The Czartoryski Raphael

August 16, 2012

Last seen in Poland in 1945, The Czartoryski Raphael has become an iconic victim of Nazi art looting committed during the Second World War. Following The Art Newspaper's premature report of the painting's rediscovery on August 1, 2012, I received over five hundred emails requesting a summary of the history and critical evaluation of this famous work. With the help of some generous collaborators, I am pleased to present this overview. It is hoped that the Czartoryski family will reclaim this cherished piece in the not too distant future, so that the painting may be enjoyed by the public, and further studied by scholars.

Portrait of a Young Man
The Czartoryski Raphael
Location unknown
c.1513-1514 (Jones and Penny 1983) ; c.1516-17 (De Vecchi 1987) ; 1511 (Oberhuber 1999) ; c.1510-1511 (Meyer zur Capellen 2008)
Wood panel
76.8 x 60.8 cm

The identity of the sitter can not be proven from documentary sources. Whether the painting is of Raphael, or is by Raphael, is an ongoing topic of debate. The picture has been regarded as a depiction of Raphael at least since the early 17th century, proven by an engraving inscription by Paulus Pontius. Other authors have suggested a range of identifications of the sitter, including Francesco Maria della Rovere, Federigo Gonzaga, or simply an ideal youth (Burckhardt, Walek). Fischel suggested, notably, that the sitter may have been a woman.

A possible visual source for the image was discussed by Walek: a Roman copy of Praxiteles' Resting Satyr. Walek  mentions that there are "nearly 70 known Roman copies" but does not elaborate on which copies were known during Raphael's time in Rome. While Raphael did use ancient and contemporary statues as models for figures in his work, there is no surviving preparatory drawing that directly links the Resting Satyr to Raphael.

Another related image is found in Raphael's School of Athens. First discussed by Gruyer, a standing figure dressed in white is noted to have similar features to the Czartoryski youth, but a definitive identification has not been possible, with suggestions ranging from Francesco Maria della Rovere to Hypatia of Alexandria. Walek suggests the figure is a personification of beauty, in line with Neoplatonic principles. This figure is at the same level as Raphael himself, depicted on the far right. It has been noted that only these two gaze directly at the viewer, though the significance of this is subject to speculation.

Documentary sources 
It is important to differentiate between the factual and speculated provenance of the Czartoryski picture. The factual provenance traces the specific object that was first documented in 1809 by Isabella Czartoryska, and eventually stolen in 1939. The speculated provenance is subject to interpretation, and is challenging to decipher in this case.

i. Speculated provenance: prior to 1809
The early history of this painting can not be verified from documentary sources. From a stylistic perspective, authors agree it displays characteristics of a portrait executed in Rome. The speculated provenance therefore attempts to trace how the picture may have travelled from Rome to end up in Venice between 1799-1801, when it was purchased by the Czartoryski. Unfortunately, these accounts often do not allow us to determine which version of the portrait is being described. This has created confusion among authors, particularly in describing the provenance of works sold as copies, and in determining the source image used in particular engravings. Although copies are discussed in the literature (eg. Walek 1991, Grabski 2004 and Meyer zur Capellen 2008), a thorough account of the provenance of each painted version has not been completed.

A chronological outline follows, summarising the relevant events and sources:

c.1622-23 A sketch after this painting was made by Anthony van Dyck, although the painted version this sketch is based on can not be confirmed. Some reports indicate the year may have been 1623, when van Dyck passed through Mantua. Dussler (1971) favours the copy being made in Venice in 1622. It is also noted that the opposite size of this page contains sketches made in Venice. The sketch book this drawing appears in was formerly in the Chatsworth Collection, and now in the British Museum.

 click to enlarge

1630 Habsburg troops capture Mantua in this year. R. Peyre (1893) speculates that a version of the picture may have travelled to Modena around this time. It is noted that the bulk of the Mantuan collection had been sold by Duke Vincenzo II to King Charles I of England, with Venetian art dealer Daniel Nys and court musician Nicholas Lanier acting as intermediaries. The sale was completed in two parts, with payment made by Charles I in 1627 and 1628 (Gregg 1984).  It can be argued that if such a notable portrait had been in the Mantuan collection prior to 1630, then it would have been included in the works sold to the English monarch.

