An ambitious widow and a room full of Bols

For over a century four gigantic paintings by the Amsterdam painter Ferdinand Bol (1616-1680) have hung in the Peace Palace in The Hague. Together with a fifth painting in the Provincial Executive of North Brabant they once formed an impressive series that hung in a town house in Utrecht. How they were originally hung and why there is no apparent thematic connection between them has long been a mystery. An intriguing question was who had commissioned such an ambitious and extravagant series of paintings? Recent research revealed many hitherto unknown facts, but has the mystery been solved completely?

The "Bolzaal" at the Peace Palace in The Hague

The “Bolzaal” at the Peace Palace in The Hague

An unwelcome gift

In 1892 the paintings by Bol together with a painting by the Utrecht painter Jan van Bijlert were donated to the Dutch State by the Royaards family of Utrecht who wished the Bol series to be displayed in the Rijksmuseum. The museum must have received the gift with mixed feelings: not only were the paintings in Bol’s late Flemish manner and not considered his best but their size made it impossible for them to be displayed: all are over four meters high and even wider, the largest is almost five meters in width. By comparison Rembrandt’s Nightwatch is 363 cm high and 437 cm wide.

The house at Nieuwegracht 6, Utrecht

The house at Nieuwegracht 6, Utrecht

Until recently not much was known about the ensemble. Given their style, Bol’s paintings were dated between 1655 and 1669, the year he retired from painting. Old Rijksmuseum catalogues only mention that the paintings were “a series of wall coverings consisting of five large compositions by Bol from a room in the house at 6 Nieuwegracht in Utrecht”. What precisely that “room” was or how the paintings were hung remained a mystery until in 1982 an exchange of letters concerning the gift was discovered in the museum’s correspondence “Copyboek”. One of the letters records that the paintings were then in the “large back room”, the best room of the house, which was 10 meters long, 6.7 meters wide and 4.3 meters high. They were built into the panelling and covered the walls completely except for narrow strips of panelling between them. The detailed description of their location in the room helped form an idea about the order in which the paintings might have been hung originally.

In Utrecht’s municipal archive an old ground-plan of the house was discovered which afforded an even better understanding of the room’s layout. It had three large windows facing east and overlooking the garden. The other walls had Bol’s paintings and the painting by Jan van Bijlert while the hearth was decorated with a painting by Utrecht artist Joost Cornelisz. Droochsloot.

Ground plan of Nieuwegracht 6. The red dot marks the room where the paintings hung. Municipal Archives, Utrecht

Ground plan of Nieuwegracht 6. The red dot marks the room where the paintings hung. Municipal Archives, Utrecht

What paintings can tell us

Nail marks, remnants of varnish and of paint from the original frame

Nail marks, remnants of varnish and of paint from the original frame

As luck would have it, various elements such as nail holes, remnants of old varnish and traces of paint from frames on the canvases were still intact; these are usually deemed unimportant by museum restorers and in most cases removed. Now that they were preserved they revealed how the canvases were stretched and framed. For example, vertical cuts were found which made it possible for the canvases to be slid between the ceiling’s beams. Today, the house is an office building and nothing of its original layout remains. The back part where the parlour was has been converted into an extension with an unattractive lowered ceiling but probes revealed that the 17th century beams with remnants of their original red paint are still present. Measurements confirmed that the cuts on the paintings fitted the distance between the beams exactly which provided vital clues about the order in which the paintings were hung originally.

A digital reconstruction of the back room

Digital reconstruction of the west and north wall. From left to right: the Finding of Moses, Solomon Receiving Gifts, the Pool at Bethesda (mantlepiece), Venus and Adonis

Another aspect that was fairly unique was the discovery that the paintings had started life much smaller. Bol had enlarged them at a later time by sewing new strokes of canvas onto them. The Aenaes Receiving his Armour and Weapons, the first painting, had been conceived as a smaller painting that was extended at the top to its present height. Next, the Finding of Moses and Abraham Receiving the Three Angels were painted. Again these had begun as smaller canvases that achieved their present height through added strokes of canvas. In the third and last phase the series was completed with the The Lord Appearing to Joshua and Solomon Receiving Gifts. At that time both the Aenaes and the Moses were widened with a stroke of canvas of about one meter on the left.

Ferdinand Bol, Aenaes Receiving his Weapons and Armour, image Rijksmuseum

Ferdinand Bol, Aenaes Receiving his Weapons and Armour, image Rijksmuseum

Jan van Bijlert’s Venus and Adonis which hung to the right of the hearth on the north wall has not survived intact. The painting had been given to the Centraal Museum in Utrecht where, during restoration in 1934, it was deemed beyond repair. The complete painting was photographed but only a fragment was preserved. The surviving portion bears such similarity to the style of Van Bijlert’s more famous townsman Van Honthorst that it was attributed to him; Van Bijlert’s signature on the discarded section of the painting had apparently been forgotten. Since the light in this painting comes from the left and given its position to the left of the windows it would seem that the Venus and Adonis were not specifically painted for the room unless, perhaps, the painting had been in the house prior to Bol’s interventions and had been rehung.

