Raphael by John Pope-Hennessy; Raphael, a Critical Catalogue of His Pictures, Wall-Paintingsand Tapestries by Luitpold DusslerReview by: Egon VerheyenThe Art Bulletin, Vol. 54, No. 4 (Dec., 1972), pp. 550-553Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3049048 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 17:19

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 ofcontent 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 support@jstor.org.

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The ArtBulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:19:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

550 THE ART BULLETIN

more than forcing us to re-examine our assumptions about the works in question. Actually, the author has achieved a good deal more. His collateral insights, of which there are many which I have not explicitly acknowledged, will put every student of Flor- entine early quattrocento sculpture permanently in his debt.

H. W. JANSON

New York University, Washington Square College

JOHN POPE-HENNESSY, Raphael (The Wrightsman Lectures under the auspicies of the New York University Institute ofFine Arts, Iv), New York, New York University Press, 1970.

Pp. 304; 246 pls. $15.

LUITPOLD DUSSLER, Raphael, A Critical Catalogue of his Pictures, Wall-Paintings and Tapestries, London, Phaidon 1971. Pp. 220; 187 pls. $27.50

The Wrightsman Lectures have a distinguished reputation. Schol- ars of manifold views and varied methodological concepts have made this so and the generosity of a Maecenas is documented in the books carrying his name. A book on Raphael is a timely and

fitting addition to this series as interest in Raphael has gained momentum and a new evaluation of the artist and his work has become a desideratum for the scholar and the "general reader" alike. The new book by Pope-Hennessy aims to fulfill both de- mands. The text can be read without the scholarly apparatus which a general reader does not need, and a scholar wanting proof for a statement or further information can look for it in the notes where a catalogue entry is provided for the works referred to in the text. The illustrations (some in color) were provided gener- ously; their quality is good, although sometimes they have been

cropped too much: the Madonna della Sedia on the frontispiece is cropped to an extent which destroys Raphael's form; and this "mutilated" illustration is not an isolated case. As it is a well- known fact that publishers often like to fit the illustrations into their layout of the book without great consideration for the

"integrity" of the work of art, art historians should always be concerned with the preservation of the object in its visual form.'

Whoever has had a chance to attend one of Sir John's lectures will admit his Ciceronian qualities in capturing the audience and his often unorthodox methods, including slides purposefully shown

upside-down. The reviewer recalls the lively lecture celebrating the "death" of Michelangelo's Palestrina Pieta, performed on the occasion of the International Congress in Bonn. The enthusiasm of the speaker and his obvious ability to infuse these qualities into his listeners must be considered an essential part of Sir John's presentation of the Raphael, too. However, as with any transcript of a series of lectures, the reader receives a different impression from the listener. On one side he is deprived of the acoustic and visual element of the presentation (felt especially hard when he has to check three or even four different places to coordinate text, notes and illustrations); but on the other side he gains by the absence of the speaker a neutrality before the text which the listener too often cannot achieve. This has both its advantages and its disadvantages: a lecture in all its candor has the aspect of the temporary; a printed word, however, is meant (at least

ideally) to last forever. These lectures are thoughtfully constructed. At the beginning

the reader is introduced to the scholarly discovery of Raphael during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and he partici- pates in the difficulties for the art historian which such a task has meant up to the present day, especially because of the many "reconstructive restorations" (also on the literary level), which can be observed from the sixteenth century. The sixteenth century, too, saw the first evaluation of Raphael's art with regard to the work of

his contemporaries, especially Michelangelo's. The influence Raphael's art exerted from his time onward is discussed in the last chapter of the book, entitled "Post-Raphaelitism." Sandwiched between these more historical presentations are four chapters devoted to "The Creative Act," "Space and Structure," "The Mute Poet," and "Rafael of the Dear Madonnas."

"The Creative Act" concentrates on the evolution of a work in

Raphael's mind as manifested in his drawings, especially those of his early years in Perugino's workshop, of the Baglione Deposition, the Disputah and finally the Transfiguration. "Space and Structure" deals with Raphael's exploration and use of space in his paintings and frescoes. Naturally this chapter concentrates on Raphael's work executed after the Stanza della Segnatura, although its starting point is the Mond Crucifixion of 1503. "The Mute Poet" investigates the "poetic" qualities of Raphael's work, his qualities as composer, while the chapter on the "Dear Madonnas" traces the handling and interpretation of this topic cherished by Raphael throughout his life.