1630-1640 The engraving by Paulus Pontius is believed to have been completed during this time. Its inscription is the first extant reference to the work being a Raphael self-portrait. Dussler (1971) clarifies that Pontius never travelled to Italy, and believes this engraving is of a sixteenth century painted copy which travelled to the Low Countries. (See Lockyer for a thorough analysis of the inscription)

 click to enlarge/view inscription

Vrbinum Vrbs aluit; pinxit sua dextera, nempe
sic ipsum praeter bene quis pinxisset Apellem?
Qui melius quiret pingere, nullus erat.
Eximia eximios pingier arte decet.
Pontius excudit, semel ut qui pinxit in Vrbe
Se, excusus toto, pictus et orbe foret.

Paulus Pontius fecit et excudit
Cum Privilegiis


The City of Urbino raised him; he painted with his right hand, and indeed
who could have painted so well save Apelles himself?
Who was able to paint better, there was none.
Extraordinary people ought to be depicted with extraordinary skill.
Pontius has made this engraving, that he who once in the City painted
himself, engraved in full, might also be depicted the world over.

Paulus Pontius made and engraved this
With permission
1657 Published in this year, Il microcosmo della pittura by Francesco Scannelli describes:
In various studios [ie. collections] there are various portraits that are considered to be the true effigies of Raphael himself, executed by his own brush; but since none of them reveal the same total accomplishment that is found in the most perfect example, in the unique gallery of Modana, I would say without fear of erring that the others are by various members of that same school.
1671 Described in the guidebook Viaggio Pittoresco by the artist Giacomo Barri. This description verifies that the work was not universally perceived as being painted by Raphael at that time. An English version of Barri's book was published in 1679, (crudely) translated by William Lodge. In the section describing "the gallery of the most serene Duke" of Modena, the picture is described as a "Ritratto [Portrait] of Raphael". This follows Barri's original description "ritratto di Raffaello".

It should be noted that later in the same guidebook, when describing altarpieces in Pescia and Naples, Barri provides a laudatory description of works attributed to Raphael. The following translations are as published by Lodge in 1679.
In the Church called La Piere.
Entering this Church in the utmost Chapell on your right hand, you see a stately picture of the B.Virgin upon a Throne wit her Son in her Armes, and two little Angels, with divers Saints on each side, an admirable work of incomparable Raphael.

The City of Naples. The Church of S. Dominico.
In this church you see a most stately picture of divers Saints, by the hand of great Raphael.
It can be argued that if Barri were aware that the "ritratto di Raffaello" he was viewing was believed to be by Raphael, he would have mentioned it. Barri also makes no mention of the quality of the picture in Modena, in contrast to the glowing description by Scannelli in 1657.

While ritratto di Raffaello can mean either a portrait of Raphael or a portrait by Raphael, we presently do not have any documentation verifying the sale of this picture other than the secondary description by Isabella Czartoryska in 1809. Grabski also comments on this description as potentially ambiguous when applied in the context of the sale of the painting:
[The Giustiniani] had introduced it as un ritratto di Raffaello, which in Italian could have sounded quite ambiguously: it could have meant a portrait representing Raphael, or else a portrait painted by Raphael himself. It cannot be ruled out that it was precisely this ambiguity which was taken advantage of in the sale negotiations. It is quite likely that the picture was sold in all honesty, but it is also possible that the sellers were fully aware of the fact that the portrait presents an image of the artist, but was not executed by the artist himself. We shall never be able to learn the truth.
With no extant documentation, Grabski's account of the seller's "introduction" of the painting seems hypothetical in this instance.

1744 A manuscript, describing items in the d'Este collection in Modena, written by Pier Ercole Gherardi describes a Raphael portrait, but also mentions it was in a poor state and was subsequently lost. 