Sadly the original hearth with Droochsloot’s painting has not survived. It was transferred to the town hall of Soest after 1892 but was lost when the building was demolished around 1960. The last trace of the painting was a Utrecht exhibition in 1892. The catalogue states that the painting was signed and dated 1643 and gives its measurements but the painting’s current whereabouts are not known. Droochsloot painted several copies of The Pool at Bethesda, none of which, however, have the correct measurements.

The commission

Love letter from Carel Martens to Jacoba Lampsins, Utrecht Municipal Archives

Love letter from Carel Martens to Jacoba Lampsins, Utrecht Municipal Archives

Since no correspondence or accounts regarding the commission have been preserved, the only way to find out who commissioned the series would be to determine who had lived in Nieuwegracht 6 in the late 1650s. Here, the municipal archives proved helpful. It turned out that the house had been sold in 1657 to a wealthy widow, Jacoba Lampsins, who had lost her husband Carel Martens eight years before. Martens, a wealthy lawyer and tax broker, had been a staunch Calvinist but also a passionate art collector. His ledger includes paintings by Ambrosius Boschaert, Joachim Wtewael and in 1645 “a figure in full” by Rembrandt. His wife continued to collect paintings after his death. Theirs must have been a very happy marriage: several love letters from Carel to Jacoba have survived.

Like her husband, Jacoba Lampsins was the daughter of an old and influential Calvinist family. Her ancestors belonged to the governing elite of Ostend in present day Belgium. She was born in the province of Zeeland where the family had moved to escape the violence and religious persecution of the catholic Spanish during the Eighty Years War. Given the status of her family it seems logical that Jacoba intended her three sons to climb the social ladder in Utrecht. Although a respected citizen and extremely wealthy thanks to the lucrative United East India Company shares owned by her family, more than mere money was needed to gain access to Utrecht’s upper crust, the regents, since important functions were limited to only a few of the ruling families. The only way for newcomers to become part of the elite was to marry into that circle.

Buying the town mansion on Nieuwegracht was the first step in that direction since this meant that Jacoba and her four children now lived among the wealthiest and most respectable burghers of Utrecht. She must have engaged Ferdinand Bol to decorate her parlour where she could receive distinguished guests in style and where she could present her three sons to their fullest advantage.

Digital reconstruction of the back room at Nieuwegracht 6

Digital reconstruction of the back room at Nieuwegracht 6. Left to right: The Lord Appearing to Joshua, Aenaeas Receiving his Armour and Weapons, Abraham Receiving the Three Angels and the Finding of Moses

Thematic unity?

At the time, ensembles of the magnitude of Bol’s could only be found in Amsterdam’s Town Hall and in the Sael van Oranje in Amalia van Solms’ palace at Huis ten Bosch in The Hague. There perfection was sought not only through the choice of painters but also by selecting subjects that were logically compatible and meaningful. At first sight, Jacoba’s paintings appeared to display no such unity or logic: for example the mythological Aeneas was wedged between two Old Testament scenes. It was therefore assumed that the paintings were not intended as a coherent ensemble and perhaps were even transported to the house on Nieuwegracht at a later time. The latter option seemed plausible: Ferdinand Bol painted almost exclusively for the Amsterdam elite and not for that of Utrecht. Cities reserved that right mostly for local artists.

Ferdinand Bol, The Finding of Moses, the largest paintings in the series. Bol was one o few painters who portrayed the women naked.

Ferdinand Bol, The Finding of Moses, the largest paintings in the series. Bol was one of few painters who portrayed the women naked. Image Rijksmuseum

In a 1992 article the art historian Albert Blankert assumed that Bol had recycled the paintings he sold to Jacoba since the Solomon Receiving Gifts was a far larger version of another painting. Blankert even suggested that Bol may have sold her bits and pieces lying unfinished in his studio from commissions that had failed to materialise.

Ferdinand Bol or Rembrandt, sketch for the Finding of Moses, Rijksmuseum

Ferdinand Bol or Rembrandt, sketch for the Finding of Moses, Rijksmuseum

An interesting theory that seemed to be supported by Bol’s drawing for The Finding of Moses which, judging from its Rembrandtesque style, was conceived much earlier than the painting. The drawing was in fact attributed to Rembrandt for many years. What may be in favour of Blankert’s theory is that all Bol’s paintings, as we have seen, started out as smaller versions and were extended to fit the room’s proportions. Researchers have now contradicted this and have sought to discover a thematic unity on the basis of what we know about Jacoba’s biography and the fate of her ancestors.