The author addresses the general reader, a person who as an educated layman is interested in artists and their art without

necessarily being equipped with sufficient factual knowledge and/ or criteria to criticize the presentation. However, critical attitudes can be developed and art historians should more often leave their ivory towers and devote themselves to this educational task. If we want an educated public with a deeply felt interest in the arts and their preservation, if we want their support for museums and

galleries, then we have to make known our concerns, interests and thoughts in plain and clearly understandable language ("Any fool can write learned language. The vernacular is the real test," said C. S. Lewis). The general reader definitely will obtain many new insights into the work of Raphael, who might never have interested him before. To achieve this was the author's declared goal and he can be assured of having reached it; in this positive sense, the Raphael can become a very popular book.

To review this book is no easy task, because it is not conceived as a monograph but as an introduction to Raphael. It is written for the general reader and not (at least not admittedly) for the art historian, and it has been clearly stated by the author that he did not intend to muster "a battery of new facts and theories about Raphael." Equally, he refrained from iconographic investigation "beyond the point at which it can be shown to have determined the work of art that he produced." Last, but not least, he claims that the form "of the lectures (and the book) is deliberately unortho- dox." Unfortunately this reviewer has been unable to discover the nature of this unorthodoxy. The number of chapters as well as the thematic treatment of each of them was obviously determined by the text's original form, namely the lectures. But is this really unorthodox ? As to the title of the book: perhaps it would have been advisable to follow Panofsky's lead (Problems in Titian, mostly iconographic) and call it Lectures on Raphael. The result might have been less attractive, but more to the point. But this, admittedly, is of minor concern.

Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that not only the general reader will read this book. For many art historians it will be a very convenient path to Raphael, although they have to keep remem- bering the declared purpose and self-imposed limitations of the book. It is not so much the format of the book which we should be concerned with, but its form, i.e., the intellectual concept which has guided the author in his evaluation and presentation of Raphael.

Pope-Hennessy is deeply concerned with the formal qualities of Raphael's work, with the nuances one can sense in the different stages of a composition, while he shows less interest in the meaning of the work of art. Therefore he minimizes the role of a literary program given to Raphael up to the point that he questions its existence or validity for Raphael at all. Unfortunately his claim is not substantiated by any documentary proof. What he has done is to substitute one theory for another, but this doesn't bring us any closer to the "real" Raphael. Bellori's remarks about the Stanze, quoted to stress Raphael's superiority over any kind of literary program given to him, are irrelevant as far as the historical situation of the sixteenth century is concerned. Pope-Hennessy

1 The necessity of obtaining uncropped photographs has been pointed out most recently in E. Kieser, "Zur Deutung und Datierung der Rolin- Madonna des Jan van Eyck," Stadel Jahrbuch, n.f. i, 1967, 73-95, esp. n. 19.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:19:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 551

himself has rightfully pointed out that at Bellori's time the image of the real Raphael had already changed toward idealization and did not allow Raphael to be dependent on anything but his genius. If any literary source has to be quoted, then it should be one which is close in time to Raphael. Dolce, in the Aretino, speaks of Raphael's quality as what Pope-Hennessy called "painter intellectual" and refers to his potential independence from literary sources, thereby negating or at least questioning the long presumed superiority of

poetry over painting. However, his remarks are made in relation to the Galatea, a mythological theme whose impact depended on the highest assimilation of antiquity. On the other hand, we should not overlook the humanistic fabrication of Dolce's remark which reminds one of the philologist's inability to decide whether the constellation of the Taurus means taurus or vacca, as only the upper part of the "animal" is visible at the sky (Hyginus, Poeticon

Astronomicum) . A glance through fifteenth- or sixteenth-century contracts

unmistakably shows that well-known scenes, especially religious ones, are hardly specified in contracts beyond the point of identi-

fication, while allegorical or mythological subjects are treated in extenso; after all, it was here that the artist needed most guidance. Whether the introduction of an altar in the center of the Disputh is