Campori (1863) provides a more complete summary:
Since Francesco I [D’Este], son and successor of Alfonso III arranged a precious collection of paintings, inherited in part and in part acquired, he was moved to enhance it with some works by [Raphael] Santi. Scanelli and Barri have passed on notices of a life-sized portrait of Raphael painted by himself “with extraordinary mastery and the utmost accomplishment”, which was the most accomplished of many portraits that are to be seen in various collections. This portrait was cited in the manuscript description of the paintings in the Este Gallery, carried out by Pier Ercole Gherardi in 1744, where it was described as ruined [“rovinato”].  It was not included in the sale and was subsequently lost.
This description by Gherardi introduces further complexities in any attempt to verify the early provenance of the picture. With the preceding accounts by Barri and Scannelli giving different impressions of a portrait viewed in Modena, we can not be certain which version was being described. The question of which version was in Modena, and whether it travelled to Venice can not be answered from reports cited.

Purchased in Venice by Princes Adam Jerzy and Konstanty Czartoryski, who travelled through Italy between 1799 and 1801. The exact date of the acquisition is not recorded.

?1807-1808 - Clarifying acquisition date
Some confusion is noted in the literature, which quotes either 1807 or 1808 as the acquistion date. Passavant lists the acquistion date as 1807, with many repeating him as the source. Walek notes that the Vlamynck engraving (early nineteenth century) contains a note in ink "aquis par le p-ce Adam Czartoryski en 1808 Venise". Walek also clarifies "in view of the lack of evidence to confirm the presence of Adam Jerzy in Italy in 1807 or 1808, it is safer to assume the picture must have [been] bought during his stay in 1799-1801". 

?1820-1830 - Clarifying the impact of the Vlamynck engraving
The Vlamynck engraving is not dated in the literature, though the engraver's 1795 birth year is noted. This engraving is commonly mentioned as evidence of "the tradition" of associating the Portrait of a Young Man to a Mantuan provenance via Giulio Romano. It has allowed some authors to assume that Giulio Romano may have either inherited the picture from Raphael, or it is a work by Giulio himself, which then passed to the Gonzaga in Mantua after Giulio's death in 1546. In the absence of corroborating evidence, these assumptions must be viewed with a degree of scepticism. In addition, it is now believed Vlamynck engraving's depicts a version of the picture that was in the Low Countries, possibly the same version engraved by Pontius (in reverse) during the seventeenth century. The Vlamynck inscription is not visible in the image published in Walek (1991), and has been commonly cited since Passavant (1860). Translated from the original in French:
Raphael of Urbino, painted by himself. This picture comes from the famous collection of the Duke of Mantova who had it from Giulio Romano. It now belongs to Monsieur Reghellini de Schio. Dedicated to the Chevalier Odevaere, Painter to His Majesty the King of the Low Countries. By his friend and student P. Devlamync

 click to enlarge

ii. Factual provenance: 1809 and the origin of the Giustiniani provenance
The Czartoryski painting is first documented in 1809, in the Gothic House at Pulawy, a museum founded by Isabella Czartoryska, the princes' mother. This is recorded in a catalogue entry for the museum written by Isabella, stating that the picture was purchased by her sons in Venice, though the date is not specified. An image of this handwritten catalogue entry was published by Walek (1991) and is the first mention of the piece being brought from the Giustiniani collection in Venice:
For a long time it has been known that Raphael was the most perfect painter and his works the most excellent imitations of beautiful nature. Raphael’s portrait, which is in the gallery of Gothic House, contains two precious memorials: the likeness of the face of so famous a man and the certainty that they are the brushstrokes of his own hand. After the downfall of the famous Venetian Republic when many Italian families, finding themselves completely ruined, were forced to sell their property, the Giustiniani family, which at that time was in a lamentable state of insolvency, with regret parted with this portrait. The dukes Adam and Konstant Czartoryski, being at that time in Italy, acquired this rare painting and brought it to Gothic House. It is placed on the right hand side as one enters the gallery. A beautiful face that seems to revive the soul.

click to enlarge

1830 The anti-czarist uprising begins in Poland in November of this year. With the Gothic House coming under attack from Russian forces, much of the collection was transferred to the Sieniawa Palace, another Czartoryski residence. The painting then went to Paris, with the exiled Prince Adam Jerzy.