Ferdinand Bol, Abraham Receiving the Three Angels, image Rijksmuseum

Ferdinand Bol, Abraham Receiving the Three Angels, image Rijksmuseum

As we have seen, the first painting in the series was the Aeneas and just like Aeneas, Jacoba’s and her husband’s families had had to flee their home. Crucial in this analogy is that Ostend, home to her ancestors, was at the time compared with Troy (it was even known as Nova Troja) because of the long siege and bloody conquest by the Spanish. The same analogy fits the Old Testament stories of Moses and Abraham who were forced to leave their native countries too and became symbols for Southern Netherlandish refugees. In addition, these three main protagonists were destined to become founders of influential dynasties and therefore epitomise Jacoba’s social ambitions for her sons.

Cyrus or Solomon?

Ferdinand Bol, Solomon Receiving Gifts. Image Rijksmuseum

Ferdinand Bol, Solomon Receiving Gifts (?). Image Rijksmuseum

During the last stages of the commission Jacoba added the Solomon and the Joshua. A possible explanation for these subjects, so researchers assume, could lie in a conflict between liberal and orthodox factions in Utrecht’s city council concerning the management of former catholic church goods. Any income generated from them was destined for charitable purposes but in practice the managerial tasks had fallen to a few wealthy families who used the profits for their own financial gain. Jacoba sided with the orthodox faction that advocated the return of the goods to the protestant church of Utrecht. This conflict, it has been argued, could be reflected in the story of Joshua: those who shamelessly enriched themselves could be compared with Achan who is guilty of plunder against God’s command. But Achan can barely be seen in Bol’s painting, if at all. The analogy must then have been by implication. In addition, the Solomon receiving gifts is now thought to depict King Cyrus who returned robbed temple treasures to the Jews. Since Bol painted a smaller version of this painting for Amsterdam’s Zuiderkerk, this would mean that such a highly unusual subject would be depicted there too. Has the painting been fitted to suit the theory?

Ferdinand Bol, the Lord Appears to Joshua. Image Rijksmuseum

Ferdinand Bol, the Lord Appears to Joshua. Image Rijksmuseum

Researchers have further suggested that Jacoba’s standpoint in the conflict may also have been inspired by the fact that one of the leaders of the orthodox faction, Johan van Nellesteijn, was the guardian of the extremely wealthy regent’s daughter Aletta Pater. Whether this was behind it or not, in 1663 Jacoba’s eldest son married Aletta. The marriage proved lucrative in many ways as through it he and his brothers secured honourable functions that continued for many generations.

Remaining questions

While many mysteries concerning Bol’s five paintings seem to have been resolved, there are some aspects that still depend on conjecture such as why the paintings, originally conceived as smaller works, would have been enlarged to fit the walls in Jacoba’s parlour. Would not Jacoba, had she commissioned them for that specific room, ordered the correct sizes to begin with? The identification of the subject in one of the paintings (Cyrus or Solomon) also needs further consideration. For now the Rijksmuseum sticks to the traditional title of Solomon Receiving Gifts. Another matter needing more research is Van Bijlert’s Venus and Adonis, the function of which, perhaps because of its sadly trunkated state, is as yet unclear. In spite of admirable and very sound research, I believe that, although very close, this intriguing case has not quite been cracked.

 

Van Eikema Hommes investigated various attributes such as the nail holes, old varnish remnants and paint remnants from frames on the canvasses. These revealed how the canvasses have been stretched and framed. For example, she found cuts which ensured that the canvasses could be pushed between ceiling beams. In a prominent house along a canal in Utrecht Van Eikema Hommes found the ceiling beams that fitted the canvasses. Further research revealed that the widow Jacoba Lampsins had resided in this house during Bol’s time. The canvasses formed a spectacular decoration that covered all the walls of a large reception room.Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-02-true-history-ferdinand-bol-revealed.html#jCp
Digital reconstruction with the original setting of Bol’s paintings in the reception room of Jacoba Lampsins in Utrecht. At the time, the paintings would be standing directly on the ground under the ceiling beams. In the 18th century, they were pushed up between the beams, to create space for panelling belowRead more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-02-true-history-ferdinand-bol-revealed.html#jCp
Digital reconstruction with the original setting of Bol’s paintings in the reception room of Jacoba Lampsins in Utrecht. At the time, the paintings would be standing directly on the ground under the ceiling beams. In the 18th century, they were pushed up between the beams, to create space for panelling belowRead more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-02-true-history-ferdinand-bol-revealed.html#jCp
Advertisements

Lorenzo Lotto in Rome (2) – the case of the fictive tapestries

In the previous post we have seen that Lorenzo Lotto (c. 1480-1556/7) worked with Raphael Santi on the papal apartments in the Vatican some time after 1509 when he received advance payments for work still to be carried out. But how long did he stay in Rome? So far it has been assumed that the commission for the Colleoni Martinengo altarpiece in Bergamo for which he signed the contract in 1513 meant that he had left Rome forgood. But what if he had not? Are there more frescos in the Vatican Stanze that could possibly be identified as his?