Raphael's or reflects a shift in the program or is the result of both, is difficult if not impossible to determine in the absence of any written documentation; in addition, the unrecorded oral intercourse between the artist and the patron or his agent(s) is lost for ever, and therefore we should, use care in attributing every change exclusive-

ly to the "creative act" of the painter. Equally, it is speculation to state that the program for the Stanza della Segnatura was "old fashioned" when it was first given to Sodoma, but that the transfer of the commission to Raphael resulted in his endowing it "with new character." The proof for these assumptions is missing and the reader is astonished that first the existence of an "old fashioned"

program is denied (or denied only for Raphael?) and then that

Raphael "endowed it with new character." What has been said about the Stanza della Segnatura is true

mutatis mutandis for the Galatea as well. This fresco is not a self- contained unit but was painted with regard to the Polyphemus by Sebastiano del Piombo, no matter which one was painted first.

Only when seen together do the scenes "make sense," a fact which has been pointed out so clearly in an iconographic note by D. Kinkead.2

The other basic point which deserves a comment is the author's

implication that Raphael is considered by Vasari (in the second edition of the Vite) to be a mere disciple of Michelangelo. Hardly anybody will seriously doubt that there existed tensions between

Michelangelo, Bramante and Raphael, and that Raphael care-

fully observed Michelangelo's work, and that Vasari as a contem-

porary was one of the greatest admirers of Michelangelo's art. Vas- ari's elaboration on and criticism of Raphael's sources or models, however, cannot only be seen in the light of these personal con- stellations. While Cennini warned art students of the danger of

following too many sources and masters as a hindrance for the development of one's own manner, later writers like Alberti and Leonardo suggest on the contrary that one follow the best possible artists to find one's own style; after all, Michelangelo in his early years copied Giotto and Masaccio! Vasari himself speaks in the introduction to the third book of the Vite of the great advantage artists can have from the study of the best masters; in this light Vasari's elaboration on Raphael's sources is not only factually correct, but also in line with the author's own theoretical deliber- ations.

Pope-Hennessy's introduction fully reveals the approach he will adopt for his presentation of Raphael's work, namely an extremely work-oriented view which hardly allows any other factor to be considered essential but the creative power of the artist. This might be interpreted as a continuation of a Berenson tradition or as

an answer to much iconographic research which had become a

philological science using art works as mere illustrations of literary concepts; in any event it will severely narrow the possibilities for

insight into the works of art. This fact has been further aggravated by the author's presentation of the works under separate aspects without emphasizing the inherent interrelation of all factors such as drawing, coloring (there is hardly any discussion of this at all), spatial arrangement and so on.

With regard to Raphael's use of drawings, Pope-Hennessy points out that the artist followed the Umbrian tradition in the

preparation for paintings, i.e., he frequently used workshop models and combined these models in any formation required by the nature of the commission; for Raphael, he notes, models never lost their value. This is true, but one must add that in later works the model immediately reveals its function and place in the com-

position; it no longer just poses but acts. The real change in

Raphael's attitude toward drawing, namely his realization that a

drawing is a visual means to find the "correct" form, occurs during his Florentine period and must definitely be attributed to Leo- nardo's method of working out a composition. Consequently a discussion of the many drawings for the Disputh would have allowed the author to demonstrate Raphael's use of different types of

drawings according to the special artistic problems that concerned him at a given moment.

Dependence on Leonardo, whose influence is felt so clearly also

during the Roman period of Raphael's work, can be comple- mented by another observation, namely a parallel to Leonardo's own achievement of final form: one has only to think of the con- servative beginnings of the Last Supper and the provocative end. In Raphael's working process a similar recognition of the poten- tials of a given scene can be observed. However, this act of recog- nition cannot be described by formal analysis alone.

