Cathleen Hoeniger
The Fate of Two Altarpieces by Raphael
during the Nineteenth Century in Europe
This essay will consider aspects of the reception of Raphael during the
nineteenth century. Focus will be placed on two of the Roman altarpieces, the
Madonna di Foligno and the Transfiguration, in the period of the Napoleonic
confiscations and after Napoleon’s fall from power (figs. 1 and 2). Under
Napoleon, these altarpieces were taken as war booty to Paris in 1797, and there
they were subjected to substantial restorations in order to prepare the pictures
for exhibition at the Louvre. After Napoleon’s fall in 1814, both altarpieces were
returned to Italy. However, there followed a critical outcry from prominent
intellectuals in response to the way the paintings had been treated in Paris.
One goal of the essay will be to explore how the reception of the pictures was
complicated by several factors including politics and taste.
The reception of Raphael’s art following his death in 1520 has been little
examined in comparison to the exhaustive research on the details of Raphael’s
life and the initial creation of his paintings. Yet, as a few recent scholars have
discovered, Raphael’s fortune is a fruitful area for study, since his fame engendered
numerous writings, as well as countless artworks produced in emulation of
Raphael’s originals. The way in which later biographers constructed a « myth » of
Raphael and, thereby, enhanced the artist’s fame was explored in the exhibition
Raffaello : elementi di un mito (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 1984),
and by David Alan Brown and Jane Van Nimmen in Raphael and the Beautiful
Banker : The Story of the Bindo Altoviti Portrait (2005)1. Jean-Pierre Cuzin, in the
exhibition Raphaël et l’art français (Paris, Louvre, 1983), considered the profound
impact of Raphael on French artists, whereas Martin Rosenberg investigated the
traditions of French academic theory and practice, which codified Raphael as the
supreme model for artistic imitation2.
1. Raffaello : elementi di un mito – Le fonti, la letteratura artistica, la pittura di genere storico, Florence, Biblioteca
Medicea Laurenziana, 1984, Florence, Centro Di, 1984 ; and David Alan Brown and Jane Van Nimmen, Raphael and
the Beautiful Banker : The Story of the Bindo Altoviti Portrait, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2005.
2. Jean-Pierre Cuzin, Raphaël et l’art français, exh. cat., Louvre, Paris, Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1983 ;
and Martin Rosenberg, Raphael and France : The Artist as Paradigm and Symbol, University Park, Penn., The
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
119
CATHLEEN HOENIGER
Although the recent reception studies have been inspired primarily by the
history of writing about Raphael and by later artistic emulation of Raphael’s
style, for this essay the primary evidence will be the fabric of the paintings
themselves. Arguably, this emphasis represents an unexpected choice since the
surface appearance and physical condition of Raphael’s paintings were practically
ignored by many writers up until the twentieth century. The textual tradition
held the authority and, consequently, numerous authors based their descriptions
of Raphael’s style on previous writings, or at most refreshed their knowledge
by examining a set of engravings after his paintings. Often Raphael’s art was
discussed in a rather abstract way within a tradition of treatises on art. These
literary analyses of Raphael floated above the original paintings, independent of
their physical circumstances, even though, as the years passed, the appearance of
the pictures was compromised by deterioration and restoration.
With the rise of state-administered art museums in the late-eighteenth
century, however, well-educated curators, who had Raphael’s paintings in their
care, began to write on the basis of visual examination of the physical fabric
of the works. In Paris at the Louvre, and subsequently at other European art
museums as well, curators worked in close proximity to the restorers who treated
damaged paintings by Raphael. Moreover, as the nineteenth century progressed,
a few influential art historians, including Johann David Passavant, wrote about
Raphael’s paintings on the basis of firsthand observation. Some of the most
acute early records of the fabric of Raphael’s paintings are the descriptions of
the Madonna di Foligno and the Transfiguration by French artists, curators and
restorers during the Napoleonic period.
During the First Campaign on the Italian peninsula in 1796-1797, and
subsequently in the course of the occupation of large parts of Italy by the French,
sixteen paintings by Raphael were forcibly taken as part of peace treaties forged
by Napoleon with conquered city-states3. Raphael’s monumental Madonna di
Foligno and Transfiguration were removed from their church altars to be sent
to Paris and exhibited there in a remarkably different setting at the Louvre
Museum. Both of these altarpieces had been officially given to the French when
Pius VI was compelled to sign the Treaty of Tolentino on February 19, 17974. The
commissioners appointed to work under Napoleon in selecting the requisitioned
works of art and supervising the packing and transport, carried out assessments
of the condition of the altarpieces in Foligno and Rome, before they were sent
to Paris.
When the commissioners arrived on February 24, 1797, to prepare Raphael’s
Madonna di Foligno for shipping, they discovered the painting, which had been
3. Marie-Louise Blumer, « La Commission pour la Recherche des Objets de Science et Arts en Italie (1796-1797) »,
La Révolution française 87 (1934), pp. 62-88, 124-150, 222-259 ; M.-L. Blumer, « Catalogue des peintures transportées
d’Italie en France de 1796 à 1814 », Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire de l’Art Français, 2 fasc., 1936, pp. 244-348 ;
Dorothy Mackay Quynn, « The Art Confiscations of the Napoleonic Wars », The American Historical Review, 50/3,
1945, pp. 437-460.
4. Napoleon’s general, François René Jean de Pommereul (1745-1823), wrote a vivid, personal account of the Italian
campaign, Campagne du Général Buonaparte en Italie. An English translation was published almost immediately :
Campaign of General Buonaparte in Italy, 1796-1797. By a General Officer. Trans. from French by T. E. Ritchie,
Edinburgh, G. Houston & Co. ; London, Crosby & Letterman, 1799. See, esp., pp. 85-87, 130-133, and 304-308.
120
THE FATE OF TWO ALTARPIECES BY RAPHAEL DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY IN EUROPE
on the high altar of the convent church of Sant’Anna in Foligno since 1565, was
in poor condition5. Because large areas of paint were lifting up and flaking off, the
experts initially suggested the altarpiece was too fragile to travel6. However, they
were persuaded to make the painting ready for the long journey, which they did
by brushing on glazes to glue-down temporarily the lifted paint. The altarpiece
was then crated and transported on a specially-designed cart, drawn by oxen,
over the Alps (fig. 3). Similarly, on May 9, 1797, after the Transfiguration had
been taken down from the altar in San Pietro in Montorio, Rome, the French
commissioners recorded that the painting was suffering from serious damage.