1848 Prince Adam Jerzy sends the picture to London with his son Wladyslaw, intending to sell it through a local art dealer named Mr. Woodburn, with the likely destination being Berlin (Waagen 1875). Grabski mentions the sale price as a "mere 12,000 francs" (Walek cites 15,000 francs). The picture remains in London until 1851, and was never sold. Grabski provides the most lucid critique of this curious phase in the painting's history:
...why in the space of three whole years did the picture, which was claimed to be a self-portrait by the divine Raphael, fail to find a purchaser in London? This was a city where the cult of Italy and of Raphael had existed since the 17th century, and where it had reached special intensity in the course of the 18th and 19th centuries. The opportunity was quite unique: the painting came from an excellent collection; it was superb from the artistic point of view, it was painted by a great artist, and above all, it was a self-portrait.We know from other sources that the London art dealer did not limit himself in his offer to England itself, where there was no shortage of wealthy purchasers, but had also offered to sell the painting to numerous museums which were then springing up on the continent. All to no avail. For me, as a person who specializes both in the theoretical and practical aspects of the art market, there is only one answer to this query: namely, that the superb Renaissance portrait representing Raphael, is not a work of Raphael's hand.
1851 The Czartoryski picture returned to Paris, where it was kept at the Hotel Lambert, where Prince Adam Jerzy had been staying since 1849. The painting was not on public display at the Hotel, but was made available for view on request.

1874 It was exhibited in Paris at the Exposition des ouvrages de peintures exposes au profit de la colonisation de l'Algerie par les Alsaltiens-Lorrains, Palais de la Presidence du Corps Legislatif. Grabski (2004) cites a review of this exhibition by Paul Mantz in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts in 1874, who reports that he did not see the picture, and only saw an engraving of it. (see references)

1876 Presented to the Czartoryski Museum in Crakow, Poland. Walek notes although the museum was opened in this year, the portrait "was not exhibited until the 1880s."

?1914 to July 1920 Items from the Czartoryski collection, including this work, were kept in the Gemaldegalerie in Dresden for the duration of the First World War (1914-1918). Walek (1991) notes the gallery's director Hans Posse was reluctant to relinquish the painting, which had travelled together with the other famous Czartoryski pieces, Leonardo's Lady with an Ermine, and Rembrandt's Landscape with a Good Samaritan.

1939 In August of this year, these three paintings were placed in single case marked "VRR" (Vinci, Raphael Rembrandt) and taken to Sieniawa Palace. This case was "bricked up" to hide it from the Germans troops, but discovered shortly after (exact dates are not cited in Walek 1991). The paintings were taken to Berlin, where they were deposited at the Kaiser Friedrich Museum.

1940 January 25 - 85 Items from the Czartoryski collection were sent from Berlin to Dresden. Hans Posse, who had reluctantly returned the painting in 1920, "proposed that they be earmarked for exhibit at a planned 'Adolf Hitler Museum' of looted artworks in Linz" (Walek).

1940-1945 Although the exact circumstances are unknown, the painting was acquired by the chief Nazi administrator in Poland, Hans Frank. The portrait was last seen on display Cracow's Wawel Castle in 1945, Frank's residence during the occupation of Poland. (nb. Walek 1991 speculates that the painting was at Wawel castle for the for the duration of the war, whereas the Czartoryski Museum website mentions that the paintings were bought to back to Poland in 1945 link). In January 1945, Hans Frank flees Cracow, taking a quantity of artworks with him - although it seems the Portrait of a Young Man was not included. What happened to the painting after Wawel Castle is currently unknown. Some reports allege it was destroyed with other stolen works that were on a transport passing through Lower Silesia. Rumours of the painting's survival have persisted, though its exact location remains elusive.