The lack of an equal quantity of preparatory sketches for the composition of other frescoes in the Stanze might have been one reason why they were discussed under the heading "Space and Structure." This chapter begins with a comparison of Raphael's and Perugino's treatment of the same subject, namely the Annun- ciation from the Coronation3 and the Fano Altarpieces respectively. According to Pope-Hennessy, in Perugino's Annunciation "per- spective structure is [therefore] put into literary not spatial use," while in Raphael's panel the "setting is measurable and consistent and the figures ... seem to have been inserted like puppets in a

toy theatre, on a preexisting stage." A comparison of the two panels is of course a legitimate method of defining Raphael's characteristics with regard to Perugino's. However, the con- clusions drawn from this comparison are not correct. In both instances the architecture drawn in perspective is measurable; while in Perugino's work the architecture remains intact and the location of the vanishing point coincides with the position of Mary's head (and this has iconographic reasons, cf. Masaccio's Tribute Money or Leonardo's Last Supper), the architecture in

Raphael's panel has been destroyed to allow a greater emphasis on the figures. At first, the incorrectness of the architecture is not even noticed. This subordination of the setting (contrasted with the absolute coordination in the work of Perugino) up to the point of its partial destruction (if this helps to emphasize the scene) is one of Raphael's early and very basic insights into the nature of a composition. Gombrich has shown this with regard to the Madonna della Sedia, and the changes which occurred from the first design to the final execution of the frescoes in the Stanze have to be seen from this viewpoint too. The subject "Space and Structure" re- quires an analytical rather than a descriptive approach. A subtle analysis of preparatory drawings and final works is, of course, difficult for a general public to comprehend, and therefore the author might have preferred to simply state his view rather than to show how it developed or what it is based upon. As this chapter concentrates on the decoration of the Stanze and the tapestries for

2D. T. Kinkead, "An Iconographic Note on Raphael's Galatea," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xxxIII, 1970, 313-15. 3 The early date proposed by Wittkower on the basis of Vasari's report has not been adopted by Pope-Hennessy. On the other hand, he takes

Vasari very verbatim when discussing Raphael's and Sodoma's parts in the Stanza della Segnatura. It remains unexplained why in one instance Vasari can be followed without reservation while in the other case "stylistic evidence" speaks against Vasari's reliability.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:19:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

552 THE ART BULLETIN

the Sistine Chapel, the reader hopes to encounter at least in the notes a critical evaluation ofJohn Shearman's view of these works. However, he will be disappointed or unable to understand the reason for Pope-Hennessy's rejection of Shearman's conclusion because he is not provided with arguments for their rejection. And this situation persists throughout the notes.4

The decoration of the Stanze is again the focus in "The Mute Poet," where emphasis is placed on the compositional elements, i.e., those abilities which enable the artist to create an istoria in the Albertian sense. Undoubtedly, antiquity had its share in Raphael's development. However, antiquity as a form-giving force should not be mistaken for the adoption of ancient motifs or scenes, like the Three Graces whose depiction already had been suggested by Alberti. An awareness of the potential of ancient art occurred

only when Raphael settled in Rome. To say that "by the time he reached Rome in 15o8 he had acquired a grasp of classical narra- tive techniques which conditioned the nature of his thinking when he was confronted with the programme of the Stanza della Segnatura" is an overstatement with regard to the very conventional and by no means "classical" beginnings of the Stanze. The scene of the Parnassus lends itself to a closer connection with ancient works of art: the numerous sculptures which Raphael relied upon document this fact. This should be considered a further indication that the

adoption of antiquity contains not only a formal but an icono-

graphic element as well: be it more "classical" as in the Parnassus or more "Hellenistic," i.e., more emotionally motivated as in the Stanza dell' Incendio. The changes from the first design to the final form of the Parnassus affected the figures and the instruments, thus

documenting Raphael's very concerned attempt to reconstruct ancient instruments. Pope-Hennessy's "acoustic explanation" for the change of the instruments can only be considered a "slip of the

pen."' The Stanza d'Eliodoro has more or less been excluded from dis-

cussion in this chapter although the preparatory drawings and the frescoes are referred to in "Space and Structure." The iconographic aspect which accompanied (or caused) the changes pointed out

by the author is not considered further. The transition from the

drawing to the fresco, e.g., in the Mass of Bolsena, meant a change from the depiction of a miracle in the anachronistic presence of the

Pope to the representation of the miracle and the adoration of the

corporal through the Pope. This change separated two scenes and thus required a different treatment of the two halves of the fresco; this can be found in the treatment of the gestures and the choice and handling of colors. What had been at first a presentation of divine intervention became a much more personally oriented scene in which the Pope played even as observer a much greater role. The Stanza dell'Incendio is then the first complete adoption of this new view.