The support, for which Raphael had made the unusual choice of cherry wood,
was riddled with worm holes that penetrated up through the gesso into the paint
layers. According to the French, insects had mined the panel to such an extent
that a thick layer of sawdust covered the floor of the chapel7.
When the two altarpieces by Raphael finally arrived in Paris, after arduous
journeys that only exacerbated their precarious condition, alarm was expressed
by the administration at the Louvre over the damage to the paint surfaces. There
was chagrin that despite the great fame of these images, the paintings could not
be exhibited until their condition was stabilized. Since the expectation of the
public was that these symbolic trophies of French victory would be placed on
view as part of national celebrations, the urgent conservation needs had to be
resolved quickly.
Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Le Brun, an intelligent dealer, connoisseur and critic,
was the curator placed in charge of examining the pictures upon the arrival of
the carts, laden with art treasures, in the courtyard of the museum8. Le Brun took
control of the physical objects, by first making inventories as the art works were
unpacked, which included descriptions of the damage to valuable pictures, and
then coordinating the decision-making process involved in the restorations. For
example, Le Brun wrote a detailed report about the condition of the Madonna
di Foligno after it was taken out of its crate9. He described many areas of paint
loss, and other areas where loss was imminent because the paint was cupped
and blistering. The detachment of the paint surface was thought to stem from
the distortion to the thick poplar panel, which was bowed and severely cracked.
Le Brun believed the ultimate reason for what he termed the « dilapidated »
state of the painting was the high humidity in the Italian church. The damp and
5. Deoclecio Redig De Campos, « La Madonna di Foligno di Raffaello : Note sulla sua storia e i suoi restauri »,
Miscellanea Bibliothecae Hertzianae : zu Ehren von Leo Bruhns, Franz Graf, Wolff Metternich, Ludwig Schudt,
Römische Forschungen der Bibliotheca Hertziana, Bd. 16, Munich, Anton Schroll & Co., 1961, pp. 184-197, at 184186.
6. This information is reported in : Notice de Plusieurs Précieux Tableaux, recueillis à Venise, Florence, Turin et
Foligno, et autres Tableaux nouvellement restaurés, Exposés dans le grand Salon du Musée, ouvert le 18 Ventôse an X,
Paris, L’Imprimerie des Sciences et Arts, 1802, p. 49.
7. Cecil Gould, Trophy of Conquest : The Musée Napoléon and the Creation of the Louvre, London, Faber and Faber,
1965, p. 67 ; and M. Rosenberg, « Raphael’s Transfiguration and Napoleon’s Cultural Politics », Eighteenth-Century
Studies, 19/2, Winter 1985-1986, pp. 180-205, at 193.
8. Gilberte Émile-Mâle, « Jean-Baptiste Pierre Lebrun (1748-1813) : Son rôle dans l’histoire de la restauration des
tableaux du Louvre », Mémoires de Paris et Île-de-France, 8, 1956, pp. 371-417 ; and G. Émile-Mâle, « La Transfiguration
de Raphaël », Atti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia. Rendiconti, 33, 1961, pp. 225-236, at 226-228.
9. The report by Le Brun of 2 August 1798 (Archives des Musées Nationaux) is transcribed in full by G. Émile-Mâle,
« Appendix », in D. Redig De Campos, op. cit. note 5, pp. 194-197, at p. 195.
121
CATHLEEN HOENIGER
uncontrolled environment had caused the panel to warp, encouraged the growth
of mould, and attracted the vermin that had mined the panel with worm holes10.
When Le Brun asserted that the « precious picture would have perished
had it not been sent to France », he was setting the tone for many official
statements to follow, in which the French claimed their confiscation was a form
of rescue work11. In a number of politically-motivated documents, it was argued
that the Italians were ignorant of the value of their own artistic tradition, as
shown by the poor state in which they kept their historic works. By contrast,
these precious objects would be very carefully preserved in Paris. Arguments of
this kind permeated the exhibition catalogues for the newly arrived paintings,
and were particularly overt in the important report of 1801 on the restoration
of the Madonna di Foligno, in which proud statements were made about Italian
paintings being brought back from the brink of death by the enlightened and
scientifically-advanced administration at the Louvre.
Because of the dangerous condition of the paint surface of Raphael’s
Madonna di Foligno, Le Brun, together with the body of experts at the Louvre
known as the Administrative Council, became convinced that the only way to
save the altarpiece was to transfer the paint layers to a new support. Although
Le Brun initially favoured the idea of a new wooden panel, finally it was agreed
that a transfer to a canvas with a new ground would protect the painting most
from future problems due to environmental conditions. By February of 1800, the
documents reveal that a further committee of outside experts has been appointed
to follow and assess the process of the restoration in consultation with Le Brun12.
This is a very important, early example of a committee being established to report
upon a restoration. Significantly, the committee was interdisciplinary, since the
members were two chemists, Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau and ClaudeLouis Berthollet, and two painters, François-André Vincent and Nicolas-Antoine
Taunay. One reason for the participation of the chemists was to encourage
restorers to adopt the materials newly developed as a result of scientific research.
In addition, the transfer process was considered to be a method allied to both the
mechanical arts and the sciences.
Prior to the transfer of the Madonna di Foligno, the supervisory committee
of chemists and painters had met with Le Brun on February 24, 1800, in the Grande
Galerie of the museum, to examine and discuss the condition of the painting. Le
Brun described the advanced state of decay, and then the group removed to the
restoration laboratory, where the structural expert François-Toussaint Hacquin
provided an introduction to his method using the case he was presently tackling :
Titian’s Martyrdom of St. Peter the Dominican. Titian’s altarpiece had been very
badly damaged during the transport by ship from Venice to Marseille, when the
crate carrying the painting was soaked by water in a storm at sea13. Subsequently,
the committee members watched over a period of twenty months, from 8 May
10. Notice de Plusieurs Précieux Tableaux, 1802, pp. iii and 49, 50.
11. G. Émile-Mâle, op. cit. note 9, p. 195.
12. G. Émile-Mâle, op. cit. note 9, p. 195 ; and Notice de Plusieurs Précieux Tableaux, 1802, p. 50.
13. On the fate of Titian’s masterpiece, see : Notice de Plusieurs Précieux Tableaux, 1802, p. 70.
122
THE FATE OF TWO ALTARPIECES BY RAPHAEL DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY IN EUROPE
1800 until 21 December 1801, as Hacquin carried out the laborious transfer of the
Madonna di Foligno, and Mathias Bartholomäus Roeser executed the repainting
of surface14. Their report was first made public when it was read over the course
of two evenings, on the 22 and 24 December 1801, at the meetings of the Institut
National des Sciences et Arts15.
