No, no work by Raphael has been discovered: it is a replica from Perugino

For the past few hours, in the main generalist newspapers and even in some specialized ones, news has been relaunched of the alleged "discovery " of a work “by Raphael”: a Magdalene, in whose face people wanted to recognize the wife of Perugino (Raphael’s master), Chiara Fancelli. Dated 1504, made in oil on poplar panel, measuring 46 by 34 cm, it belongs to a private collection abroad, and next week will be the subject of a study to be published in a scientific journal of which, at least on Google, there are no citations other than those reported in the news about the alleged discovery.

The alleged discovery was presented during a conference held in Pergola (Pesaro-Urbino) attended by individuals presented as “experts” by the press, but all of whom appear to be unrelated to studies on Raphael and lacking scientific publications on the Renaissance master (among them is a “expert” known for having in the past launched into exceedingly reckless attributions, all of which were then vigorously rejected by critics, such as a drawing given to Leonardo da Vinci, which Pietro Marani, an authoritative scholar of the great artist, on these pages simply branded as a much later work of imitation).

The work announced in Pergola was presented as a version of Perugino’s famous Magdalene preserved in the Pitti Palace (which in the seventeenth century was given to Raphael, but by the eighteenth century the attribution to Urbinte had already fallen into disuse): the newly discovered work “is considered far superior,” reads Ansa, “from a stylistic and technical point of view, for the grace and harmony of the composition and for the use of sfumato that highlights the influence of Leonardo da Vinci on the young Urbino painter.” In addition, “supporting the attribution to Raphael is the use of the spolvero technique, to transfer the preparatory drawing (always employed by the Urbino, never by Perugino), identified by laboratory analysis.” Recorded then the presence of pentimenti and pigments that would be “compatible” with Raphael’s palette. According to the “experts,” the private collection work would predate Perugino’s.

Meanwhile, it is not true that Perugino never employed the spolvero technique: the frescoes of the Collegio del Cambio were made with spolvero (cf. Pietro Scarpellini, Il Collegio del Cambio in Perugia, Silvana, 1998) and we are left with drawings where we can clearly see, with the naked eye and also through some good photographs, the needle holes to mark the outlines to be brought back by spolvero (e.g., the Testa muliebre in the Louvre, cf. Alessandro Delpriori’s card in the catalog of the exhibition Perugino. Italy’s Best Master). Assuming, then, that the newly discovered work, which appears to be dated 1504 according to what has been communicated in press reports, chronologically follows the Magdalene in the Pitti Palace (which has instead a date around 1500), it is not clear why Raphael, who in 1504 was already an independent artist, having left Perugino’s workshop, should have replicated a work by his former master. And even assuming the opposite, that is, that it is necessary to postdate the work in the Pitti Palace, it would be even stranger that an artist at that date as well established as Perugino would go out of his way to copy the work of a young pupil: in the Renaissance, masters were certainly not in the habit of replicating works by their pupils (at most they could observe them from afar and be inspired: this might be the case, for example, with the Monteripido Altarpiece, but it is quite unlikely that Perugino, perhaps impressed by a work by his former pupil, would have wanted to replicate it).

This is a replica of the Pitti Palace work, which in the happiest of hypotheses could be autograph. Strongly discarding the idea that the Pergola work could be by Raphael was Vittorio Sgarbi earlier in the day: “No chance that the painting touted as Raphael, and announced in Pergola, an affectionate city, is by the Urbino master,” he said. “It is only a journalistic scoop, since it is based on the knowledge of a few since it is a work in a private collection, with the legitimate aspiration of the owner to own a Raphael.”

According to Sgarbi, "Already the idea of a Magdalene with the likeness of Perugino’s wife is bizarre, as is the albeit legitimate propensity of some scholars to pronounce only on big names: Raphael, Leonardo, Botticelli. Perugino is enough. The work heralded as Raphael is in fact a version, perhaps autograph, of a prototype by Perugino kept in the Palazzo Pitti, of which another version is known to be in the Galleria Borghese. It is difficult that in 1504, when, in contrast to his master in the Marriage of the Virgin at Caen, Raphael, with infinite grace, painted his admirable Marriage, now at Brera, which is so much freer, newer, and looser than that of his master, he would apply himself to making a copy of Perugino, whom by that time he had already left behind. Equally impossible is it for Perugino to paint a copy of Raphael. At most, then, the new version, from a private collection, is a replica of Perugino. Whose autography to verify, as opposed to the certain autography of works kept in museums, and in the public domain."

“The game of the private individual owning a work ’more authentic’ than that in a museum,” Sgarbi then concluded, “has already been attempted, for Raphael, with the youthful self-portrait. Then the fever passed. But it is clear that private ownership, and the live knowledge of only a few scholars, are prejudicial to the recognition of the autograph.” Among the accredited scholars who intervened in the day were then the names of Giovanna Ragionieri, who rejects the hypothesis in an equally vigorous manner, and Alessandro Delpriori, author of contributions on Perugino and Umbrian painting of the time, who on his Facebook profile branded the news as a “gigantic panzana.” And on a possible Raphaelesque attribution there is perhaps little more to add.

No, no work by Raphael has been discovered: it is a replica from Perugino

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.