The chapter on "The Dear Madonnas" is the only one which is devoted to a single theme. Rightfully the author warns his reader of the danger of too much familiarity with an object (as have, before him, Sir Kenneth Clark with regard to Leonardo and E. H.

Gombrich with regard to Perugino), and he stresses that the

many compositional differences in the Madonnas are conditioned

by a search for variable psychological interpretations. However, one would have liked to participate more in the process which led

(to give one example) from Raphael's imitation of Michelangelo's Taddei Tondo to the final version of the Bridgewater Madonna.

Only thereby would Raphael's originality have become fully comprehensible. The widely formalistic treatment of a theme like the Madonna tempts one, like a predominantly iconographic discussion, to see different solutions too much in the light of the artist's development.

It had been stated above that Pope-Hennessy's Raphael is a valuable general introduction to the work of Raphael and that those who attended the lectures will appreciate having them

printed. As offering a general introduction was the purpose of the lectures and the book, Raphael has been evaluated only under this

aspect. In addition to some more specific remarks, it has to be said that Raphael is presented here in an artificial ambiente, artificial because he has been more or less isolated from his world, and the few occasions where matters outside the work of art are mentioned do not substantially change this image. Such a presentation over- looks the fact that Raphael is one of those artists who needed

competition and stimulation (and this had been very correctly observed by Vasari) though he never became a slavish copyist. If this ambiente is not sufficiently emphasized, then essential external circumstances of the creation of a work of art are ignored. In his

attempt to show the "real" Raphael, Pope-Hennessy allows us to see only one side of the artist, namely his creative process which, however, is inseparable from the stipulation of a given program and the intention of the work. Although Pope-Hennessy does not

deny the interrelation between form and content, he obviously considers this an "internal matter" and cannot imagine that

Raphael had to follow a literary program given to him. Here

Raphael becomes idealized, becomes a "painter intellectual," although we know next to nothing about his education or intellec- tual proclivities. We see him as one who can do without, who

only needs advice from time to time, when the "controlling mind" comes in guaranteeing the perfection of the work, whereby it is left open whether this controlling mind is Raphael's or something like a Zeitgeist.

Any discussion of a work of art has to employ analytical methods to dissect the object, but it also has to restore it on a new level with new insights. With the exception of the "Dear Madonnas," most

objects here, especially the decoration of the Stanze, have only been dissected in different places. If artistic creativity is only mastery of form, then this sort of analysis might suffice and it can proceed in many and various ways. But if there is more to it, then each

analysis must lead to a synthesis to receive its full meaning: this

synthesis, however, has not been given in Raphael. It is appropriate to mention here the English translation of

Dussler's catalogue of Raphael's paintings, frescoes, and tapestries, published by Phaidon.5 The German original appeared in 1966

4 The same apparent ease with which arguments other than the author's are dismissed as "too rigid" or "too literal" also prevails in the notes where Pope-Hennessy accepts without further questioning an icono- graphic interpretation and draws firm conclusions on the basis of his assumption that a given theory is correct, as he did with Gutman's not very convincing linkage between St. Bonaventura and the Stanza della Segnatura.

As to the tapestries, one eagerly awaits J. Shearman's forthcoming publication (Raphael's Cartoons in the Royal Collection and the Tapestries fow the Sistine Chapel, London, 1972).

With regard to Peruzzi and his participation in the decoration of the Stanze, one also wonders why C. L. Frommel's monograph on Peruzzi is not even mentioned ("Baldassare Peruzzi als Maler und Zeichner," Beiheft zum Romischen Jahrbuch fur Kunstgeschichte, Vol. II, 1967/68). (Curiously enough, this important work is also omitted from the bib- liography in S. F. Freedberg, Italian Painting 1500oo-i6oo, Baltimore, '971.)

