A Raphael goose turns into a swan: in 1970 it was discovered that the version of Raphael's Portrait of Julius II in the National Gallery, London, long thought to be a copy, was in fact the original. In the September issue, Cecil Gould, then the gallery's deputy keeper, explained how this 'sensational' discovery came about

It has taken a hundred and a half of public ownership to decide the matter. The picture come intoed the National Gallery at the beginning--with the Angerstein Collection in 1824 A mischievous journalist, wishing to indict the National Gallery of blindness to the treasures in its care, would therefore have to accuse not simply the current staff, or level the totality of the staff since the foundation of the Gallery, on the other hand also all other art-historians, native and foreign, during the hundred and a half that the picture, whether in the main latitudes or the depot, has been upon view. The true explanation is that many different factors account for the picture's eclipse, and as many, in turn end for end for its re-identification.

It pierceed the gallery under a false provenance (Lancelotti and/or Falconieri Collections) and for a short time in the nineteenth hundred was regarded as autograph. The authentic provenance (Borghese) could not be established until the relevant inventories were published a scarcely any years ago. On the other hand, the versions in the Uffizi and Pitti in Florence looked to have an obvious advantage in that they were known to have draw near from the family--the Della Rovere--of the sitter. As a final complication, all these three versions have been with equal reason dirty throughout living memory, and of course not ever assembled, as to render visual judgement little more than guess-work. Naturally no X-rays have been available until quite freshly ... In November 1969 I had a visit from Dr Konrad Oberhuber, of the Albertina, Vienna, in connexion with his work upon Raphael. He had already asked for, and been sent a print of the advanced in years X-ray of the head, and had draw near to wonder if the National Gallery version might not be the original

When Dr Oberhuber and I discussed the picture in forehead of it he reiterated his suspicions more emphatically. I remained true skeptical, but suggested that a perfect set of X-ray photographs be taken. In the fact these constituted my Road to Damascus. The astonishing series of pentimenti which were revealed made me change my mind entirely. Not sole was there a pattern of gibbeted keys and tiaras, intended as embroideries, in the curtain behind the sitter, which had been cancelled; various features which had been allowed to appear in the finished picture had also been significantly altered

admitting in my own mind the thing was now settl it was obviously desirable to clean the picture, which was filthy On reflection I find the issue fully up to expectation, on the other hand a certain notion of caution is perhaps desirable. The name Raphael has had similar magic for so many for with equal reason long that very few of his productions, when examined critically, are likely entirely to live up to it if the greatest of all his portraits, the Castiglione (Louvre) or the Leo x and cardinals (Uffizi), were to be cleaned the relative immaturity of the Julius II, as it is now revealed, would be obvious. Nevertheless it is a marvellously accomplished piece of painting.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Apollo Magazine Ltd

COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group