The report is organized in two parts relating to the structural treatment
and the surface cleaning and retouching of the altarpiece. The first half, which
was written by the two chemists, provides a description of the condition of the
altarpiece upon its arrival in Paris, and a detailed account of the transfer method
used by François-Toussaint Hacquin. Hacquin was a renowned structural
restorer in Paris in the period 1794-1815. Only those aspects of the report that
are most relevant to the later response by critics will be considered here. First
of all, however, it is necessary to understand that there were two techniques in
current use for transferring paint layers from a deteriorating wood panel to a
new support. One involved the destruction of the wood panel and the other,
at least in theory, enabled the removal of the paint layers without destroying
the support. The second method had been practiced by Robert Picault in Paris
beginning in the 1740s, most notably on Andrea del Sarto’s Charity and Raphael’s
St. Michael Vanquishing Satan. A steam made of nitric acid was directed at the
sides and back of the wood, in order to soften the gesso and thereby release the
paint layers from the original ground. This procedure proved dangerous because
the chemicals damaged acid-sensitive colours in the paint layers16. Marie-Jacob
Van Merle, another Parisian transfer expert, practiced a similar method using
only water vapour and the results proved more favourable. Nevertheless, the
mechanical technique, employed by Jean-Louis Hacquin, the father of FrançoisToussaint Hacquin, ultimately became the classical method of painting transfer.
It was considered a more easily understandable method, and certainly, if well
executed, it was less damaging. The panel was destroyed from the back by using a
plane to thin down the wood until the ground and the paint layers were revealed.
In the instance of the Madonna di Foligno, the part of the transfer that will
be discussed took place after the wood panel had been totally removed from the
back of the painting, to expose the old gesso and Raphael’s paint layers beneath.
The chemists described how Hacquin gradually thinned down the gesso and glue
ground, and that, under the transparent veil of remaining gesso, « the preliminary
sketch by Raphael was entirely revealed17 ». This was Raphael’s « underdrawing »,
which he executed on top of the white gesso preparation, in order to provide a
14. D. Redig De Campos, op. cit. note 5, p. 189, and G. Émile-Mâle, « Appendix », op. cit. note 5, p. 196.
15. The 1801 report – « Rapport à l’Institut National sur la restauration du Tableau de Raphaël connu sous le nom
de La Vierge de Foligno, par les citoyens Guyton, Vincent, Taunay et Berthollet » – was published in : Mémoires
de l’Institut national des sciences et arts – Littérature et beaux-arts, Tome 5, Paris, An. XII, 1803, pp. 444-456. A
reduced version appeared in the exhibition catalogue : Notice de Plusieurs Précieux Tableaux, 1802, pp. 49-58. Volker
Schaible, « Die Gemäldeübertragung : Studien zur Geschichte einer “klassischen Restauriermethode” », Maltechnik
– Restauro, 2/ 89, April 1983, pp. 96-129, at 105, discusses the pivotal nature of the 1801 report.
16. Anon., « Beaux Arts : Tableaux du Roi, placés dans le Palais du Luxembourg », Mercure de France, Décembre,
1750, n. 1, pp. 146-151 ; and G. Émile-Mâle, « La première transposition au Louvre en 1750 : La Charité d’Andrea del
Sarto », Revue du Louvre et des Musées de France, 3, 1982, pp. 223-230, with technical analysis by Jean Petit, whose
report is quoted in notes 31 and 32.
17. « Rapport … sur la restauration du Tableau de Raphaël », op. cit. note 15, p. 450.
123
CATHLEEN HOENIGER
full-scale outline prior to the application of the paint. Although the revelation
is remarked upon as if it was a real discovery, the report does not say anything
about the style of the sketch or its degree of detail.
Yet, a description of the underdrawing was left by the engraver, le Baron
Boucher-Desnoyers, who was among those permitted to observe Hacquin’s
transfer. This eye-witness account provides exciting evidence of how the
procedure was viewed by those present. Boucher-Desnoyer relates how he had
the pleasure of seeing Raphael’s « great picture » after the wood support had
been completely removed, lying face-down on a table. The back of the paint
layers appeared to be covered with « a thin white film », through which « the
outlines of the figures drawn with a brush » could be seen. He noted a pentimento
where the position of St. Jerome’s right hand had been changed18. It is clear from
Boucher-Desnoyer’s relation that those in attendance were very interested in
the evidence of Raphael’s creative process revealed by the underdrawing, which
showed Raphael experimenting with two positions for St. Jerome’s hand, and
then choosing one over the other for the final painting. The committee’s 1801
report affirms that Hacquin preserved just enough of the old gesso ground to
save the underdrawing during the transfer of the painting to canvas19.
The shorter, second part of the report, written by the Parisian painters on
the committee, described the « restauration pittoresque » performed by Mathias
Roeser. Roeser, a landscape painter from Heidelberg, received many restoration
commissions from the Louvre20. As the two committee experts explain, what was
expected from the « talented » Roeser was seamless compensation for loss : « the
most scrupulous care must be taken so that only the damaged areas are covered
[...] and extraordinary attention paid to harmonize [« accorder »] the restoration
work with that of the master [...] and to make the intervention disappear to the
point that the eye [...] cannot distinguish the hand of the artist-restorer from that
of the master21 ». This approach to fully integrated retouching was widespread in
the late eighteenth and early-nineteenth century. Indeed, the Brussels restorer
Frédéric Dumesnil had proudly explained that pictures left his studio looking as
if they had just been finished by the original artist, with « a freshness preferable
to the best varnish22 ». The desire to return Raphael’s paintings to what was
supposed to be their original aspect, by repainting and blending in areas of loss,
came from the conviction that Raphael’s intentions could be recaptured, and that
losses would mar the appreciation of his work.
