(Urbino 1483–1520 Rome)
Madonna and Child,
oil on panel, 56.5 x 41.5 cm, framed

*Associate means: a work created within the artist’s near sphere of influence.

Provenance:
Collection of Adèle d’Affry (1836-1879), Duchess of Castiglione Colonna, Switzerland;
and thence by descent to the present owner

This previously unknown picture of the Madonna and Child is a painting of exquisite quality.

During the process of research and technical analysis, this painting has been confirmed as a work of the greatest interest.

The picture has a distinguished provenance having remained in the same aristocratic family collection for generations. It is generally thought that it should be dated to circa 1504 and it is regarded as a high-quality version of a Raphael composition. Whether or not it was executed under his supervision remains an open question.

The composition closely resembles early works by Raphael and particularly bears comparison to the so-called Northbrook Madonna in the Worcester Art Museum, Massachusetts which has, until recently, been regarded as an autograph work by Raphael.

An alternative earlier dating of pre-1500 has also been proposed and it has furthermore been suggested that this painting could possibly be the missing prototype for a number of other similar works.

The confidence of the draughtsmanship and the refinement of technique displayed in this picture can be compared to Raphael’s earliest style of painting. Several notable details in the treatment of the subject are also highly reminiscent of his work. Technical analysis also suggests a very close affinity to Raphael’s autograph body of works.

Little is known of Raphael’s early working practice, especially as attributions for many of his works from this period are subjects of scholarly debate, with paintings removed from and added to his corpus of works.

A definitive attribution for this painting remains uncertain and subjective, as in the end attributions of undocumented works can only be based on opinions, which may change. Nevertheless, the possibility that the young Raphael worked on this painting should be taken into consideration as this work is of great quality, executed with an impressive ability.

The Madonna and Child are placed before a landscape according to the canon established by Perugino and brought to perfection by Raphael. The Virgin supports on her knees the standing Child, who with his right hand clasps his mother’s finger, while he rests his left arm against her breast. In the background, a hilly landscape with a high horizon opens out, punctuated by a river on the left, and a small fortified homestead to the right.

The format of the present composition finds its place among devotional panels painted by the young Raphael during his later years in Umbria and the first years of his Florentine period, which began in circa 1504. The features of the Madonna and Child, their pose, and the landscape background connoted by an azure palette are similar to his works of this period.

The Child’s pose, with his left arm resting against his mother and interrupting the linear curve of her robe’s neckline is reminiscent of that of the Child in the Small Cowper Madonna (National Gallery of Art, Washington) painted by Raphael around 1505. Although reversed here, the Madonna’s pose, with her knees at the centre of the composition, is also similar. Moreover, the rounded features of the Christ Child and the rendering of the landscape recall those of the Madonna and Child with a Book in the Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, which dates to about 1502. The Child’s plump figure, in particular, is similar to that painted by Raphael in the Pala Ansidei of 1504-5 in the National Gallery, London (see fig. 1).

The strongest affinities are, however, between the present painting and the Northbrook Madonna in the Worcester Museum of Art, Massachusetts (see fig. 2): the poses of the Virgin and Child are virtually identical, and the landscapes are very similar, as are the two panels’ dimensions. The attribution of the Northbrook Madonna, which was long believed to be an autograph work by Raphael is still the subject of scholarly debate. But while it is probable that few scholars would now see his hand in its execution, most would believe that he designed it and that he may have supervised its execution. This would have been by a collaborator or associate or, at least, an artist in Raphael’s circle. During the final period of his activity in Umbria, when he was already an independent artist, and in his first Florentine period, Raphael did not keep studio assistants, but he had documented associations with his Umbrian contemporaries, Berto di Giovanni and Domenico Alfani both of whom made use of his drawings.

Alfani in particular has often been considered as the possible executant of the Northbrook Madonna. Although links between Eusebio di San Giorgio and Raphael are not documented, Eusebio too seems to have been part of the circle of Raphael’s friends and made use of his designs. The existence of collaboration among artists, and especially between Raphael and his Umbrian friends during this period should not be underestimated.