Stanza di Eliodoro

Stanza di Eliodoro, Vatian Palace

1. Stanza di Eliodoro, Vatian Palace

It has recently been suggested that, apart from the Pandects fresco in the Stanza della Segnatura, Lotto’s hand can also be detected in the central vault of the Stanza di Eliodoro (Figs. 1 and 2). Raphael Santi started work here after the room had already undergone significant changes. A chronology of the decorations of this room too complicated to outline here, but in 1511 no one could have foreseen that the patron of the project, Julius II, would die two years later and that his successor, the Medici pope Leo X, would order various alterations. For instance, while Julius’ coat of arms and inscriptions with his name remained above the spandrels, the central part of the vault was modified from eight sectors to four, each twice the size of the original eight sectors. It is that new vault that concerns us here.

Fictive tapestries?

Lorenzo Lotto (?), central vault of the Stanza di Eliodoro

2. Lorenzo Lotto (?), central vault of the Stanza di Eliodoro

The general theme of the room, specifically developed for Pope Julius, is that of God’s intervention in human destiny. The central vault presents episodes of divine intervention in the history of Israel (the Moses and the Burning Bush, the Announcement of the Flood to Noah, Jacob’s Dream and the Sacrifice of Isaac) for which, as in the case of the Pandects, Raphael made the designs. Stylistically the vault has puzzled people ever since the 17th century when the attribution to Raphael was already questioned. Since the discovery of Raphael’s preparatory drawings (Fig. 4) and taking into account the rare cartoon fragment for the figure of Moses in Moses and the Burning Bush (Fig. 3), Raphael’s authorship was generally accepted half a century ago.

The difference in appearance between the vault and the other frescos in the room was ingeniously explained by assuming that they are “fictive tapestries”. It is certainly peculiar that the scenes seem to be bordered by painted ropes, as if they are textiles attached to the ceiling by means of a noose. See, for instance, a detail from the Noah fresco (Fig. 5). But that still does not mean that Raphael painted them.

5. Detail from Noah scene

Dating the vault

The colossal figures and the colour scheme of the vault frescos are based on Michelangelo’s Sistine ceiling. In particular the colori cangianti of Noah’s wife (Fig. 6) recall figures such as the seated woman in the lunette of Michelangelo’s Achim and Eliud and her cap resembles that of the Cumaean Sibyl (Fig. 7) while God the Father, with his fluttering green drapery and large attendant putti is adapted from Michelangelo’s vision of God in the Creation of Adam (Fig. 8), suggesting that the planning and execution of the Eliodoro vault postdated October 1512 when the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was unveiled.

Lorenzo Lotto (?) ....

6. Lorenzo Lotto, Announcement of the Flood to Noah

 

A preparatory drawing for the vault scene of Moses and the Burning Bush (Fig. 9) provides a clue for another date: on the same sheet are several architectural sketches.

Raphael Santi, preparatory drawing for Moses and the Burning Bush, Uffizi (b/w image)

9. Raphael Santi, preparatory drawing for Moses and the Burning Bush, Uffizi (b/w image)

When Bramante died in 1514 it was Raphael who succeeded him as the new architect of St Peter’s and the architectural drawings may relate to his new task. They are dated by Oberhuber between 1 April and 1 August 1514. Since Raphael seems to have finished work in the Stanza di Eliodoro and had started work on the Stanza dell’Incendio by 1 July 1514, it seems that the “fictive tapestries” date from this period.

Identifying Lotto’s hand

Already in 1926 and 1931 it was suggested by scholars that the Eliodoro vault was painted by the same hand as Tribonian presenting the Pandects to the Emperor Justinian in the Stanza della Segnatura (see previous post) and following the recent restoration, which allowed for a more thorough analysis, there appears to be more evidence to support this theory. The vault’s extensive areas of a single colour seem to reduce the volume usual in Raphael’s figures and although the monumentality of the figures and details such as the heads of the putti and that of God the Father conform with Raphael’s style, the colour scheme and the application of the colours does not. For instance, the well-preserved blue backgrounds are reminiscent of Lotto’s later fresco of Christ the Vine in Trescore’s Oratorio Suardi (Fig. 10).

Lorenzo Lotto, Christ the Vine, Capella Suardi, Trescore

10. Lorenzo Lotto, Christ the Vine, Capella Suardi, Trescore

Lorenzo Lotto, Heads from the Pandects, Stanza della Segnatura

11. Lorenzo Lotto, Heads from the Pandects, Stanza della Segnatura

In addition, the present condition of the Eliodoro vault corresponds with what we have seen in the Pandects: the colours are applied in layers rather than being modelled tonally and the pigments have carbonised less in the upper layers resulting in paint losses. The upper layers have become so brittle that mere rubbing of the surface has a considerable influence on their appearance.

