Page images

is revealed in the critique savante of the Alsatian professor in contrast with the critique paradoxale of the Italian connoisseur. We are told that we must imagine Raphael as having developed his genius with great pains. Hence his progress during his stay at Perugia, from 1500 to 1504, is supposed to have been very slow and imperfect; indeed, that he wandered about bee-like in search of nutriment. Notwithstanding this view we are to suppose that the youth still found time to make the cartoons for the frescoes in the cathedral at Siena, which Pintoricchio, by his contract-still extant-had pledged himself to execute unaided by any one. Pintoricchio, whom M. Müntz very rightly speaks of as a 'véritable chef d'école' (p. 45), is supposed to have been incapable at the age of fifty of composing for himself these well-known frescoes, though twenty years previously he had done work at least as important, as Court painter to the Pope. In evidence of the slow and tentative advance made by Raphael in his art, M. Müntz adduces the various manners' in which he experimentally worked—the Umbrian, the Florentine, and the Roman. The maniera umbra, he tells us, is conspicuous in the drawings of the Venice Sketch-book. Vasari, indeed, in his rather superficial and somewhat unsympathetic life of Raphael, makes use of vague expressions in speaking of his Umbrian manner, which he calls 'minuta, secca e di poco disegno,' and from this M. Müntz infers that the Venice Sketch-book may very well be pronounced to be by Raphael's hand. In his opinion these drawings were executed between the years 1500 and 1504.

There are, however, serious objections to this assumption on close examination. Among these drawings there are some as is well known -from compositions by Signorelli; some are copied from Mantegna's engraving of the 'Entombment;' there is a study from a head by Leonardo; while a great many of the figures can be proved to have been designed by Pintoricchio, and some by Perugino. Supposing that Raphael copied these drawings from originals by Pintoricchio, Perugino, or Signorelli-as M. Müntz opines-we find the same technical handling in them all. Thus we are compelled to say that in copying them Raphael did not aim at imitating the technique of these models, each of whom has a strongly marked manner of his own, but translated it, so to speak, into his own mode of expression. Thus, in the copy from Mantegna for instance, in spite of the identity of the composition, not only is the touch of the outline and shading totally different, but the folds of the drapery, the drawing of the hands and fingers, are quite altered, so much so, indeed, that the character of the original could scarcely be guessed from that of the copy. It would be indeed strange if Raphael, who, as we are told, developed but slowly, and who therefore had been singularly open to the influence of others, and at any rate not yet artiste VOL. XXII.-No. 127. BB

formé, should nevertheless have had such marked individuality as the draughtsman of the Venice Sketch-book manifests throughout. In all these drawings the meagre forms of the arms and legs are very notable, and in all we discern the same peculiarities in the disposal of the draperies, the same heavy folds towards the lower edge of the mantle, the same drawing of the ear with the lobe curiously independent of the shell, the same form of hand with long thin fingers, and finally the long fine penstrokes in the shading— obvious characteristics which we do not find in Raphael's authenticated drawings of that very period. And this absence of correspondence with his authenticated drawings M. Müntz tells us may be explained by the circumstance that the Venice pen-and-ink drawings are executed on rather rough paper; as if the treatment and drawing of the limbs, the arrangement of the drapery, and so forth, could be different in finished drawings, whether in silver point on prepared paper, or in pen-and-ink on common paper. This argument can certainly not be accepted as conclusive.

And what is the result if we compare the pen-and-ink drawings of the Venice Sketch-book with authentic drawings by Raphael, also in pen-and-ink and on rough paper, and executed between 1500 and 1504 at the very time, therefore, when M. Müntz believes the Venice Sketch-book to have been filled? There is no lack of capital pen-andink drawings by Raphael of this date, in various collections, sketches for pictures for the most part. For example, there is at Stockholm a pen-and-ink drawing for the predella now in the Pinacotheca of the Vatican, the 'Adoration of the Kings.' A reduced facsimile of this drawing will be found in M. Müntz's work (p. 79). If we compare the figures in this drawing with those of the Venice Sketch-book we cannot fail to observe that in this the limbs are full and firm, while in Pintoricchio's drawings at Venice, as has been said, they are remarkably slender and lean. In these, again, the shading is almost entirely executed with fine cross-hatching, while in the Stockholm drawing, as in all of Raphael's, the shading is produced by uncrossed lines following the modelling.