Physical characteristics
Modern commentators have been limited to working from surviving photographs. These images and their quality were described by Walek and Grabski. A thorough assessment of the condition of this piece is not reported. Only small passages of first-hand descriptions of the painting's quality have survived. The most notable of these is by German art historian G.F. Waagen, whose opinion influenced Passavant heavily in attributing the piece to Raphael. Passavant's 1860 monograph affirms, "Monsieur Waagen, who had seen this picture with the Prince, in Paris, affirms that it is original, and an original of the greatest beauty".

"A beautiful face that seems to revive the soul" - Isabella Czartoryska (1809)

Crowe and Cavalcaselle (1882) comment on aspects of the painting's execution, though ultimately reject the attribution to Raphael.
This is a good portrait. The face is fine, the hands feeble, and ill-drawn. The execution is dry, as might be that of a tempera picture, the shading red.

Grabski also notes one of the photographs, taken in 1934, gives an indiction of brushtrokes and the quality of the picture. In doing this he compares it to brushstrokes seen in portraits by Parmagianino. Despite this similarity, Grabski instead nominated Giulio Romano as the likely author of the painting.
The trail of his [Parmagianino's] brush is the closest to the way of applying the paint in the Portrait of the Young Man, which is particularly noticeable in the details of the fur-coat. This is borne out very clearly by the excellent photographs of the details executed by Stefan Komornicki in 1934. With their dynamism and width, the brush strokes visible on fragments of the fur-coat as well as on the white sleeves of the shirt...
Mary Logan-Berenson (1915) appears to be one of the few twentieth century commentators to have seen the work in person. She notes that il fondo non fu condotto a termine (“the background was not brought to completion”). She also observes that it is a very late work, comparing its colours to La Donna Velata at the Palazzo Pitti in Florence. Referencing (her spouse) Bernard Berenson's attribution of the picture to Sebastiano, she adds, expresses so strong an influence of Sebastiano del Piombo that those who have seen only reproductions should not be blamed for attributing it to that other artist. But a mere glance at the original is enough to prove that it is by Raphael.
Attribution history
The attribution to Raphael was supported by Passavant, with the 1860 French edition of his monograph providing the most detail. It is noted that Passavant had not viewed the work in person, and was evidently influenced by descriptions by other authors and the Pontius engraving. Crowe and Cavalcaselle famously rejected the attribution, naming Parmagianino or Timoteo Viti as the author.
This is neither the portrait of Raphael nor is it by Raphael himself. Can it be the portrait of "Parmesano," once assigned to Raphael, in the collection of M. Antonio Foscarini at Venice...or a likeness of Francesco Maria della Rovere, by a local artist of Urbino? It looks very like a work of Timoteo Viti.
While authors such as Ortolani (1945), De Vecchi (1987) suggests Raphael's involvement with workshop assistance. Gronau (1923), Fischel (1916, 1948, 1962), Gamba (1949), Dussler (1971), Oberhuber (1999) and Meyer zur Capellen (2008) also attribute the picture to Raphael - with many of these 20th century attributions being made from photographs. Gruyer and Freedberg (1962) assign the picture to Penni. Berenson proposed an attribution to Sebastiano del Piombo in 1894, but had revised this to Raphael by 1932.

It is widely acknowledged that analysis of photographs is a limited means of establishing authenticity. Should the picture be recovered, further intensive research can be expected to establish a critical consensus.

Present location and potential for recovery
A folklore has developed around this picture, with art historians trading anecdotal accounts confirming the picture's survival, each variation of the story usually ending with a bank vault in an undisclosed location. Despite this, there has been little concrete information to confirm that the painting has survived. In August 2012, The Art Newspaper published a report claiming that the picture had been found. This was subsequently corrected to state that the location of the picture was unknown,
Wojciech Kowalski, the Polish foreign minister's plenipotentiary for the restitution of cultural goods, who is an expert on the subject, told The Art Newspaper on 2 August: “Through a reliable source, we have known for some time that the [portrait] is in a bank vault in a certain country. But we do not know the exact location".
Coverage in media and popular culture
In 1996, the Portrait of a Young Man made an appearance in an episode of The Simpsons, which recounts the exploits of some of its older characters during the Second World War. There is no direct mention of the portrait being by/of Raphael, and its owner is made out to be a somewhat camp German by the name of Baron von Wertzenberger. A clip can be viewed here link