Heads such as that of Jacob in Jacob’s Dream (Fig. 12) and those of the judges in the Pandects (Fig. 11) resemble each other in the way the faces are modelled by a kind of rouge applied to their cheeks on top of the base fleshtones. The painter created contours in a very personal and distinctive manner by leaving a fine, thin line of the grey plaster to appear between two areas of colour.

Lorenzo Lotto, Head of Jacob, Stanza di Eliodoro

12. Lorenzo Lotto, Head of Jacob, Stanza di Eliodoro

This is also evident when one compares facial tonalities and painterly treatment of, for instance, Lotto’s head of a putto from Moses and the Burning Bush and a Raphael putto from the Stanza della Segnatura (Figs. 13 and 14).

Glaring eyes underlined with red brushstrokes, such as those of the son embraced by Noah (Fig. 16) in the vault, also occur in the figure of Lotto’s Cimmerian Sibyl (Fig. 15) at Trescore.

It is characteristic of Lotto that all his children and angels are blond. This applies even to God the Father in the Noah scene, who is depicted with fair hair (see Fig. 2).

When did Lotto leave Rome?

If we accept that Lorenzo Lotto painted the vault of the Stanza di Eliodoro, that brings us the problem of the painter’s itinerary. From his early works which can be dated with certainty, either because he signed and dated them himself or because the contracts for them have survived, we know, for instance, that he started painting the Entombment of Christ for San Floriano in Jesi on 27 October 1511 and started work on the Colleoni Martinengo altarpiece (Fig. 17) for the church of Santo Stefano in Bergamo on 15 May 1513. This magnificent and monumental altarpiece took three years to finish: it is signed 1516. In fact, it was the largest altarpiece Lotto ever painted: its central panel, a Sacra Conversazione, measuring 520 x 250 cm.

Lorenzo Lotto, Colleoni Martinengo altarpiece, 1513-1516, San Bartolomeo, Bergamo

17. Lorenzo Lotto, Colleoni Martinengo altarpiece, 1513-1516, San Bartolomeo, Bergamo

Even at this size, three years seems rather long to complete an altarpiece. Was Lotto, having moved to Bergamo, summoned to Rome again in 1514 to assist Raphael on the Stanza di Eliodoro? Had he heard of Bramante’s death that year and had travelled to Rome on his own initiative in the hope of taking over direction from Raphael in the papal rooms? Or did he not leave Rome at all? Lotto’s signature on his dated pictures in Jesi and Recanati does not prove where they were painted, whether on site or in a Roman studio from where they were sent to their final destination as was done during the years when Lotto lived in Venice.

Until now, Lorenzo Lotto’s activity in Rome could be reconstructed only from the two payments for his work in the Stanze in 1509 and from a drawing attributed to him of the ancient sculptural group of Hercules and Antaeus in the Belvedere statue court. If Lotto intended from the start to paint the Colleoni Martinengo altarpiece in Bergamo, it meant that he must have returned to Rome in 1514, perhaps to collect his belongings and pack up his studio, and was engaged there briefly by Raphael to paint the Eliodoro vault, something that could be done in a relatively short time.

For some of the figures in the Colleoni Martinengo altarpiece Lotto seems to have drawn inspiration from Raphael’s design for the Eliodoro vault, but rather than relying on the finished mural, he may have used Raphael’s autograph preparatory sketches, especially that for Moses and the Burning Bush. If Lotto stayed in Rome, he presumably got to know the Stanze intimately between 1513 and 1516. He may even have used two drawings by Raphael of Victories from the Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum (Fig. 18) for his pair of angels in the altarpiece, particularly their draperies and their bare legs (Fig. 19).

It is tempting to think that Lotto must have returned to Rome after he signed the contract in Bergamo, at least for a short period. If in fact it was he who executed the fictive tapestries on the vault and was therefore became, at least temporarily, a member of Raphael’s workshop, his deep knowledge of Raphael’s frescos for the Stanze is not surprising. Of course this is conjecture at this point. Further dedicate research in Rome’s archives or a chance archival find there might one day provide further answers.

One thing is clear: the collaboration with Raphael Santi left a lasting impression on Lorenzo Lotto. In the rivalry that existed between Michelangelo and Raphael, Lotto belonged firmly in the latter’s camp. Michelangelo’s frescos seem to have made little impression on him, nor, for that matter, did the antiquities and architecture of Rome, none of which appear in his post-Rome paintings and antiquities only as props in the portrait of the collector Andrea Odoni, no doubt at Odoni’s request. The only reference to Rome’s architecture in Lotto’s paintings is in a small panel depicting Saint Jerome (Fig. 22), which Lotto painted in Rome, probably in 1509 judging from its partially legible date. The large circular building in it has been identified as Castel Sant’ Angelo where the panel is still kept today. But the figure of the Saint is derived from Raphael’s reclining figure of Diogenes in the School of Athens fresco in the Vatican palace (Fig. 20) while the head appears based on Raphael’s Saint Jerome in the Disputation of the Holy Sacrament fresco (Fig. 21). Because of these rather self-conscious borrowings, I think Lotto intended the panel as a homage to Raphael.