The assumption that Brunelleschi may or may not have designed the architecture of Masaccio's Trinity is not conclusive evidence for Bra- mante's participation in the design of the architecture in Raphael's

School of Athens. The lines in the cartoon for the School of Athens do not help to find an answer to this question, but they show that not only for the figures but also for the construction of the space for them, Raphael heavily depended on Leonardo's Adoration. Furthermore one should ask whether the London portrait of Julius II was discovered after this book had been printed or whether its omission indicates Pope-Hennessy's disagreement with the identification of the original.

Pope-Hennessy's statement about the function of the Stanze, esp. of the Stanza della Segnatura, does not really argue against Shearman's suggestion that this room was the library of Julius II. The fact that we learn of a biblioteca pensilis does not exclude the fact that the Segnatura was the library also used for functions which provided its name. To give a definite answer to this question would have required investigating the function of all the rooms in the Vatican Palace, and inquiring into the continuity of a papal iconography, but this has not been done.

5 Dussler continuously refers to Raphael's drawings but he does not give a catalogue of them. For detailed information on the drawings one will have to wait for Konrad Oberhuber's forthcoming publication of the first supplementary volume to Fischel's catalogue of Raphael's drawings.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:19:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 553

as a paperback without illustrations and was reviewed at that time.6 The English translation, however, is a hardcover book with many illustrations whose quality is poor compared to the standard usually displayed in Phaidon publications. They suffice as visual aids

although one would also have liked to find illustrations of rejected works or copies.

Dussler's and Pope-Hennessy's books will be used together and

apparently were intended as a pair; after all, Phaidon had its share in the fabrication of Pope-Hennessy's book (according to information obtained from NYU Press). This being the case, one wonders why no attempt had been made to coordinate these two

publications in an effective way. In Pope-Hennessy's Raphael all references to Dussler's catalogue apply only to the German edition. As the English translation has brought with it a restructuring of the

catalogue (perhaps caused by Schug's criticism), a work can only be found via the Index whose preparation did not receive too much attention: the subject catalogue contains only six categories, two of them are labelled "Other Religious Subjects" and "Miscel- laneous Subjects," the latter group containing among other things all allegorical and mythological representations. At least this

group is arranged in alphabetical order, as are the listings of the Saints and the Portraits. Nevertheless it will not be easy to locate an object in these catagories. To give an example: among "Other

Religious Subjects" popes are listed under "P" because "Pope" precedes their names, under "Miscellaneous Subjects" they will be found under their proper names, while, in turn, under "Por- traits" they are listed according to their names in spite of the fact that they are preceeded by "Pope." Items under the headings "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are arranged in chrono-

logical sequence. Considering our insufficient familiarity with these two books one wonders who will be able to find anything without having to first read all the entries in these categories. The "Index of Collections" lists places in alphabetical order but not the objects at these places. To complicate matters, the paintings on panel and canvas (pages 1-55) are arranged in chronological order while the "Rejected Attributions" (pages 56-67) are listed

according to their locations. Wall-paintings (pages 68-ioo) are listed according to locations and within these in chronological sequence. Fortunately none of these complications could occur in the discussion of the tapestries (pages Ioi-o8). This unfortunate

arrangement of the book and the Indexes is not a marginal point of concern but the most important defect in Dussler's catalogue, which first of all is a reference work whose virtue depends upon its

accessibility, upon whether or not information can be obtained in a direct and uncomplicated way.

Comparing the two editions of this catalogue one wonders why the obvious virtues of the original edition have not been incor-

porated into the translation; the original index is not only much more comprehensive but also much more clearly arranged than the abbreviated form in the English edition.

The bibliography has been enlarged extensively. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to list in a bibliography under separate headings only sources and basic interpretations of Raphael's art and personality, while the large amount of detailed studies could be incorporated into the pertinent catalogue texts. On the other hand, one could also imagine an annotated bibliography which would enormously aid any reader. One point can illustrate this concern. Von Einem had already pointed out in his review of Dussler's catalogue that Bandmann's Melancholie und Musik should be added to the literature dealing with Raphael's Cecilia. In the English edition of the catalogue, Bandmann's book is listed in the bibliography but no reference to it appears in the pertinent cata- logue entry. Consequently Bandmann's very valuable book will be related to the Cecilia only by those who already have read it; but a catalogue should suggest reading and not anticipate it.