The centre subject of the predella above mentioned is the 'Presentation in the Temple,' and Raphael's pen-and-ink drawing for this picture is in the University Galleries at Oxford. In this drawing we find, here and there, a few instances of cross-hatching in the shadows; but their execution is quite unlike that of Pintoricchio in the Venice Sketch-book. In Raphael's work the lines are not close together side by side, and the shading generally is not characterised by the painful precision which is the rule with Pintoricchio. The oval of the faces, too, is very different in the Oxford drawing from the type recognisable as Pintoricchio's in the Venice Sketch-book. The set and fall of the drapery has no doubt the general character of




Perugino's school, but when compared with that of Perugino himself and of Pintoricchio, certain individual peculiarities are at once perceptible which are entirely unlike those of either of these Umbrian painters.

Nor is the result different when we compare the minuter details of drawings undoubtedly by Raphael with those of the Venice drawings. In the splendid collection belonging to Mr. Malcolm of Poltalloch, in London, there is a finished study in black chalk of an apostle's head done by Raphael for the picture of the Coronation of the Virgin' painted in 1501-2, and now in the Vatican. In this drawing, as well as in that of the head of S. Placidus for the fresco. in the Church of S. Severo-the drawing, executed in 1595, is now in the University Galleries at Oxford-a peculiar modelling of the ear is to be noted; it is very round and fleshy, whereas the master of the Venice Sketch-book has quite a different notion of the form of the ear. Their representation of the form of the hand differs no less considerably. Though such divergences are not easy to describe in words, their physiognomical importance strikes the eye at once, and when once they have been impressed on the mind any mistake seems henceforth impossible.

For all these reasons M. Müntz's theory that the Venice Sketchbook was the work of Raphael between 1500 and 1504 seems quite untenable. It is self-evident that not laymen alone, but scientific students also, must be unwilling to abandon a traditional opinion which they have fully adopted. But after it has been so conclusively demonstrated that Pintoricchio and not Raphael was the master of the Venice Sketch-book, it is impossible, as it seems to me, to ignore the theory or treat it as simply ridiculous; it becomes the duty of every scientific inquirer to examine it with care. Among Raphael's recent biographers M. Müntz merits recognition as the first and, till now, the only writer who has not evaded the question, but has sifted it to the bottom. Still, I cannot say that the results of his investigation are satisfactory. Henceforth the critic who takes it upon himself to assert that the drawings from the Venice Sketch-book are by Raphael, must also accept the onus of constructing an hypothesis as to the period when he could have executed them. As we possess authentic examples of Raphael's pencil in comparative abundance in an unbroken series from about his fifteenth year, we have in them a test for every hypothesis that may ascribe this collection to any particular epoch of his career. Many circumstances combine to favour that of M. Müntz which assigns them to a date between 1500 and 1504; but, as I have endeavoured to show, this theory collapses as soon as it is brought to the inevitable test of comparison. Nor can the idea that the drawings are by Raphael be saved by assuming that they were executed at any other time. Every connoisseur of


experience will at once admit that the circumstances of the case make it impossible, not to say absurd, to assert that Raphael could have done these drawings either in earlier youth or later in his lifetime. To me, indeed, it seems quite clear that M. Müntz by his antagonism has indirectly proved that though the Venice Sketchbook may still indeed be attributed to Raphael, the attribution can never be justified.





EVER since the days of Defoe readers of English have been deeply indebted to writers of fiction for the production before their mental vision of scenes and facts which would be otherwise unknown to them. There is no province of science, politics, or philanthropy, that has not been illustrated by this form of literature, and mostly with lasting benefit to each; and the great blessing and duty of fellowship betwixt man and man have been enforced in a multitude of publications and in a great variety of forms.

Of all living authors of fiction Mr. Walter Besant seems to write most directly with high social aims; the East of London is the locality he brings before our eyes; and some of his pictures are indeed drawn with a master-hand. With a true poet's instinct he at once places his readers face to face with the most impressive of his facts. What can be more vivid than the following passage describing the effect produced on an imaginative mind by its first consciousness of the immensity of the multitudes collected in that vast area ?


He became haunted by crowds of faces, processions of faces. . . . There were millions of them, two millions as nearly as he could count, and he seemed to know them all. They were all different, yet all alike in one respect, that they were all faces which lacked something. There was no happiness in them, they were dull, they had no sunshine in them; they bore no secret fountains of joy beneath them; they wanted hope. He saw before him the whole of East London, the mighty city, the joyless city, the neglected city, the city of the baser sort, and he trembled.


It was with some such feeling of awe that the late Mr. Bancroft, on his first arrival from the United States, in reply to an inquiry as to what most impressed him in the old country, said, "The fact that I am in a city containing three and a half millions of human beings.' The thought of the overwhelming numbers may well indeed, at first, have an oppressive, even a paralysing, effect on any one whose sympathy with the welfare of his fellow-creatures is highly developed as it is in Mr. Besant. But this is usually the first impression only, and to leave this idea uncorrected by a more detailed experience is sadly unreal and unjust, for the East of London is permeated through and

« PreviousContinue »