Lorenzo Lotto, Saint Jerome in the Wilderness, c. 1509, oil on panel 80.5 x 61 cm, Museo Nazionale di Castel s Sant' Angelo, Rome

22. Lorenzo Lotto, Saint Jerome in the Wilderness, c. 1509, oil on panel 80.5 x 61 cm, Museo Nazionale di Castel Sant’ Angelo, Rome

Selected literature:

For selected literature I refer to the previous post.

Lorenzo Lotto in Rome (1) – the case of the Pandects

Bernard Berenson in his nineties by Cecil Beaton, at the time of the second Lotto monograph, 1955

Bernard Berenson in his nineties by Cecil Beaton, ca. 1955

Some sixty years after the great connoisseur Bernard Berenson revived interest in the Italian painter Lorenzo Lotto (c. 1480-1556/7) in his pioneering study of 1895 and following the first great Lotto exhibition in 1953, he published his second monograph on the artist. In his words: “as illustrator he [Lotto] was more expressive, more psychological, more interpretative, more attentive to what was peculiar in situation and individual in personality than other Italian painters of his day”, an appraisal I fully reciprocate. One aspect frustrated Berenson: he could not explain how, after a gap of several years in the artist’s career from 1508 onwards, “[Lotto] emerged with his manner of painting surprisingly changed. From comparative dryness and sallowness, he has passed to a fluid vehicle and a gay, blond, almost golden tone.”

While Lorenzo Lotto’s life is extremely well documented with such unique personal documents as the thirty-nine letters he wrote in connection with the designs for intarsia for the church of Santa Maria Maggiore in Bergamo, his will, and the spese diverse (the account books he kept meticulously during the last twenty years of his life and which also contain many details about his personal life and character), it was not until around the publication of Berenson’s second monograph that documents were discovered in the Vatican Corsini Library pertaining to advance payments to the artist concerning his work on the frescos in the papal rooms, the Stanze. Berenson’s mystery was solved: the artist had been called to Rome.

Lorenzo Lotto’s “Libro di Spese diverse”, kept at Loreto

Lorenzo Lotto’s “Libro di Spese diverse”, kept at the sanctuary in Loreto where the artist spent the last years of his life as a lay brother

It has always been assumed that Lotto’s frescos in the Stanze were completely destroyed soon after they were painted because they were deemed inferior to Raphael’s. Nevertheless, there have been numerous attempts to identify Lotto’s hand in the Vatican or in other Roman decorations but his contribution has never been established convincingly. To these theories, the recent restoration of the Stanze added another although the catalogue of the last great exhibition at the Scuderie del Quirinale in Rome seems to ignore it. But for that exhibition every conceivable painting or altarpiece that could be removed safely or even unsafely was transported to Rome and since that would have been impossible with frescos it explains the lack of interest in Lotto’s murals, a fate they have suffered in most recent publications following exhibitions of the paintings.

Lorenzo Lotto exhibition at the Scuderie del Quirinale, Rome, 2011

Lorenzo Lotto exhibition at the Scuderie del Quirinale, Rome, 2011

Lotto’s Vatican commission

Lorenzo Lotto is not first and foremost remembered as a fresco painter but more for his highly individual religious paintings and his humane and empathic portraits. A native of Venice, something he stressed proudly all his life, he left the city for long periods to work elsewhere, mostly in the Marshes. The reason for this was presumably practical: once he had established his reputation there his popularity among the local nobility and clergy kept him busy throughout his life and even when he returned home for certain periods he shipped new altarpieces to these distant places from Venice. Yet to be commissioned for such a prestigious commission as the Stanze in the Vatican, even if he was to be part of a group of pan-Italian artists working under Raphael Santi, must also have been based on his work as a fresco painter. Unfortunately, no pre-Rome frescos by Lotto have survived.

Agostino Onigo monument, Treviso

Agostino Onigo monument, Treviso

The papal architect Bramante, who had been engaged in a project in the holy city of Loreto, a place of pilgrimage much favoured by Pope Julius II, and who may have seen Lotto’s altarpiece for the church of San Domenico in nearby Recanati is credited for having secured the painter’s commission at the Vatican. Bramante probably also saw frescos by Lotto in Treviso but these seem not to have survived. It has long been assumed that Lotto painted a pair of pages beside the tomb of Agostino Onigo in the church of San Nicolò, Treviso, but the majority of scholars have now rejected the attribution. Clearly Bramante was impressed with Lotto’s work, enough to recommend the painter to the Pope.