The Czartoryski Raphael was featured in The Rape of Europa (1994) by Lynn H. Nicholas, a history of  the Nazi plunder of European art. This book was the basis of a 2006 documentary produced by Agon Arts and Entertainment and Oregon Public Broadcasting. The filmed version included an interview with a modern descendent of the Czartoryski, London based historian Adam Zamoyski, who also serves as a director of the Czartoryski Museum in Cracow. He describes the painting's theft by the Germans and speculates on its current value. (clip below)

In 2011, Zamoyski was interviewed by Fiona Bruce in an episode of BBC's Fake or Fortune, where he described the Portrait of a Young Man as "probably the most valuable looted object still out there from the Second World War". (clip below)

Many thanks to the following individuals for their generous assistance:
Dr. Edward Goldberg - for translations of sources in Italian and French
Terrence Lockyer - for the the Pontius inscription translation
Jan Sammer - for the translation of the Czartoryska 1809 catalogue entry in liason with Janusz Walek in Poland, and clarification of details related to copies and prints

Adam Zamoyski website. Bio page. Accessed August 14 2012. link

Barri, G. Viaggio pittoresco. Venice 1671. cited by Grabski 2004.

Barri, G. (Lodge, W. Trans.) The Painters Voyage in Italy. London 1679. Full text at link. p. 136 , 157 & 158.

Berenson, B. The Venetian Painters of the Renaissance. Putnam and Sons. Third edition. 1894. p.120.  Full text at link ; 1910. p.126 cited by Walek.

Berenson, B. Italian pictures of the Renaissance. Oxford University Press. 1932. p.480 nb. Attribution revised to Raphael. Cited by Dussler 1971.

Campori. G. Notizie inedite di Raffaello da Urbino, tratte da documenti dell'Archivio Palatino di Modena. Vicenzi. 1893. p.35-36.  Full text at Google Books link English translation by Dr. Edward Goldberg. See also Gherardi.

Crowe, JA and Cavalcaselle GB. Raphael: His Life and Works. London, 1882. Vol 1. p.282 Full text at link

Czartoryski Museum Website. Accessed 14 August 2012. link

De Vecchi, P. The Complete Paintings of  Raphael. Penguin. 1987. Cat. No. 127. p.115.

Dussler, L. Raphael - A Critical Catalogue of his Pictures, Wall-Paintings & Tapestries. Phaidon. 1971. pp.41-42  Online at Projekt Rafael site link nb. contains a concise summary of attribution history prior to 1971

Furlotti, B. Rebecchini, G. The Art of Mantua: Power and Patronage in the Renaissance. Getty Publications 2008. p.116

Fischel, O. Der Raffael Czartoryski. Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen. XXXVII. 1916. p. 257. JSTOR link

Fischel, O. Raphael. (Rackham, B. ed.) London. 1948. Vol 1. p.124, 364.
nb. Dussler also cites the 1962 German edition as having maintained the attribution to Raphael (p.93).

Freedberg, SJ. Painting of the High Renaissance in Rome and Florence. Cambridge. 1961. p.179.

Gamba, C. 1949. Pittura umbra del Rinascimento: Raffaello. Novara. p.108. Cited by Dussler. p.108

Gherardi, PE. Bonsanti, G & Baracchi, G. (eds.) Descrizione delle pitture esistenti in Modena nell'Estense ducal galleria (1744) Volume 5 of Materiali per la storia di Modena medievale e moderna ; Cultura e vita civile del Settecento in Emilia Romagna: Settecento estense. Panini. 1986. nb. A public domain facsimile of Gherardi's manuscript could not be located. See Campori and Passavant for citations of this source. The original manuscript is G.5.18, Italiano 559 in the Biblioteca Estense. source

