictorial tradition of his pattern, he united by a shrewd and brillianttourdeforce the end of the series with its beginning. He expressed in one andthe same 'invention' his allegiance to the two painters, whom he hadpraised as supreme masters-the one of portraiture, the other of composi-tion: Van Dyck and Michelangelo.

3. Reynolds,VanDyck and MichelangeloStudents of Reynolds have often wondered how it is possible that apainter who admired and emulated Van Dyck should at the same time havedeclared himself a disciple of Michelangelo. There have been critics, literaryand learned, who tried to solve this problem by disintegrating the forces

behind it. They have suggested that there is a cleavage between Reynolds'stheory and his practice ; that his admiration for Michelangelo is rhetoricaland literary, while his dependence upon Van Dyck is an actual fact observable1 The mother and the child on her lap are'heavenly' in contrast to the other children.In the picture in Turin (P1. 57c), this con-trast is carried so far, that the mother andchild stand out against the rest as a sacredgroup : the Madonna and the Infant Christ(with the features of actual portraits).2 This is, of course, particularly true of

the picture by B. van Orley (P1. 55c), whereHeavenly Charity, seated in the sky, is en-dowed with the portrait features of the donorand is holding the twig as well as the children.Here the use of portraiture, instead of bring-ing Charity down to Earth, raises the donorup to Heaven.


7/29/2019 749999

10/16

57

9R~

----s--?:ia,---~:-~~~:?;?;?-?-:-?:?-??;;;~ C~I

~?~w~"?~

,~s;-s ?~ I;si:~;;'?'";s"s-ii'a~:::~ ~;;;;I~998a~-~ a

ran, "~-Is ~a ~?

Ni,

Jo e

a-Van Dyck. Dulwich, Gallery (p. 326) b--Reynolds. Lady Cockburn and her Children.London, National Gallery (p. 322, 326-7)

OPi?

.......

c-Van Dyck. Turin, Gallery (p. 326)

~k'n~-'~g~~sni~glg??-......... ..... . ..........--~MW

to,;

..........

d--Augustin. Portrait group. Coll. Brinsley Ford,London (p. 328)


7/29/2019 749999

11/16

58

a-Michelangelo. Madonna ofBruges. Detail (p. 327)b-Van Dyck. Infant Christ. Dresden, Gallery(P. 327)

c-Michelangelo. Lunette, Sistine Ceiling.Detail (p. 327)d-Adam Ghisi. Engraving after Michelangelo(P- 327)


7/29/2019 749999

12/16

CHARITY 327in his paintings.' This shallow doctrine is best disproved by a study ofReynolds's process of working. His sketch books show2 that he himselffollowed literally the advice he gave to his pupils, whom he told to acceptwhat he called the "paradox of originality" : to invent new formsby copyingthe old masters, to "change the function of a figure, while retaining theattitude." In this process it is easily possible to borrow one's initial patternfrom one master and, in the course of transforming t, to let oneselfbe inspiredby another. Van Dyck and Michelangelo could be reconciled-if only theycame in at different stages of the process.Reynolds knew-and he said it explicitly-that in order to develop apowerful technique in this procedure it was necessary not only to study andtransform the old masters, but also to watch how they transformed eachother. His Discourses re full of acute observationson the manner in whichTitian transformsa figure by Michelangelo, or Bandinelli a Greek relief ofa Maenad.3 Had anyone suggested that Van Dyck and Michelangelowere incompatible models, he could have pointed to Van Dyck's 'Charity'(Pl. 57a), in which Michelangelo's pattern was actually employed.In the face of this evidence one might feel inclined to reversethe originalsentence, and to declare that in recommending Michelangelo as a model,Reynolds was so little contradicting his discipleship of Van Dyck that hecould even have quoted Van Dyck as one of those who had preceded himin this practice. Certainly, among Van Dyck's own wbrks, this 'Charity'is not the only instance of an adaptation from Michelangelo. The 'Madonnaof Bruges,' for example, served as a model for his 'Infant Christ' in Dresden(Pl. 58a, b), as well as for the angel on his 'Crucifixion' in Antwerp, a figurepainted also separately under the name of 'Vanitas' by one of his pupils.4These examples5 suggest that the work of Van Dyck foreshadows the prob-lem which became explicit in Reynolds: how is it possible that a painterwho tends to depict soft emotion and elegant deportment should have chosenMichelangelo for his model ?It is known that Van Dyck emulated Titian. Yet he was far from adoptingthe vigorous programme explicitly set forth by Tintoretto : "to combine thecolour of Titian with the design of Michelangelo." In his hands Michel-angelo's design became softened so as to be hardly recognizable. This trans-formation was prepared by the engravers who had been trained in theschool of Giulio Romano. Ghisi translated Michelangelo into a softer andmore tuneful key, and rendered his severe compositions more palatable bygiving them a tinge of Raphael's grace (Pl. 58c, d). Thus he accustomed theeye to see in Michelangelo something of that union of grandeur and suavity

1 The reverse interpretation, which iscertainly more true, has been placed byStendhal upon Reynolds's relation to Rem-brandt, viz., that his disapproval of Rem-brandt was literary and that he paid homageto him in his paintings.2 Cf. the illustrations in my essay: Hu-manitdtsideeund heroisiertesPortrait, VortrdgederBibl. Warburg, 1931.