Recanati Poliptych. The original frame was lost as were the predellas, only one has survived in Vienna's Kunsthistorisches Museum. The current frame was made in 1912

Lorenzo Lotto, San Domenico Polyptych, 1506-8, Pinacoteca Comunale, Recanati. The original frame was lost as were the predellas, only one has survived in Vienna’s Kunsthistorisches Museum. The current frame was made in 1912

Lotto’s altarpiece for the church of San Domenico in Recanati (1506-1508) displays the compositional influence of Venetian painters of that time, for instance Bellini’s Sacra Conversazione for San Zaccaria in Venice, completed in 1505. The Pietà in the upper lunette recalls Carlo Crivelli’s renditions of the subject in its intimate pathos while the dark background of the Pietà and some of the figures such as Nicodemus recall the influence of Dürer whose art had a lasting influence on Lotto.

Yet there is a determined individuality here, for instance in the contrast between the pervasive melancholy and the amusing detail of the child angels in the lower foreground, who seem startled by the entrance of St. Dominic.

Angels, San Domenico Polyptych

The Stanza della Segnatura

In May of 1508 Michelangelo had started planning the frescos for the ceiling of the Sistine chapel and in the autumn of that year Perugino, Sodoma and Bramantino were engaged in Pope Julius II’s suite of private apartments. Probably shortly before, during the summer, Raphael, then a talented young artist, had arrived to paint the room that became known as the Stanza della Segnatura, at first largely with his own resources. He did not only establish himself at the highest artistic level in these frescos but also revealed his abilities for dealing with other artists and a demanding Pope while maintaining full control of the project.

The Jurisprudence wall in the Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican, after recent restoration

The Jurisprudenc wall in the Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican, after recent restoration

Much of Lotto’s work in the Stanze della Segnatura has not survived, but it is certainly apparent that the left scene on the fourth or Jurisprudence wall is stylistically and technically different from Raphael’s fresco on the right side of the window. Consider, for instance, the lunette above the window where three of the Cardinal Virtues, Fortitude, Prudence and Temperantia, are evidence of Raphael’s accomplished and confident handling, a refined modelling of light and subtle shading of the idealised female figures.

Jurisprudence wall - virtues

Raphael Santi, Virtues

The scene of Gregory IX approving the Decretals to the right of the window shows Raphael’s brilliance at portraiture: none other than Pope Julius II, wearing his famous beard that he had started growing after his defeat at Bologna, modeled for Gregory IX. In contrast with these scenes, the scene on the left side of the window, Tribonian presenting the Pandects to the Emperor Justinian, makes an altogether different impression.

Raphael Santi, Gregory IX presents the Decretals

Raphael Santi, Gregory IX presents the Decretals

Clearly another artist than Raphael or his close collaborators was at work here. Some suggestions that have been put forward, however, have been discarded. For instance, since the Pandects seemed to have reminiscenses of the “Venetian manner”, Sebastiano del Piombo has been put forward as a candidate. But del Piombo came to Rome only when the Stanza della Segnatura was finished and his involvement would only be tenable if the fresco had been repainted by him at a later date. Although del Piombo is known to have carried out restoration work on the frescos after the Sack of Rome in 1527 there appears to be no technical evidence that the mural is a different one than the original fresco of 1511.

Another candidate that was put forward is the French glass-painter Guillaume de Marcillat who is documented as working in the Vatican in 1510. The argument against de Marcillat is that he only started to work in fresco some years later in Arezzo and at any rate recent studies of his style exclude him as a candidate.

The Pandects

Raphael chose an unusual but symbolic event for the scene which shows the Emperor Justinian receiving the Corpus Juris Civilis (which included a digest component, called “pandects”) from his trusted jurist Tribonian. This was an essential part of Justinian’s Roman law consolidation effort of 533 AD which was seen as a monumental contribution to law and order throughout Europe in the 16th century.

Tribonian presents the Pandects to the Emperor Justinian, attributed to Lorenzo Lotto

Tribonian presents the Pandects to the Emperor Justinian, attributed to Lorenzo Lotto

Lorenzo Lotto’s involvement in painting the Pandects seems to fit more convincingly than that of other candidates put forward. Lotto was paid 100 ducats on 9 March 1509 for unspecified work in the “upper rooms of he pope next to the upper library” and received another 50 ducats on 18 September 1509. Both payments indicate that he had been working in the Vatican for some time as part of the team of artists including Perugino, Sodoma, Bramantino, Johann Ruysch and, of course, Raphael, brought together to decorate the new suite of papal apartments, the Stanze. Lotto’s fresco technique changed very little over time which makes comparisons between the Pandects and his later frescos possible, such as those in the Capella Suardi in Trescore, the Marian Cycle in the church of San Michele al Pozzo Bianco in Bergamo and even the now much damaged frescos in Credaro.