The next section of this essay will consider the response of viewers to
Raphael’s altarpieces following the Paris restorations. As will be shown, the
impressions of learned spectators both during the exhibitions at the Louvre and
18. Boucher-Desnoyer’s account was published in the appendix to : Antoine-Chrysostome Quatremère de Quincy,
Histoire de la vie et des ouvrages de Raphaël, Paris, Librairie de Charles Gosselin, 1824, p. 44.
19. « Rapport… », op. cit. note 15, p. 450 : « enfin l’ébauche de Raphaël a été découverte entièrement et laissée
intacte. »
20. G. Émile-Mâle, op. cit. note 9, p. 197, n. 54.
21. « Rapport… », op. cit. note 15, p. 453.
22. « Peinture : Lettre écrite de Bruxelles sur le secret de transporter les tableaux sur de nouveaux fonds, & de
les réparer », Mercure de France, Jan. 1756, vol. 2, pp. 174-185, at 185 ; and Roger H. Marijnissen, Dégradation,
conservation et restauration de l’œuvre d’art, Brussels, Arcade, 1967, pp. 41, 42.
124
THE FATE OF TWO ALTARPIECES BY RAPHAEL DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY IN EUROPE
after the return of the paintings to Italy were influenced by subjective factors,
including political feelings. It would have been impossible to ignore the political
meaning of the hanging of Raphael’s paintings in the new exhibition rooms at
the Louvre since the French victories in Italy underlay the display of the Italian
pictures from the outset. The loot had been brought into Paris with great fanfare.
Indeed, a triumphal procession of chariots modelled on the practice of ancient
emperors was organized to escort the third convoy into the city on July 27, 1798
(fig. 4)23. Moreover, in the catalogues issued when each gallery was opened,
nationalistic rhetoric was completely overt. In the catalogue of the ancient
sculptures published for the official opening of November 9, 1800, the confiscated
pieces were described as the « glorious trophies of victory24 ».
The symbolism surrounding Raphael’s confiscated paintings also can be
gleaned from the way they were displayed. The first, temporary show of the
paintings from Italy began on November 8, 1798, and was curated by Hubert
Robert. Two of the newly-arrived pictures, the early Coronation of the Virgin
and the famous Transfiguration, were hung in the Salon Carré of the Louvre
alongside the Raphaels from the French royal collection. The intermingling of
the confiscated works with pictures that had been in the royal collection for
centuries was done with the art-historical goal of illustrating the development
of Raphael’s genius through a chronology of his paintings25. Under Napoleonic
rule, the new director of the Louvre, Dominique-Vivant Denon, organized two
separate hangings of the Italian pictures over the course of a decade. At the
beginning of his directorship, an exhibition was opened in the Grande Galerie
in July 1803, in which both the aesthetics of taste and the desire to feature the
new acquisitions determined the arrangements. In a sequence of three bays in
the gallery, Italian Renaissance and Baroque pictures were placed in groupings
on the basis of art-historical importance, size and appearance. For instance,
as Denon explained in print, it was his intention in the first bay, by placing
Raphael’s Transfiguration at the centre and smaller, earlier works around it, to
convey the rich and multi-faceted nature of Raphael’s development, from his
early years under the influence of Perugino to the full maturity of his Roman
manner (fig. 5)26. The configuration of the second bay, which featured the
Madonna di Foligno, surrounded by smaller works by Raphael, Giulio Romano
and several Italian Baroque masters, seems to have arisen from the necessity
of including the most important paintings. Similarly, in the third bay, a group
of masterpieces from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was attractively
23. C. Gould, op. cit. note 7, pp. 62-66.
24. Notice des statues, bustes et bas-reliefs, de la galerie des Antiques du Musée, ouverte pour la première fois le 18
Brumaire an 9, Paris, L’Imprimerie de L.-P. Dubray, Imprimeur du Musée, 1814, p. II.
25. Notice des principaux tableaux recueillis en Italie par les Commissaires du Gouvernement Français. Seconde partie
comprenant ceux de l’État de Venise et de Rome dont l’exposition provisoire aura lieu dans le grand Salon du Museum
… à compter au 18 Brumaire An. VII, n. 70, Paris, p. 68. See also : L. de Lanzac de Laborie, Paris sous Napoléon :
Spectacles et Musées, vol. 8, Paris, Librairie Plon, 1913, p. 250 ; and M. Rosenberg, op. cit. note 2, p. 150 ff.
26. Dominique-Vivant Denon, « Notice relative à l’exposition du tableau de la Transfiguration », Moniteur universel,
3 Janvier 1803. See also : G. Émile-Mâle, « La Transfiguration », op. cit. note 8, p. 233 ; and Geneviève Bresc-Bautier,
« Dominique-Vivant Denon, premier directeur du Louvre », in Dominique-Vivant Denon : L’œil de Napoléon, éd.
Pierre Rosenberg and Marie-Anne Dupuy, Paris, Réunions des Musées Nationaux, 1999, p. 145.
125
CATHLEEN HOENIGER
organized27. These exhibits were only on view for two years, however, since the
gallery was closed for renovations from 1805-1810.
When the gallery was re-opened, viewers experienced a new hanging by
Denon, prepared for the festive occasion of Napoleon’s marriage to MarieLouise of Austria (fig. 6). Denon placed the Transfiguration as the central focus
of the entire Italian Gallery in order to forefront the most famous Napoleonic
acquisition. Thus, when pictures by Raphael which had been taken by Napoleon
were placed on view at the Louvre, French nationalism always lay just below the
surface. However, the politics of victory evidently were most obvious in the final
hanging of 1810.
Whether viewers appreciated the manner in which Raphael’s paintings
were exhibited would have depended, needless to say, upon individual taste,
education and understanding. Friedrich Schlegel, whose education in art had
been under Johann Jacob Winckelmann in Dresden, responded to Denon’s cues
when he viewed the first hanging in 1803. In Schlegel’s Ansichten und Ideen von
der christlichen Kunst, which was inspired by his experience at the Louvre, he
reiterated Raphael’s development from the uncertainty of his youthful manner to
the « great artistic spirit » evident in the Transfiguration. Schlegel acknowledges
that the Transfiguration is the « object of universal admiration », and muses that
such praise has resulted from the painting being so avant-garde that it appeals
to the artists of the present. Significantly, however, Schlegel is not pleased by the
way the altarpiece has been hung because one is not able to observe it from a
sufficient distance to take in the entire effect, and the lighting produces reflections
on the surface which detract from its appreciation28.