3 See p. 70 ff oj this Journal.4 1909 ir? the 'collection of Sir CharlesTurner, London (cf. Klassiker derKunst).5 They could easily be multiplied. Com-pare, for instance, Michelangelo's Pieta inSt. Peter's with Van Dyck's paintings repro-duced in Klassiker der Kunst, Nos. 147, 148,223, 244.


7/29/2019 749999

13/16

328 EDGAR WINDwhich is really Giulio Romano's. There can be little doubt that Van Dyckwas among those who saw Michelangelo in this harmonizing perspective.The same cannot be said of Reynolds. He was conscious of the paradoxinvolved in the situation which Van Dyck had mastered without disclosingit. He did not share the ease of Van Dyck in the assimilation of Italianpatterns. His adaptations show methodical effort, and he was liberal-minded enough to admit it, and even to explain the reasons. In his Dis-courses e repeatedly declares that true grandeur is incompatible with grace.But while in the truly grand style, which he himself rarely practised, hewould not allow grandeur to be diminished by grace, he thought it properthat portraitswhich aim at the graceful should sometimes "borrowfrom thegrand." The tourdeforceof combining the two styles enabled the painter torival the poet in disclosing that quality which was particularly dear to aneighteenth century mind-Wit.We have Horace Walpole'sword for it that Reynolds's so-called 'plagiar-isms,' his adaptations from Michelangelo, Giulio Romano, Van Dyck orHolbein, are to be interpreted as specimens of wit-like the unexpected useof a well-known quotation.' Reynolds himself had written in the Discoursesthat a painter ought to be able to "parody"his pattern. It is in this consciousspirit of irony--quite foreign to a mind like Van Dyck's-that he applied apattern of Michelangelo to a portrait. In Van Dyck, the curiosity of thehistorian may discover the use of Italian models, but this discovery plays nopart in the aesthetic appreciation of the work. With Reynolds, the con-temporary beholder was expected to understand the allusion, and thisunderstanding was meant to enter into and enhance the enjoyment of thepicture. In the portrait of Lady Cockburn one is supposed to relish theassociationof 'Caritas' as a sous-entendu.2And one is expected to marvel atthe wit of 'invention' which composed a super-Van Dyck on the recipe ofa supra-Michelangelo.

4. The AftermathThe successorsof Reynolds learned his methods, but did not retain hisspirit of irony or-what amounts to the same-his sense of metaphor. Ona level of "artificiality" (the term is Reynolds's)which requiredthe consciouscontrol of intelligence, they returned to the care-freemanner-one is temptedto say, the innocence-of Van Dyck. The bland or grandiloquent style ofLawrence gnorestheproblemswhichReynoldshad sensed. In his school andonthe Continentwe still find the formulasofReynolds,but it would be daringtosaythat Harlow's portrait of Mrs. Weddell (P1.59e) or Augustin's Family Group(P1.57d) are meant to provoke the association of 'Caritas.' In these picturescompositional devices are employed for their own sake, regardless of theiroriginal context. They foreshadow the endless succession in our societyjournals of stereotyped photographs of titled ladies and children.One would expect this to be the funeral cortegeof a formula which had

1 Walpole, Anecdotesof Painting in England,ed. Ralph N. Warnum, 1849, I, p. xvi.2 Reynolds had the same pattern in mindwhen he designed a real 'Charity' in whole-length for the window in New College, Oxford.Cf. the sketch which was recently shown attheReynolds Exhibition ofSir Philipp Sassoon.(Catalogue, 1937, n. 92.)


7/29/2019 749999

14/16

------ ..

JAM

B r o l m e o a t r M s e i b P r i o d e a a . R m e S n A g e o c F a n e c o S lc o r d a e . D e t a l .cc a M u e u m e t a l o f F r e c o 34 ) l l e t i o n ( P - 3 2 ,

AMNSd - P a l oa t e i s . Ludwcysuste-G.H. r l o w Mr W e d e l la n d - R o b r t I o n a

M u e m e r C i d r n h i a e l h a M ? dC l l , ensvvaiaMueu( P . 3 2 8


7/29/2019 749999

15/16

CHARITY 329lived too long. But these patterns have an uncanny way of asserting theirimmortality. The rejuvenationtook place in a popularjournal, in its Christ-mas number for 1907, where a picturecalled DividedAffectionwas reproduced,showing, in a pose exactly imitating that of Michelangelo's figureof 'Charity,'a little girl with a straw hat and umbrella, besieged and embraced by threepet animals.1 The unconscious travesty was carried even further in thefrontispiece of the Weekly llustrated,March i934 (P1.59f). What had oncebeen the symbol of the mother of Charity, oppressedand almost suffocatedby the burden of her children, has become the tabloid of the radiant youngfather exhibiting to a welcome intruder the spectacle of the happy home:"We visit Robert Donat."