It is possible that the present painting belongs to this context: created by an artist very close to Raphael. This work relates to the Northbrook Madonna but it has been argued that the draperies in the present painting are more elaborate and descriptive than those in the Northbrook Madonna and the building on the right is more detailed. This quality of execution is also evidenced by the images revealed by infrared reflectography, which clearly show the underdrawing on the prepared surface of the picture. A confidence of draughtsmanship and a refinement of technique can be compared to Raphael’s earliest style of drawing.

Konrad Oberhuber discussed a painting of almost identical composition, on canvas, in a private collection in Vienna and compares it to the Northbrook Madonna (see K. Oberhuber, Una copia precise dell´originale perduto della Madonna Northbrook, in: Arte Cristiana, fascicolo 709, July-August 1985, vol. LXXIII). He also cites other versions of the present composition including a work in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich (see fig. 3) and Christ Church, Oxford (see fig. 4, which carried an attribution to Raphael from at least the 18th century), amongst others.

Oberhuber argued that the composition recorded in the Vienna painting, the Northbrook Madonna and the other works derives from a lost painting by Raphael, but whether or not this is so, there is very strong evidence that Raphael was responsible at least for the design of the composition recorded in these paintings.

As Paul Joannides pointed out a black chalk study by Raphael (on the verso of the drawing of Vintagers in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford which was then laid down, but has now been lifted) appears to be a preparatory study for the Northbrook Child (see P. Joannides, The ‘Northbrook Madonna’, in: Paragone, anno XXXV, no. 411, May 1984).

The present picture is a contemporary and high-quality version of Raphael’s composition. This work does project a distinctive personality and Joannides has suggested that if the attribution to two drawings of the head of the Virgin in Lille to Eusebio di San Giorgio is correct, he is probably the most likely author.

Raphael never insisted on strict adherence to his models in his later work and did not require his collaborators, or those who made use of his designs, to suppress their own personalities.

A tentative earlier dating of the present painting.

Most scholars date the present painting to the early 16th century. It should be noted, however, that an alternative earlier dating of the present painting has also been suggested.

It has been tentatively proposed that this painting may date to before 1500 and it has been cautiously suggested that there may be an argument in favour of Raphael’s, at least, partial authorship of this work.

The delicacy of the Virgin’s features, the oval form of her head and the gracefulness of her pose as she holds the standing baby in her lap have also been compared to early works by Raphael including the Solly Madonna (see fig. 5), the Madonna with Saints Jerome and Francis and the Diotalevi Madonna (see fig. 6), all three in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin.

The shape, angle and lighting of the head of the Christ Child, and his facial features in the present painting can be compared to those of the Christ Child seated on the Madonna’s lap in the Diotalevi Madonna in particular.

However, it has been argued that the affinities of the present Madonna and the Northbrook Madonna are with Raphael’s work of 1504-05, not with the earlier paintings from his mid-Umbrian period.

Technical report by Gianluca Poldi:

The work is painted on a large single board originating from a broadleaf tree (fruit tree?). The board is quite thin, about 1.1 cm, and worked with a chisel (gouge), as the raking light on the verso shows, indicating that this is the original thickness. The support is very well prepared and preserved, almost without woodworm holes and probably only slightly reduced, a few millimetres, along some borders. A broad set of technical analyses were carried out together with Manfred Schreiner.

X-ray image (RX) clearly shows the vertical wood fibres below the painted surface and proves that the wood support has undergone a sub-tangential cut. The abundant use of a lead-containing pigment in the priming layer explains the low RX contrast of the figures. Unusually, IR reflectography in the broad range shows part of the wood fibres behind the surface, indicating the gesso ground layer is thin.

UV fluorescence images before the last restoration showed the vertical brushstrokes of a varnish layer applied during a previous treatment, while UVF performed after the recent conservation work highlighted the small integrations of the painted film, which is only slightly abraded in some areas (such as the figures) and retouched, but mainly well preserved. The last cleaning permitted the removal of recent drapery, presumably added in the 19th century, that covered the Child’s pubis.