From the outset in Paris, the exhibition of Raphael’s Roman altarpieces
was also connected to their preservation. By way of an apology for the delay
in hanging some of the pictures, the Louvre administration had announced
publicly in the prefatory remarks to exhibition catalogues that several of the
Italian treasures had to be restored immediately upon their arrival because their
condition was perilous29. Moreover, descriptions of the damage were included
in some of the catalogue entries. In the case of the Madonna di Foligno, the
catalogue of 1802 incorporated both comments on the tenuous condition and
the 1801 restoration report30. Thus, the restorations carried out on Raphael’s
Madonna di Foligno and Transfiguration were presented as pre-requisite to the
display of the images in the new galleries at the Louvre. With nationalistic verve,
it was also stressed that paintings, which had been neglected to an extreme degree
27. Andrew McClellan, « Raphael’s Foligno Madonna at the Louvre in 1800 : Restoration and Reaction at the
Dawn of the Museum Age, Art Journal, (Summer 1995), pp. 80-85 ; and A. McClellan, Inventing the Louvre : Art,
Politics, and the Origins of the Modern Museum in Eighteenth-Century Paris, Cambridge and New York, Cambridge
University Press, 1994, pp. 137-145.
28. Federico Schlegel, Pagine su Raffaello, ed. Rosario Assunto, trans. Ursula Vogt, Urbino, Accademia Raffaello,
1973, pp. 16-24.
29. For example : Musée Central des Arts, Notice des tableaux des écoles françaises et flamande, exposées dans
la Grande Galerie, dont l’ouverture a eu lieu le 18 germinal an VII [7 April, 1799] ; et des tableaux des écoles de
Lombardie et de Bologne, dont l’exposition a eu lieu le 25 messidor an IX [14 July, 1801], 1801, p. I.
30. Notice de Plusieurs Précieux Tableaux, 1802, pp. iii, and 49, 50.
126
THE FATE OF TWO ALTARPIECES BY RAPHAEL DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY IN EUROPE
in Italy, were now being treated with the knowledge and equipment appertaining
to modern science and technology. Many, but not all were convinced.
Several commentators did believe the Italian pictures had benefited from
the advanced restoration methods in Paris. However, others were critical of the
scope of the interventions and of the precarious methods employed. Although
few Frenchmen expressed strong hesitations about practices at the Louvre during
the Napoleonic years, art historians from other countries were more eager to
venture negative or, at the least, mixed opinions about the new physical structure
and appearance of the paintings. At the same time, some visitors to the gallery
had cause to wonder whether the benefits of the new, modern environment
outweighed the loss of original context. Raphael’s altarpieces had been dislodged
from Catholic chapels where they had functioned primarily as vehicles for
devotion. Now they were to be admired within a non-religious context, designed
for the preservation, exhibition, and study of historical art works.
As suggested above, the political connotations of the Italian exhibitions
at the Louvre could not have escaped notice, and, as a result, political leanings
influenced the way Raphael’s paintings were received. For many Parisians,
national pride aroused by the evocation of imperial might seems to have
overwhelmed objectivity. Nevertheless, one prominent Frenchman who voiced
his strong disagreement with the pillaging was Quatremère de Quincy, secretary
of the Bureau of Fine Arts in Paris, who bemoaned the separation of works of
art from their original settings. Quatremère was a disciple of Winckelmann, and
like his mentor believed in the ethos of the Grand Tour, and that Italian art must
be studied in Italy. In a sequence of published letters, Quatremère argued that
works of art could only be fully understood when studied in the location for
which they had been created31.
Napoleon’s fall from power in 1814 was followed by claims from countries
whose works had been taken for their immediate return, claims that were
initiated by the Pope himself32. The countries who had suffered joined forces to
press their cause and, as a result of the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Louis XVIII
was compelled to give back the majority of the confiscated art works. Two
thousand, six hundred and five paintings were returned. In many instances, when
the paintings were returned to the Italian states, experts were poised to scrutinize
them. Often the result was another round of restoration activity. Sometimes
the Italians de-restored the pictures to remove the work done in Paris. For
instance, when Raphael’s St. Cecilia Altarpiece was returned to Bologna, the
repainting added in Paris was cleaned off the picture33. In other instances, they
treated damage incurred during the journey back into Italy, which was long and
31. Antoine-Chrysostome Quatremère de Quincy, « Lettres sur le project d’enlever les monuments de l’Italie »,
[originally published in Paris, 1796] in Considérations morales sur la destination des ouvrages de l’art (1815), Paris,
Fayard, 1989, especially : Fifth Letter to General Miranda, p. 225.
32. C. Gould, op. cit. note 7, p. 116.
33. Johann David Passavant, Raphaël d’Urbin et son père Giovanni Santi, rev. edn., ed. Paul Lacroix, trans. Jules
Lunteschutz, 2 vols., Paris, Victor-Jules Renouard, 1860, v. 2, p. 149 ; and Raffaella Rossi Manaresi, « A Technical
Examination of Raphael’s Saint Cecelia with Reference to the Transfiguration and the Madonna di Foligno », in
The Princeton Raphael Symposium, eds. J. Shearman and M.B. Hall, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1990,
pp. 125-134.
127
CATHLEEN HOENIGER
potentially hazardous. Paintings on canvas, including the transferred Madonna di
Foligno, had to be rolled up to be carted across the Alps, and some alterations to
the paint surface must have resulted34. Italian experts also restored the pictures
in an attempt to respond to the French criticism that they did not care for their
masterpieces.
Nevertheless, the most negative responses seem not to have come from the
Italian curators and restorers, who were, on the whole, appreciative of the work
done in Paris and benign in their criticism. The most acerbic criticism came from
some English and German voices. Bitterness due to the predatory behaviour of
the French all over the European continent in part explains the severity of the
critiques, though it does not help us to understand why the Italians were less
critical than the English and the Germans. For instance, one of the most strongly
worded objections came from Henry Fuseli, the English painter well known for
his rendition of Shakespearean subjects. Fuseli believed the cleaning in Paris had
removed the precious « patina » from Raphael’s Transfiguration – the « patina »
being understood to be a film that formed with age on the surface of the painting
and that was associated with the rich golden tones appreciated in seasoned oil
paintings. Fuseli also complained that the appearance of Christ’s face had been
changed and that Christ now looked even worse than in the engraving by Nicolas
Dorigny. This change he attributed to the ineptness of the Parisian restorers, who
he derided with religious language – « the sacrilegious hands of the restorers » –
in order to emphasize their lack of sympathy with Raphael’s vision35.