These critical remarks are not directed toward Professor Dussler but the editor of the book. By its very nature the catalogue is

different from Pope-Hennessy's book, as one might read the book once but will always have to go back to the catalogue. Therefore the catalogue should provide the reader with easy access to the rich mines of information hidden in the commentaries to the

single objects. There can be no doubt that this catalogue together with the one by Passavant will serve as the basis for all research on

Raphael for a long time to come. It is less important that one might disagree with Professor Dussler on one point or another, than that only with this catalogue has a real discussion of the artist Raphael become possible. The catalogue is a very industrious piece of work and we must be extremely grateful for this presen- tation of the author's view of the work with regard to authenticity, date, and iconography, rather than just a checklist of opinions of others. Dussler's catalogue is no longer just an addition to Fischel's book, as it was originally intended, but has become a book in its own right.

Since Professor Dussler has worked on Raphael so extensively, he must have some view of this artist, some concepts of his achieve- ments of his place with regard to Michelangelo, Leonardo and other artists. He also must have evaluated Raphael's relation to his patrons and he also must have thought about the possible influences of these relations on the work of art. He, like other authors of catalogues, should share this knowledge with his readers; perhaps a forthcoming edition will provide us with the missing text.

EGON VERHEYEN

Johns Hopkins University

6 Among the more important reviews are those by Schug in Pantheon, xxv, 1967, 470-82, which concentrates on the pre-Roman works by Raphael, while von Einem, Kzunstchronzk, xxI, 1968, 21-27, comments on the Roman works.

J. RICHARD JUDSON, Dirck Barendsz. 1534-1592, Amsterdam, Vangendt & Co., 1970. Pp. 290; I66 ills. $35- ANNE CHARLOTTE STELAND-STIEF, Jan Asselijn, Amsterdam, Vangendt & Co., 1971. Pp. I88; 90 pls. $42.

These are two impressive, large, lavishly presented monographs on Dutch painters on whom no adequate literature had existed until now, both done with great diligence, but showing a difference of caliber: the book on Barendsz. is an accomplished monument of learning by an eminent scholar, the other is a doctoral thesis turned into a book. Both deal with artists who have not been widely known, the first because the bulk of his oeuvre has long vanished, the second because he mainly ranks as a name among other, related Italianate Dutchmen. At a time when too many books are treading beaten paths, the two studies under review stand out as unconventional. They close two gaps and enrich us with much material which was hitherto unavailable.

The study of Netherlandish art of the second half of the sixteenth century has, on the whole, been much neglected as compared with the preceding and the following century. The book on Dirck Barendsz., to whom Dr. Judson had dedicated a comprehensive article in 1962, amounts to a rediscovery and complete reconstruc- tion of an artist with whose production fate has dealt harshly. Known up to now only to specialists, he was one of the major Amsterdam painters of his age. His art is in many respects opposed to the Mannerist trends of his day and anticipates by its clarity currents which were to develop at the turn of the century. Barendsz.'s sojourn in Italy, where he "was nursed at the great Titian's bosom" (Van Mander) from i555 to around I562 and visited Rome, affected his own art deeply, and, indirectly, that of his followers. What survives today of his production is a stately altarpiece, two company portraits, four single portraits, seven drawings (three preparing engravings), and forty-six prints after his designs, most of them engraved by Jan Sadeler. To have built on this material a monograph of 290 pages, including 166 repro- ductions, may seem a tour-de-force, yet every page is worth read- ing.

The arrangement of the book was given by the material. The core, after a biographical chapter, is in the detailed exegesis of the works (first of the documented, then of the undated ones) and the chapter dealing with their iconography. These are followed by a survey of Barendsz.'s influence, a conclusion which sums up the text, and a catalogue raisonnd (fifty-five pages). There is also the

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:19:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions