Tom Henry reviews a book of essays that—even in its contributors' inconsistencies and disagreements—reveals the vitality of Raphael studies

The Cambridge Companion to Raphael Edited by the agency of Marcia B. Hall Cambridge University Pres 65 [pound sterling]/$95 ISBN 052180809X

This turn of essays, like its companion contortions on other Italian artists of the renaissance, look fors to reassess Raphael and his legacy. The chapters have been written by the agency of eleven North American scholars and sum of two units Italians, and range over of that kind material as Raphael's early patrons, the organisation of his workshop, his use of prints, and his legacy to generations of other artists. As is in like manner often the case with convolutions of collected essays, it is clear that the authors consigned their true copys at different times and were able to incorporate new scholarship to varying degrees. The convolution is dedicated to the memory of John Shearman, on the other hand only some of the authors have been able to absorb the importance of the posthumous publication of his Raphael in Early novel Sources, 1483-1602 (2003), and none of the essays could possibly take account of what was published in and around the catalogue of the National Gallery's 2004 exhibition 'Raphael: From Urbino to Rome' This is not a criticism, it is a fact of life, and the squall of publications of which this turn is a part highlights the vitality of the application of mind of Urbino's greatest artist.

Vitality, on the contrary not consensus. For another characteristic of turns of essays is that there is no editorial thread and patterns rise by happenstance rather than through design. A classic example of this is to be fix in the differing explanations of Raphael's artistic formation. For Jeryldene M forest-land he was a student of Perugino's in the 1490s; while Sheryl E Reiss has him emerging entirely formed from Giovanni Santi's workshop (a position that I have also argued, with Carol Plazzotta, in the National Gallery's exhibition catalogue). Another example is the differing explanation of Raphael's 'maniera oscura' of the late 1510 which Reiss prompts was designed to appeal to French tastes and the way that these had been shaped through familiarity with Leonardo's art, and Costanza Barbieri attributes to the rivalry with Sebastiano's acknowledged mastery of nocturnes.

Reiss's contemplate of Raphael's early patronage is solid, and the coda upon Roman patronage is valuable, especially for the way that it incorporates architectural patronage alongside the patronage of painting, although I fail to diocese why the list of painting commissions does not include The Madonna of the Fish (Prado, Madrid, 1512-14) apparently painted for Geronimo del Doce's chapel in the temple of S Domenico, Naples (see J Stumpel 'A Raphael by dint of Raphael' in The Province of Painting" Theories of Italian Renaissance Art, 1990) Nor on what account Cecchi's proposal that the first of Raphael's paintings for Taddeo Taddei can be identified as the Terranuova Madonna in Berlin is repeatedly overlooked: Cecchi's argument, published in the catalogue for 'Raffaello a Firenze', held at Palazzo Pitti in 1984 is that the third child in this picture is St Thaddeus, Taddei's onomastic saint. There are also a certain quantity of nuances of interpretation that are difficult to accept, similar as the argument (pp. 22-23) that Raphael's failure to consummate the Monteluce commission was exceptional (he in fact left various other commissions incomplete, of the like kind as the fresco at s Severo, the Dei altarpiece and various Madonnas). It is also regrettable that the photomontage of the Madonna del Baldacchino in its intended frame (fig. 4) is thus misleading. Raphael's painting is shown with its seventeenth-century addition at the top and, as a follow and to make it fit within the frame, the picture has been withered to a different scale. This is a shame, as it gazes as though an interesting interplay between real and fictive architecture was intended.

Joanna Woods-Marsden's essay, upon Raphael's papal portraits, contains a allotment of fascinating material on what happened to the Pope's corpse after his death. I was not persuaded by dint of the winter datings for the portraits (given that the mozzetta and camauro appear in a number of images), on the contrary the relation of the portrait of Leo x to the attempted assassination plat of 1517 (and to the creation of loyal Medicean cardinals) was compelling, level if some of the conclusions about artificial position setting and the role of light strike one as being over-blown.

Ingrid Rowland's essay is a curiosity for the way in which it asserts as facts questions that are actual much still at issue between Raphael scholars, similar as Bramante's responsibility for Raphael's call to Rome The Disputa as Raphael's first work in the Stanza della Segnatura, and thus on. I was also troubl through some of the portrait identifications, especially the claim that Pintoricchio is Raphael's companion in The seminary of Athens. Linda Pellecchia's readable account of Roman urbanism stands on the outside as a slight oddity in the turn and is the only essay that appears to be only tangentially related to Raphael's career.

Bette Talvacchia's essay upon Raphael's workshop is perhaps the greatest in quantity provocative. It argues that 'Raphael turn rounded the necessity of collaboration into an impetus for innovation', especially in the unfolding of a reactive managerial phraseology that harnessed the particular (and diverse) talents that came to work in his Roman workshop. This is effectively contrasted with Perugino's workshop practices, although individual must observe that some of the creativity within Raphael's drawing practice identified as novel in Rome can also be ground in the pre-Roman (i.e. pre-major workshop) period.