The criticism by Fuseli and others of the Paris work on the Transfiguration
can be explained to have resulted in part from political hostility in the wake
of the Napoleonic period, but also from the enormous reverence in which the
painting was held. Virtually every writer had furthered Vasari’s belief that the
Transfiguration represented the supreme achievement of Raphael’s final years36.
The important Neo-Classical artist and theorist, Anton Raphael Mengs, asserted
in his treatise on artistic style of 1762 that Raphael had surpassed all other
modern painters because of his ideal of beauty. According to Mengs, this ideal
was epitomized by the Transfiguration, which was Raphael’s most perfect work,
both in its compositional form and because the artist had explored most fully the
oil medium in creating the sophisticated colouring of the painting37. Mengs had
been able to admire the painting in its chapel in San Pietro in Montorio during
many years spent in the Eternal City. Another eighteenth-century writer, Johann
Rudolph Füßly, argued the Transfiguration was not just Raphael’s best work but,
34. D. Redig De Campos, op. cit. note 5, p. 189.
35. Henry Fuseli, The Life and Writings of Henry Fuseli, ed. John Knowles, 3 vols., London, H. Colburn and
R. Bentley, 1831, v. 3, p. 268. Fuseli was the first English translator of Winckelmann’s Reflections on the Imitation of
Greek Works in Painting and Sculpture, in which Raphael was discussed at length.
36. One exception was Winckelmann, who held that a large part of the Transfiguration had been painted by Giulio
Romano, because the complexity of the design and execution did not accord with his idealistic interpretation of
Raphael’s art. See : M. Rosenberg, op. cit. note 2, p. 121.
37. On the beauty of Raphael’s art : Anton Raphael Mengs, Three Great Painters, part 1, chapter 2, p. 137, and
Reflections upon Beauty and Taste in Painting, part 2, chapter 5, pp. 32-39, in vol. 1 of : The works of Anthony Raphael
Mengs, first painter to his Catholic Majesty Charles III, trans. from Italian, ed. Chevalier Don Joseph Nicholas
d’Azara, 2 vols., London, R. Foulder and R.G. Grand J. Robinson, 1796. On the Transfiguration : Mengs, Three Great
Painters, part 1, chapter 2, p. 146 ; part 2, chapter 2, pp. 153, 154 ; part 2, chapter 3, pp. 158, 159.
128
THE FATE OF TWO ALTARPIECES BY RAPHAEL DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY IN EUROPE
in fact, the masterpiece of all modern painting38. Among the German Romantics,
both Ludwig Tieck and the poet Wilhelm Heinrich Wackenroder spoke of the
enrapturing effect of the painting on the viewer39. Karl Morgenstern, whose
treatise on Raphael’s fame was published in 1822, described the Transfiguration
as the Laocoön of painting and thereby elevated Raphael’s last work to the
greatest height within the classically-based German aesthetic tradition40. Finally,
Goethe, who had spent time in Rome in 1788-1790, was swept away by the
Transfiguration, which he admired for the perfect unity within a composition of
great complexity41.
Because the artistic details of Raphael’s last altarpiece had been described
in elevated terms on numerous occasions, suspicion naturally surrounded the
restoration of the painting in Paris, under the auspices of the government that
had sanctioned its removal from Rome. Not surprisingly, therefore, negative
commentary followed its sojourn at the Louvre, including Fuseli’s direct attack
on the « sacrilegious », or grossly insensitive, approach of the French. There is,
however, considerable irony in the negative reaction, since the French actually
had been sensitive to the revered stature of the Transfiguration42. This altarpiece
was handled with the greatest deference and restraint in Paris.
In Rome in May 1797, the altarpiece had been carefully examined by
the commissioners working under Napoleon. As mentioned above, before the
Transfiguration was shipped, the commissioners documented that the wooden
support was undermined by numerous, deep worm channels. In turn, when the
Transfiguration was removed from its crate in Paris, Le Brun wrote a careful
description of its condition43. What kind of treatment should be attempted on
the wood support was debated over the course of three-and-a-half years, from
October 1798 to March 1802, by Le Brun and the Administrative Council. During
these years, the painting was sent to the restoration laboratory of the Louvre on
at least two occasions, so that areas of flaking paint could be fixed down. The
administrators considered a sequence of increasingly invasive treatments, with
the understanding that the decision would depend on the on-going assessment of
the stability of the panel. It was proposed to cradle the panel in order to prevent
further warping ; to thin the panel down by one centimetre to remove many
of the worm holes ; or, most radical of all, to transfer the paint layers to a new
canvas support. However, in the end, only a relatively conservative treatment
was permitted. In March 1802, without thinning down the wood at all, Hacquin
38. This point of view, which Füßly shared with many contemporaries, can be found in his Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon,
published in Zurich in 1779. Manfred Ebhardt, Die Deutung der Werke Raffaels in der Deutschen Kunstliterateur von
Klassizismus und Romantik, Baden-Baden, Verlag Valentin Koerner, 1972, pp. 55, 56, and 132.
39. Ludwig Tieck, « Franz Sternbalds Wanderungen », Berlin, 1843, in Ludwig Tiecks Schriften, Bd. XVI ; M. Ebhardt,
op. cit. note 38, pp. 94 and 131.
40. Karl Morgenstern, Über Rafael Sanzio’s Verklärung, Dorpat and Leipzig, 1822 ; M. Ebhardt, op. cit. note 38,
p. 131.
41. The reference is to a passage in Goethe’s « Italienische Reise » of 1813. M. Ebhardt, op. cit. note 38, p. 65. See
also : Konrad Oberhuber, Raphaels « Transfiguration » : Stil und Bedeutung, Stuttgart, Urachhaus, 1982 ; and Gregor
Bernhart-Königstein, Raffaels Weltverklärung : Das berühmteste Gemälde der Welt, Petersberg, Imhof, 2007.
42. On the stature of the Transfiguration in France, see : M. Rosenberg, Raphael and France, op. cit. note 2, pp. 153164.
43. G. Émile-Mâle, « La Transfiguration », op. cit. note 8, pp. 227-229, who quotes the report in full.
129
CATHLEEN HOENIGER
applied four metal bars to the back to stabilize the panel44. Hacquin’s associate,
Roeser, was allowed to carry out limited restorations to the pictorial surface,
which involved cleaning away old varnish, replacing old gesso fills with new
materials, and applying a fresh varnish layer45.