Grabski, J. The Lost Portrait of a Young Man (Attributed to Raphael) from the Collection of the Princes Czartoryski Family in Cracow. A Contribution to Studies on the Typology of the Renaissance Portrait. Artibus et Historiae. Vol. 25. No. 50. 2004. pp. 215-239. JSTOR link

Gregg, P. King Charles I. University of California Press. 1984. pp.167-168

Gronau, G. Raffael. Des Meisters Gemälde. 5th edition. Stuttgart, Berlin & Leipzig 1923. p.130. Cited by Dussler 1971

Gruyer, FA. Raphaël, peintre de portraits. Vol. 1. Paris, 1881. p.249-256. Full text at link

Jones, R & Penny, N. 1983. Raphael. Yale University Press. p.127

Lockyer, T. Transcription and Translation of the Inscription Accompanying “Raphael of Urbino” engraved by Paulus Pontius c.1630-1640. August 2012.  PDF

Logan-Berenson, M. I dipinti italiani a Cracovia. Rassegna d'Arte. Volume 1. 1915. p. 4. Full text online at BiASA ; PDF ; English translation by Dr. Edward Golberg.
nb. With Bernard Berenson's attribution to Sebastiano remaining unchanged until between 1894-1910, this statement indicates that the famous connoisseur may not have viewed the work during this period. This point requires further clarification. 

Mantz, P. Exposition en faveur des Alsatiens et Lorrains. Peinture. Gazette des Beaux-Arts. 1874 (2), Vol. II. p. 100 cited by Grabski (2004).

Meyer zur Capellen, J. (Trans. Polter, S). Raphael. The Paintings Vol 3. Arcos-Verlag. 2008. Cat. No. 70.  pp.94-99

Michalska. J. Poland's Long Lost Raphael Found. The Art Newspaper. August 1 2012.  Accessed August 12 2012. link

Oberhuber, K. 1999. Raphael: The Paintings. Prestel. p.127, 251. Cat No.91.

Ortolani, S. Raffaello. Bergamo 1942. 2nd ed. 1945. p.60. Cited by Dussler 1971.

Passavant, JD. Raphael d'Urbin et son père, Giovanni Santi (Lacroix, P. ed.) Renouard. Paris. 1860. Full text at  Vol.2 (in French) p.96

Peyre. R. Article name not cited. The Correspondent. September 26. 1893. p. 1,050. cited by Walek.

Pungileoni, L. Elogio storico di Raffaello Santi da Urbino. Guerrini. 1829. p.283. Full text at Google Books link  English Translation by Dr. Edward Goldberg

Raging Abe Simpson and his Grumbling Grandson in "The Curse of the Flying Hellfish" Wikipedia entry for this episode of The Simpsons [Season 7, Epsiode 22. 1996] Accessed August 12 2012. link

Rostworowski, M. Rembrandta przypowiesco milosiernym Samarytaninie (Rembrandt's "Parable of the Good Samaritan"). Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe, "Auriga," Warsaw. 1980. pp. 108-30. Cited by Walek 1991 (describes the fate of the "VRR" paintings from 1939).

Waagen. Kleine Schriften. Stuttgart 1875. p.32. Full text at Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg website link

Waagen, GF. Entry at the Dictionary of Art Historians website. Accessed August 12 2012. link

Wałek, J. The Czartoryski "Portrait of a Youth" by Raphael. Artibus et Historiae. Vol. 12, No. 24 1991. pp. 201-224. JSTOR link

Image sources
*Czartoryski Raphael colour image via Walek article and wiki commons link
nb. this colour image. taken in 1909, crops the sitter's right hand, which is more fully present in the 1934 black and white images published in Walek (1991)
*Resting Satyr - photo by MHarrsch at Capitoline Museum, Rome link
*Raphael School of Athens via wiki commons link
*Paulus Pontius Engraving - image via British Museum link
*Van Dyck sketch via British Museum link
*Vlamynck engraving published in Walek (1991)
*Czartoryska catalogue inscription image (1809) published in Walek (1991)

Video sources
The Simpsons. Season 7. Episode 22. 1996. Twentieth Century Fox link (amazon)
The Rape of Europa. 2006. Agon Arts & Entertainment & Oregon Public Broadcasting link
Fake or Fortune. 2011. "Rembrandt" BBC. link


Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for this. I am glad I sent an email. The speed and detail of your response is phenomenal. This painting has a lot of emotional meaning that goes beyond the Renaissance context - you are right to say it has become "iconic" of what was taken from Poland.