The underdrawing seen in IR reflectography is extremely interesting, based on a very thin contour line sometimes fragmented in small dashes and small arches. These features may indicate the use of a cartoon, with the incision of a paper, probably a translucent one, to obtain a carbon copy of the image, and probably not using a pouncing system. This peculiar kind of tracing of lines, discontinuous and with some uncertainty, with some details less defined, such as in the Child and in some fingers, can also suggest that at least some parts were drawn copying freehand from a model on paper, but highly controlled, using short movements to avoid errors.

Pouncing was the preferred transferring system adopted by Raphael, at least in his early years, and also by Perugino, not always erasing the dots of the carbon black powder after they were retraced with a small paintbrush, such as in the Marriage of the Virgin (Sposalizio della Vergine, 1504) in the Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan. No trace of dots can be seen in the present painting, but it cannot be excluded completely that pouncing was used, it is possible that the dots were accurately cancelled.

The underdrawing was made with a thin black medium, presumably a black chalk, and supported by a regular hatched drawing used to indicate shadows at different degrees. Two kinds of hatching can be seen: a larger one, with more or less equally spaced lines, used in the red dress of the Madonna, under her arm and side, covered by the fluid layering of red lake, the other one, very infrequent, made of thin close commas, is used in the faces, especially in the Virgin’s, that is more accurately studied. In this face the underdrawing is particularly refined, with thin strokes defining the shadow and volume of the Virgin’s nose, lips and eye contour.

The peculiar quality of this underdrawing suggests it is important to compare it with drawings on paper by Raphael from the early years of the 16th century, such as those conserved in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford: many pen drawings present interesting similarities to the hatching used for the dress, while some comparison can be made between the drawing of her face and some metalpoint drawings by the young Raphael.

The underdrawing shows some similarities with Raphael’s early work, such as in the Madonna of the Pinks and, to a lesser degree, the Garvagh Madonna in the National Gallery, London. The outline drawing resembles that found under some of portraits of the Florentine period, with the habit to repeat some of the lines to improve them.

The underdrawing was accurately followed by painting without major changes, with only small corrections apparent, such as in the head of the Child, which is painted a little larger, or in the Virgin’s nose, which was reduced, while painting, to the present narrower shape. A small shift in her irises and some adjustment on a few fingers can also be noted by reflectography. Some parts of the drawing are more refined, others are less precise and almost sketched, such as their right hands. No drawing can be found in the landscape, that seems to have been painted directly, if we exclude the use of an iron-gall ink (which is transparent to IR radiation and remains invisible). It can be argued that there are some traces of underdrawing under the building on the right. As a matter of curiosity, only a few fingernails were drawn, many of them were made directly during painting. IR image shows a partial recovery of the circular halos, now almost completely lost.
The Virgin’s cloak, containing azurite, remains very dark also in broad band IR (ab. 1-1.7 microns), this happens also in the Marriage of the Virgin (Sposalizio della Vergine, 1504) in darker azurite-based areas.

The pigments, studied by means of X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF) and Reflectance Spectroscopy (vis-RS), all belong to the old masters’ tradition: lead white, azurite, verdigris, iron oxides (ochre and earths), vermillion, madder lake, lead-tin yellow. Azurite was the only blue pigment used, in the Virgin’s dark cloak and, mixed with more lead white, in the sky and in the mountains.

It was preferred to natural ultramarine (lapis lazuli) as well as madder lake to cochineals. Azurite and madder lake are mixed to obtain the deep violet colour of the cloth/drape behind the figures, painted on a red lake layer, and also with different proportions and adding lead white, the peculiar grey of the buildings on the right. In the flesh tones, a mixture of lead white with ochre is used, with a few grains of vermillion (typical of some of Raphael’s works, such as in the Madonna del Cardellino, Uffizi, Florence) and traces of copper; more vermillion is found in the cheeks, where some parts of madder lake are added, as well as, more abundant, in the lips. Some blue pigment is added in the eyes, sclera, to convey a peculiar tone, instead of black.