Therefore, the administration at the Louvre showed great restraint when
presented with the condition problems of the painting held to be Raphael’s most
richly developed. The scrupulous care that was taken is revealed by the lengthy
descriptions of the state of the painting in the documents and by the on-going
deliberations. As Le Brun and his colleagues watched and waited, venturing what
seem to have been only tentative proposals, their hesitancy proved fortuitous.
The condition remained relatively stable for over three years with the exception
of small areas of flaking paint, and the administrators decided the cherrywood support was strong enough to withhold the test of time, at least for the
immediate future. After the Transfiguration was returned to Rome in 1815, the
Inspector for Public Pictures, Vincenzo Camuccini, scrutinized the painting as
part of an assessment of many recovered works, and confirmed, in a manner
remarkably free from spite, that the altarpiece was in good condition despite
the journey. Camuccini limited his own treatment to an application of varnish46.
Half a century later, according to an analysis carried out by professors from the
Accademia di San Luca in 1864, the Transfiguration continued to be in fine order
and no restoration was deemed necessary47. Evidently, when certain non-French
art historians and writers chose to fault the Parisians for the supposedly changed
appearance of Raphael’s Transfiguration, their negative views were not based on
a careful evaluation of the facts.
Criticism also followed the return of the Madonna di Foligno to
Italy. Influential commentators again seem to have jumped to unsupported
conclusions. Problems arose when art historians, who had not witnessed the
actual restoration, allowed their own taste rather than the written documentation
to govern interpretations. In addition, sections of the 1801 report seem to have
been deliberately distorted by unsympathetic critics.
In the second part of the report, concerning the pictorial restoration, the
French painters on the supervisory committee had expressed satisfaction with
the cleaning and retouching accomplished by Mathias Roeser. However, they had
also, with some hesitation, mentioned two anomalies detected on close scrutiny.
After the cleaning of the old varnish, the painters had noticed « with surprise »
that an area of the blue drapery covering the Virgin’s left knee did not match
perfectly with the rest. They suggested that during a previous restoration in Italy
the glazing layers had been lost, resulting in a tonal change to the surface. More
44. Redig De Campos confirmed that the original panel support of the Transfiguration was intact when the
painting was conserved at the Vatican under Dr. Fabrizio Mancinelli. See : D. Redig De Campos, « Restauro della
“Trasfigurazione” di Raffaello : Nota sulla sua autografia », in Sodalizio tra studiosi dell’arte, 5, 1975-1976, pp. 173-175 ;
and Nazzareno Gabrielli, « Gabinetto di Ricerche Scientifiche : Pitture : Raffaello, La Trasfigurazione », Bollettino :
Monumenti, Musei et Gallerie Pontificie, 2, 1981, pp. 117, 118. Mancinelli praised the French restoration work in : A
Masterpiece Close-Up : The Transfiguration by Raphael, Vatican City : Monumenti Musei e Gallerie Pontificie, 1979.
45. G. Émile-Mâle, « La Transfiguration », op. cit. note 8, pp. 231, 232.
46. G. Émile-Mâle, « La Transfiguration », op. cit. note 8, pp. 234, 235.
47. G. Émile-Mâle, « La Transfiguration », op. cit. note 8, pp. 235.
130
THE FATE OF TWO ALTARPIECES BY RAPHAEL DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY IN EUROPE
important still, Vincent and Taunay had expressed dismay over their discovery
that the head of St. Francis exhibited colouristic and textural qualities different
from the rest of the painting. Indeed, they were very close to questioning whether
the head had been painted by Raphael himself48.
The French experts explained that these reservations were being made
public to prevent « the doubts which may arise among viewers and lead some
to imagine that the [recent] restoration has altered [Raphael’s original]49 ». The
committee stressed that these inconsistencies had been observed when the
altarpiece first arrived from Italy. In addition, during Hacquin’s transfer procedure,
when the committee members were able to see Raphael’s underdrawing just
beneath the gesso, Vincent and Taunay had already remarked that « the character
of the drawing » for the head of St. Francis was very different from the rest of the
sketch50.
Early in the 1801 report, moreover, it will be remembered that Vincent
and Taunay had praised the pictorial restorer Roeser, and also explained that
the objective was seamless compensation for loss. For this carefully supervised
restoration, the administration and the restorer had shared in the desire to return
Raphael’s painting to what they supposed was its original aspect through the
repainting of losses. In the century that followed, however, the report helped to
fuel controversy because it emphasized Roeser’s skill in the invisible repainting
of Raphael’s altarpiece, and drew attention to the incongruity of the head of St.
Francis. Although Vincent and Taunay had asserted that the face of St. Francis
was seen to be anomalous prior to the restoration, nevertheless, later critics
charged the Parisians with having taken excessive liberty with a Raphael.
Indeed, in the German literature, the restorer Roeser, even though he was
of German origin, was accused of making changes to the painting, for instance by
Johann David Passavant. Passavant was one of the earliest scholars of Raphael
to show great interest in the condition of his pictures. Passavant was familiar
with both the 1801 report and the description by Boucher-Desnoyers of the
underdrawing, which are re-printed in the most complete edition of his Raphael
monograph, published in Paris in 1860. When he came to discuss the Madonna
di Foligno, Passavant ventured some criticism, both of Raphael himself and of
the Paris restoration. When Passavant comments that Raphael’s Virgin is « less a
mother of God than a gracious woman » and that the pose of the Christ Child is
too contrived, he is following a tradition of criticism begun by the Neo-Classicists,
Winckelmann and Mengs, as will be explained below. However, Passavant was
clearly pointing his finger at the Parisian restorer when he observed : « [the] figure
of John the Baptist lacks grandeur, and the arms of this figure are so defective,
that one is led to imagine the design was ruined by the restoration51 ».
The discussion of problematic areas in the altarpiece was later taken up
by Oskar Fischel, in the monograph on Raphael left incomplete upon Fischel’s
48. « Rapport… », op. cit. note 15, p. 454.
49. « Rapport… », op. cit. note 15, pp. 454, 455.
50. « Rapport… », op. cit. note 15, 1803, p. 455.