I recall my great grandmother saying she had seen this as a very young girl and thinking she was in love with the young man, so deep and rich were his eyes! So every time I think of this painting I think of her, and it brings me some comfort.

Let us hope this painting can be returned so that others may see it and fall in love - with Raphael or whomever it may be! Thank you for your generous spirit and dedication


Edward Goldberg said...

Congratulations, Hasan, on an extraordinary piece of work--ongoing work, really, since this is still a "developing story". And maybe your post will shake loose some additional information? Here's hoping!

Unknown said...

Cheer for the comments!

@Angela. Many thanks for sharing your great-grandmother's experience with the painting. Such personal interactions highlight exactly how an artwork can mean so much to people. We may never know exactly who the figure is, but their grace and beauty seems so characteristic of Raphael, we can instantly understand the long association with him.

@Ed - Assembling a logical summary was a challenge, but also brought up some interesting queries about the sources encountered. eg. I wonder if the Giustiniani provenance has been checked against the late 18C sales of pieces from the Giustiniani de'Vescovi collection in Venice? (such as this Catena at the Met in NY).

Also, Peyre's suggestion that the portrait moved from Mantua to Modena - seems to be built on the assumption that the piece was with Giulio and the Gonzaga in Mantua. If indeed a celebrated portrait by/of Raphael was in Mantua - would it not have been snapped up by Nys and Lanier for King Charles I in 1627/28 before being "moved" by 1630. Unfortunately no evidence is provided that this piece ever was in Mantua. Walek suggests van Dyck's sketch was made there, but as others (including Dussler) have pointed out, Venice seems a more likely location for the sketch. Equally unfathomable is why Meyer zur Capellen assigns "before 1601" to the Giustiniani provenance in his catalogue entry.

I am also curious if anyone else has picked up on Mary Logan Berenson being somewhat playful when doubting the Sebastiano attribution, which her spouse had published since 1894. It would be interesting to find out when she did see portrait, and if Bernard Berenson saw it by the time he changed his attribution to Raphael as well (some 20 years later)

If anything does turn up, I'll append the notes accordingly.

Kind Regards

Sedef said...


This is wonderful! Thanks for enabling us to follow along in the trail of this hauntingly beautiful painting...

K. Bender said...

Hello Hazan,
Really a marvellous post, as usual fully documented as it should. It would be a nice example to illustrate with a geographical map, showing the movements of the artwork (and its replications) and the sites. I refer to the wonderfull 'Atlas of Western Art History' by John Steer & Antony White. FactsOnFile, 1994. With modern software, it should be possible...if you - or someone else - has time to spend on such an application.
I look forward to see it!
Kind regards,
K. Bender

Unknown said...

Thanks for the comments!

@Sedef - I'm pleased you enjoyed the post - there definitely is a haunting quality to it. With the sitter looking directly at us, it makes its loss perhaps more keenly felt than if it was a landscape for example.

@K Bender - I have seen such things - they are interesting ways to visualise the travels of artworks. eg. I would like to see a time-lapse of Raphael's panels from 1500 to present day to show how they've travelled around the world - but who has the time to do such a thing!

As for this case, I'm more interested in other gaps in the data. In neither of the accounts did I see primary source references of what happened form 1939-45 - what were these sources?

Walek did not report them - they may be in Rostworowski - which is not easily accessible. Hence we find discrepancies it what happened to the work during this period. I also spotted differences in the 1939-45 timeline reported on the sage recovery website entry, yet neither provide an indication of the sources of this information.

Kind Regards

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...