APPENDIXA StylisticRetrogressionn Raphael'sSchoolThe drawing reproduced on Plate 54b is usually attributed to Raphael,"but has been assigned very different dates in his Oeuvre. To judge by thegrandiloquent style of its .penmanshipit would seem to belong to Raphael'sRoman period. But it evidently representsa sketch for the little tondo of'Charity' (P1. 54c) which, together with its counterparts'Faith' and 'Hope',formed the predella of the great 'Deposition' dated 1507.3 This early datealso seems in agreement with the style of the tondo itself which, being farmore painstaking and mellow than that of the drawing, would fit well intoRaphael's pre-Roman period.The resulting perplexity may best bejudged by the contradictionbetweentwo critics :Wickhoff, in his Catalogue of the Albertina drawings, relies exclusivelyon the visible style of the sketch. He assignsit to the Roman period anddismisses the connection with the tondo of 'Charity' somewhat summarily.Fischel, finding that the connection with the 'Charity' tondo is tooevident to be taken lightly, assigns the drawing to the Florentine periodand claims, in order to account for its boldness of stroke, that Raphael'sso-called Roman style began before he actually came to Rome.Curiously enough, it has not been noticed that the drawing is a con-scious transpositionof the 'Josaphat'-lunetten the CappellaSistina (P1.54a).This part of the Sistine Ceiling was completed in 1512, so that we have aterminus ost quemfor dating the drawing. It follows that Wickhoff wasright in assigning it to Raphael's Roman style. Yet the puzzle whichtroubled Fischel remains : How are we to accountfor the fact that a drawingmade in or after 1512 served as a sketch for the predellaof a painting dated1507 ?The great painting of the 'Deposition' had been ordered by MadamaAtalanta Baglioni in Perugia and was undoubtedly finished in I507. We1The reader, I am sure, will not regretthat I cannot give the name of the journal.I saw the picture, conspicuously framed, ina small hotel in Cork, Ireland.

2 Fischel, Raphael'sZeichnungen V, I8i.3 The 'Deposition' is in the GalleriaBorghese, Rome, the predella in the VaticanCollection.


7/29/2019 749999

16/16

330 EDGAR WINDfind, however, that a few years later Raphael is writing from Rome toDomenico Alfani in Perugia, asking him to confer with Madama Atalantaso as to receive a payment due from her.' Domenico Alfani was not merelya businessagent for Raphael. We see from the correspondencethat he alsoreceived designs from him after which he carried out paintings. It seemssafe, therefore, to assume that Madama Atalanta continued to employRaphael even after he had gone to Rome, and that Domenico Alfani wasRaphael's intermediary and executant both in artistic and in businessmatters. It is known, for instance, that a tympanon was added to theoriginal painting of the 'Deposition.' It represents the figure of God theFather surrounded by Angels. There is a sketch by Raphael for this com-position (Fischel IV, I8o), but the painting itself was carried out by anotherhand. It is generally associated with the name of Domenico Alfani.2 So itis reasonable to infer (though it is curious that the inference should neverhave been drawn) that he also painted the predella.A look at our tondo (P1. 54c) tends to confirm the view that it was notpainted by Raphael himself. As a piece of craftsmanshipit is far too weakand clumsy, particularly in the rendering of the children's heads and limbs.On the other hand, the composition is undoubtedly Raphael's own, thoughthe dramatic and Roman features (still noticeable in at least two of thechildren) have been translated into a lyrical Umbrian key. Taken as awhole, the picture is a curious example of how an invention of Raphael inhis Roman period could be re-adapted to his early Umbrian style by afriend and pupil whom he had left behind. It is one of the most instructivecases of an artistic retrogression.3The drawing in the Albertina (P1.54b) was certainly made in Raphael'sRoman studio, but again it may be doubted whether it is by his own hand.'Probably it is a pupil's copy after one of a series of sketches which Raphaeldrew in preparing a design for Alfani.

1 Cf. Thieme-Becker,s.v. Alfani.2 Cf. G. Cecchini's Catalogue of the Galleryof Perugia, Rome, 1932, p. 171, No. 288.3 The style and development of Alfanihimself may best be judged in the Galleryof Perugia which owns i8 paintings attri-buted to him. The pictureof God the Fathersurrounded by Angels is perhaps not theoriginal painting but a seventeenth century

copy by Stefano Amadei (cf. Thieme-Becker,s.v. Santi, Raffaello).4Its obvious weaknesses were clearlynoticed by Meder. Later students (e.g.Stix and Froehlich-Bum, Beschreibender atalogderHandzeichnungenn der Albertina, III, 1932,No. 51, where Meder is quoted) have disre-garded his criticism without disproving it.

749999

Documents