51. J. D. Passavant, op. cit. note 33, v. 2, pp. 110, 111.
131
CATHLEEN HOENIGER
death in 1939 but brought to press in 1948. Fischel described the head of John the
Baptist as « foreign to Raphael’s world » ; in other words, not by Raphael’s hand.
Furthermore, Fischel accused the Paris restorer of having « falsified » the painting
« in its colouring and the expression of many of the heads ». Fischel emphasized
three changes which he believed were made in Paris : the light effects in the
Virgin’s halo were spoiled ; John the Baptist’s sheepskin was transformed into a
« lifeless, thick brown mass » ; and the facial appearance of St. Francis was altered.
Despite the cautionary words of Vincent and Taunay in the 1801 report, Fischel
believed the Paris restorer had changed St. Francis by giving him : « [an] ecstatic
expression, baroque in its nervousness52 ». Fischel described the emotional
appearance of the saint as quasi-baroque and, therefore, out of sympathy with
Raphael’s maniera.
Reliable evidence of what, in fact, had been done in Paris was assembled
during an examination of the picture at the Vatican in 1957-1958. The restorers
discovered that Hacquin’s transfer was still holding very well. The canvas was
perfectly preserved and the paint layers were not lifting or flaking except in two
small areas53. Once the discoloured varnish had been cleaned off, evidence of
the pictorial restoration carried out at the Louvre was revealed. The Vatican
restorers reported that the painting had been too « energetically » cleaned in
Paris, resulting in the loss of some of the original glazes. These original effects
had been replaced by Roeser with a toned surface coating typical for the day and
composed of an artificial patina mixed with a varnish. In limited areas of paint
loss, the Parisian restorer had over-compensated by making fills and repainting
areas that were, on average, three times as large as the losses. The Vatican curator,
Deoclecio Redig de Campos, commented that Roeser, « as was the custom of past
restorers », allowed his compensation to overlap onto the original paint, in an
effort to « render his restoration work indistinguishable » from the undamaged
surface of Raphael’s painting54. Nevertheless, as the Vatican experts openly
volunteered, no aesthetic alterations had been made to the figure of St. Francis.
Hence, the influential art historians Passavant and Fischel were misguided
when they asserted that passages in the Madonna di Foligno were foreign to
Raphael’s style and had been added in Paris. Their discomfort arose to some
extent from the enduring prejudice against everything associated with the
Napoleonic confiscations. However, other subjective factors involving bias and
taste led to their apparently deliberate misreading of the 1801 report.
Passavant and Fischel were misled principally by a specific taste for
Raphael that was embedded in the German language literature, a taste inclined
towards the most classical elements of Raphael’s style. Art historians from
the time of Vasari believed Raphael had achieved a manner which was the
most classical among the moderns, and compared his works to ancient art and
literature. Raphael’s protagonists were often interpreted by Italian writers as
52. Oskar Fischel, Raphael, trans. Bernard Rackham, London, Spring Books, first edn. 1948 ; reprinted 1964, pp. 134,
135.
53. Luigi Brandi, Protocollo 3658, Laboratorio di Restauro, Musei Vaticani.
54. D. Redig De Campos, op. cit. note 5, p. 190, and n. 19.
132
THE FATE OF TWO ALTARPIECES BY RAPHAEL DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY IN EUROPE
modern pictorial equivalents to dramatic characters in classical epic. Giovan
Pietro Bellori, for example, was sympathetic to the naturalism in Raphael’s art
and drew links between his expressively gesturing figures and the lamenting
heroes of the ancient world55. Under the scrutiny of the extreme idealist Anton
Raphael Mengs in the eighteenth century, however, the comparative framework
became a straightjacket. Mengs lamented the indecorous humanity of some of
Raphael’s religious figures, out of a belief that Christ, the Virgin and the saints
should be represented in the manner of the sculpted Greek gods so admired by
Winckelmann56. Passavant’s observation that Raphael’s Virgin in the Madonna
di Foligno was not elevated enough to represent the Mother of God, harkened
back to the idealistic interpretations of Winckelmann and Mengs.
Thus the reception of Raphael’s Madonna di Foligno and Transfiguration
was affected both by the physical changes that the altarpieces underwent during
the Napoleonic era, and by the subjective response of influential scholars and
critics. The pervasive strain in the interpretation of Raphael among the NeoClassicists fuelled the misconceptions of Passavant and Fischel. Wedded to
a limited and inflexible understanding of Raphael as the most classical of the
moderns, they rejected more « baroque » passages in his mature religious
works as foreign to Raphael’s style. Biased against the French, who had stolen
Raphael’s altarpieces from Italy, widely-read Raphael experts blamed the French
for taking the unbelievable liberty of repainting Raphael’s masterpieces. In this
way, subjective elements of taste and political feeling affected the reception of
two of the most important works by Raphael during the nineteenth century.
55. Giovan Pietro Bellori, « Descrizzione delle Imagini Dipinte Da Rafaëlle d’Urbino nelle Camere del Palazzo
Apostolico Vaticano », in Descrizzione delle Imagini Dipinte da Rafaelle d’Urbino, 1695 ; rpt. Farnborough, U.K.,
Gregg International Publishers, 1968, p. 59.
56. Mengs asserts this criticism of Raphael again and again. For instance, Three Great Painters, part 2, chapter 5,
pp. 169-175 ; and Reflections upon Beauty and Taste, part 3, chapter 1, pp. 48, 49.
133
1.
Raphaël.
Madonna di Foligno.
Rome, Vatican Museums.
2.
Raphaël.
Transfiguration.
Rome, Vatican Museums.
134
3.
Joseph-Charles Marin and Jean-Jérôme Baugean.
The departure of the third convoy of art works for France.
1797.
Engraving.
Rome, Museo Napoleonico, inv. MN 749.
4.
Pierre-Gabriel Berthault.
Triumphal Entry of the Monuments of the Arts and Sciences,
July 27, 1798.
C. 1798.
Engraving.
Rome, Museo Napoleonico, inv. MN 764/65.
135
5.
Maria Cosway.
First Bay of the Italian Gallery with
Transfiguration.
Etching from Collection de gravures à
l’eau-forte des principaux tableaux …
dans le Musée Napoléon.
1806.
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France.
6.
Benjamin Zix.
Marriage Procession of Napoleon and Marie-Louise through the Grande Galerie, 2 April, 1810.
C. 1810.
Drawing.
H. 0,400 ; L. 0,600 m.
Paris, musée du Louvre, inv. 33402.
136