The stylistic differences between the Pandects and the scene with Gregory IX on the other side of the window became more apparent during the most recent restoration. The Pandects appeared more damaged than the other frescos in the room, in part due to treatment with aggressive solvents in earlier restorations, but also because the volumes in this fresco seemed not to have been achieved through the modelling of different colours or tones of a colour (cangiante) as in the Virtues or the Approval of the Credentials but rather by the application of successive, fairly even layers of different tones one on top of another as becomes most evident in the faces. Due to this technique the upper layers of colour have fallen off in the course of time which resulted in losses that are more severe than in the other frescos which are less dependent on layering and therefore change less in depth. It is telling that the same losses occur in Lotto’s other surviving frescos executed in Trescore, Bergamo and Credaro.

Head of Justinian

Head of Justinian

The head of the Emperor Justinian in the Pandects, for instance, has been executed in thin, plain layers of colours finished with a few strokes of hatching added with the point of the brush – a technique that bears similarities to Lotto’s Suardi fresco cycle in Trescore or the badly preserved St Lawrence in Credaro where the flesh tones are built up with several layers of colour, one on top of another, with the contours giving the final definition.

Lotto employed broad areas of local colour in the figures in the murals at San Michele al Pozzo Bianco. Equally, in the Pandects, we see large panes of yellow, blue and dark red, contrasting with the far subtler colori cangianti (changing to a different, lighter, hue when the original hue cannot be made light enough or changing to a darker hue when the original hue cannot be made dark enough) employed by Raphael on the same wall.

Lotto seems to have treated frescos much the same as he would have a painting in oils, applying one layer over another so that, due to the chalky nature of the plaster, there is more wear than had he employed the medium to its full advantage. It was previously thought that the discrepancies in style between the Pandects and Gregory IV approving the Decretals was solely due to the first fresco’s poor state of preservation, and indeed some scholars have merely ignored this discrepancy, but given the techniques used it may point to Lorenzo Lotto as the author in which case we would have tactile proof of his involvement in the creation of the Stanze.

By any means that involvement would have been limited and Lotto cannot be credited as the inventor of the scene. Even though Raphael did not assume full command of the Stanze around 1513, his capacity to delegate was already apparent at the time when the Jurisdiction wall was painted. There is a compositional drawing in Frankfurt, largely executed in brush and wash and partially gone over in pen and ink, which relates to the figure group and which is thought to be a preparatory study by Raphael for the Pandects since there are significant differences between the drawing and the fresco such as the number of figures which was reduced in the latter, and changes to their hair and hats. At a later stage, with the composition fully worked out, Lotto would have been provided with a life-size cartoon for transferring the composition to the wall.

“A gay, blond, almost golden tone”

Coming back to Berenson and his wonder at the apparently overnight change in Lotto’s style after the years that could not be accounted for, the answer seems to be Raphael. Apart from the colour scheme of Lotto’s painting of the Transfiguration where, compared to his earlier work, the colours and overall tone are astonishingly bright, Lotto executed his Saint Vincent Ferrer in Recanati, of which only a damaged fragment survives, still deeply under Raphael’s spell. The Saint’s vigorous contrapposto and the unprecedented classical character of the flying angels seem a direct response to Raphael, while the ascetic appearance of the Saint is entirely in keeping with Lotto’s own artistic temperament. Even here he adds a quirky individualistic element: the putto on the left has his arms under the ascetic Saint’s robe.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, c. 1511, 265x1166 cm (cropped) San Domenico, Recanati

Saint Vincent Ferrer, c. 1511, 265×1166 cm (cropped) San Domenico, Recanati

In the next article we will move from the Stanza della Segnatura to the Stanza die Eliodoro to see whether it is tenable that some of Lorenzo Lotto’s frescos there survived, notably – for an artist who has been considered the painter par exellence  when it comes to painting carpets – a carpet in fresco.

Selected literature

  1. Bernard Berenson, Lorenzo Lotto, an essay in constructive art criticism, 1895
  2. Emma Zocca, “Le decorazioni della Stanza d’Eliodoro e l’opera di Lorenzo Lotto a Roma”, Rivista dell’istituto nazionale d’archeologia e storia dell’arte 2, 1953
  3. Bernard Berenson, Lorenzo Lotto, 1956 (English edition)
  4. David Alan Brown, Peter Humphrey, Mauro Lucco et al, Lorenzo Lotto – Rediscovered Master of the Renaissance, exhibition catalogue, 1997
  5. Peter Humphrey, Lorenzo Lotto, 1997
  6. Arnold Nesselrath, “Lorenzo Lotto in the Stanza della Segnatura”, The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 142, No. 1162,  2000
  7. Arnold Nesselrath, “Lotto as Raphael’s Collaborator in the Stanza di Eliodoro”,
    The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 146, No. 1220, 2004
  8. Giovanni C.F. Villa et al, Lorenzo Lotto, exhibition catalogue, 2011