The use of madder lake – detected by vis-RS and confirmed by the characteristic bright pink colour in UVF images – instead of the more common coccid-based lake (cochineal) is interesting and typical for the early 16th century. The presence of manganese, detected by XRF in the area where the red lake was employed, and not linked to earths, suggests the use of manganese-containing glass powder mixed with the pigment in order to accelerate the drying process of siccative oil, as is found in many of Raphael’s works where red lake was used. This practice learned from Flemish painters – probably in the court of Urbino – was first used by his father Giovanni Santi and later by Perugino.

The technical quality is impressive: a great painterly ability is found in use of glazes and great care was taken in painting the shadows and the landscape.

Many technical characteristics suggest the work was painted at the beginning of the 16th century and the possibility that the young Raphael worked on the present painting should be taken into consideration.

Comparative selected technical Bibliography:
M. L. Amadori, G. Poldi, La tecnica pittorica di Giovanni Santi, in: M. R. Valazzi (ed.), Giovanni Santi ‘Da poi... me dette alla mirabil arte de pictura’, exhibition catalogue, Cinisello Balsamo 2018, pp. 259-277;
R. Bellucci and C. Frosinini, Nuove indagini riflettografiche su Raffaello. Riflessioni sulla pianificazione, l’elaborazione e la tecnica dell’underdrawing, in: M. Ciatti, C. Frosinini, A. Natali, P. Riitano (eds.), Raffaello: la rivelazione del colore. Il restauro della ‘Madonna del Cardellino’ della Galleria degli Uffizi, Firenze 2008, pp. 79-94;
R. Billinge, Recent Study of Raphael’s Early Paintings in the National Gallery, London, with Infrared Reflectography, in: A. Roy and M. Spring (eds.), Raphael’s Painting Technique: Working Practices Before Rome (Proceedings of the Eu-ARTECH workshop), Florence 2007, pp. 67–75;
P. Borghese, A. Carini, S. Scatragli, Il restauro dello “Sposalizio della Vergine”, in: M. Ceriana, E. Daffra (eds.), Raffaello. Lo Sposalizio della Vergine restaurato, Milano 2009, pp. 41-65;
P. Borghese, F. Frezzato, P. Fumagalli, N. Ghisalberti, Restauri all’Accademia Carrara di Bergamo. Il San Sebastiano di Raffaello restaurato. Un modello di conoscenza, in: Kermes, 93, XXVII, 2015, pp. 35–50;
J. Dunkerton, N. Penny, The Infra-red Examination of Raphael’s ‘Garvagh Madonna’, in: National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 14, 1993, pp. 6–21;
A. Roy, M. Spring, C. Plazzotta, Raphael’s early works in the National Galley: paintings before Rome, in: National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 25, 2004, pp. 4-35;
A. Roy, The Re-emergence of Raphael’s ‘Madonna of the Pinks’, in: A. Roy and M. Spring (eds.), Raphael’s Painting Technique: Working Practices Before Rome (Proceedings of the Eu-ARTECH workshop), Florence 2007, pp. 87–92

Provenance:
The present painting was once in the collection of the Swiss noblewoman and artist, Adèle d’Affry (1836-1879), who was a sculptor, painter and writer. She was the subject of a recent exhibition held between four museums in Fribourg, Ligornetto, Compiègne and Geneva (see Marcello. Adèle D’Affry (1836-1879), duchesse de Castiglione Colonna, ed. by G. A. Mina, exhibition catalogue, Milan 2014). She was born in Fribourg into an aristocratic family and her career developed in Paris during the Empire of Napoleon III. She chose the pseudonym of ‘Marcello’ for her debut at the Salon of 1863 to disguise her identity.

It is possible that she may have come into possession of the present painting through her marriage to Carlo Colonna, Duke of Castiglione (1829-1856) who was the son of Aspreno Colonna, Prince of Paliano (1787-1847).

Madonna and Child | Old Masters