Student and professor

Michael Angel was a professor of art history and he usually wanted that pupils were true author of lessons, in fact he hates very deeply those academic posture and roles to professor, he asked to pupils always why? Students were very involved in this method, and they want comment always every artistic work, but Michael Angel asked always that this was with intelligence and not certainly with description, very useless, therefore he would treated in that year Caravaggio; therefore students who have visited Rome and other Italian cities where they could see Caravaggio, but also Malta where is other work of Caravaggio; Michael Angel has given bibliography about Caravaggio, and he has advised students read these book and, above all, see works, because he said always: “Books and documents are tools for understand the works and no certainly aim of our search; when you have read books you know perfectly about an artist, but alone his works can tell who is artist, therefore you read books and see work, you must write your impressions, your opinions, alone so is born think; our studies are mute, because artist work is mute with whom isn’t capable to ask, we give words to art, and there aren’t stupid questions but while book answers with cold dates works answer with stylistical culture, and there is very difficult”. Michael Angel started his lesson: “Caravaggio is name of a small town next Bergamo, an Italian north city, his father may was architect and he studied painter in store of Simone Peterzano, who was pupils of Tiziano Vecellio”, and soon first question to a student: “Do you have seen works of Caravaggio?”, and student: “Yes!” and Michael Angel: “What colour used Caravaggio? Very intense or not?”, and student: “Very intense”, and Michael Angel: “Come here and tell us from this colour”; student was very frightened because he tough to mistake, and Michael Angel: “Don’t worry, you must mistake so that somebody can correct”, and therefore student continued: “He has took this colour by is master Peterzano, because same colour of Venetian painter Tiziano used also Peterzano, therefore influence on Caravaggio become for Peterzano”, and Michael Angel: “Very good, and second question: when was destroyed this painting and above all why was refused?”, and he indicated the Saint Matthew and angel, and student: “This painting not was refused for vulgar foot”, and Michael Angel: “Why not?”, and student: “Because second painting with same subject saint Matthew has foot very well visible, and it not was refused”, and Michael Angel: “Very good, where do you have read it”, and student: “I haven’t read it, I have  seen this painting”, and Michael Angel: “Why was refused?”, and student: “face of angel, this face was real face, because this face was that of sister of cardinal costumer of Caravaggio” and Michael Angel: “Tell also your impressions”, and student: “Posture of angel is very childlike, he seems an young who with embarrassment must teaches something to older person, usually child or young, have this embarrassment, and is sufficient”, and Michael Angel: “Very good but…”, student seen Michael Angel wit wrong eyes, and Michael Angel: “Continue, please”, and student: “Left arm of angel is evident motive for this feel, because this posture is sign of score that older person can mistakes, it is evident!”, and Michael Angel: “Other work with these character?”, and student: “Judith and Holofernes”, and Michael Angel: “Why?”, and student: “Nipples of Judith”, and Michael Angel: “Nipples why?”, and student: “because these are very harden”, and Michael Angel: “Yes but character?”, and student: “Nipples are harden because Judith has very worry for homicide, she is worry because she thinks can mistake, therefore she is worry”, Michael Angel was very astonish and he continued lesson, but before that students gone out he asked to student: “What is your name?”, and student: “Michael Angel from Caravaggio”, and Michael Angel smiled and: “You are dead”, and student: “Until somebody will study my works I not will die”, and Michael Angel nodded, he waited that all students were gone out, and he gather his papers and opened door and he was in dark room lighted alone by a ray from a widow, and he seen a man from the back in front of painting, and: “Where do I am?”, and man: “In Rome, in my house”, and Michael Angel: “Who are you?”, and man: “Michael Angel from Caravaggio”, and he turned toward Michael Angel, and he: “I know you, you are student who has explicated works of Caravaggio”, and man: “may you want say, my works”, and he turned again and continued to paint.

Alessandro Lusana 

                                           

Common persons

Bartholomew was a studious of philosophy, a Socratic, how loved called herself; he was a person very common, and he was very happy so; he taught philosophy in a college, and he was always available with students, he loved gather students and tell around philosophical arguments, and, like Socrates, he asked why? He loved also walk in the city and, sometime, entered in pub or bar and there he seen people, and he took all think and expression, and comment; he has usually given a motive and argument around discussion, he hasn’t ideological opinion, in fact much his colleagues considered him an apolitical, other simply an asocial, other tried understand what was his opinion, and they asked what was his opinion, and he answered: “Not”, and around questions as immigration: “My grandfather was immigrated and my granny also, also Barbarian people have immigrated to Rome, but I haven’t opinion, I respect law, and law hasn’t opinion, and other asked: “if you was president of USA what do you make?”, and answer: “If I was , but I not am; what to me is solution, because to me it is very well, for you and other it isn’t; government must works to richness of people, or not?” and answer: “Yes, certainly” and comment of Bartholomew: “If I was to government satisfy certainly much persons, major part

of people, but major part not certainly all, therefore I can’t present one’s candidature, because if I was elected I will be a disaster, because much persons would love me but other no; I must work well to everybody”, and he asked: “If you was to government, what do you work?”, and he answered: “I would do it and other”. During a meeting with his students one, who has expression very worry and sad tool: “I won’t be common person”, and in the discussions born among students around policy and philosophy and literature, Bartholomew spoken: “Common? What is common to you?”, and student: “To me common is ordinary man without characteristic, I won’t be so”, and Bartholomew: “What do you want characteristic?”, and Andrew, student: “I don’t know”, and Bartholomew: “Do you want a characteristic or no?”, and Andrew: “Yes”, and Bartholomew: “What?” and since Andrew no answered, he continued: “Schopenauer a philosopher at 19^th century answered to whom said “I want make that I want”, and he answered: “Do you know what do you want do?” it is right answer, therefore I ask to you “What is to you common person?”, and Andrew: “Ordinaries, person very modest, politically apathetic”, and Bartholomew: “And extraordinary?”, and Andrew: “Who reached success”, and Bartholomew: “Do you know Rock….”, and he mentioned last name of this person, and Andrew: “No, who is?”, and Bartholomew: “he was actor and he has had much success, very much, but now you and your colleagues don’t know him” and Andrew seen other students but nobody said something, and Bartholomew: “Do you now God?”, and Andrew: “I aren’t believer”, and Bartholomew: “Believer, is who believes”, and Andrew: “Yes”, and Bartholomew: “Don’t you believer whom”, and Andrew: “God”, and Bartholomew: “In your opinion God is known or not?”, and Andrew: “Yes, he is famous, very famous”, therefore is isn’t ordinary person”, and Andrew: “Not certainly”, and Bartholomew: “It is strange, because nobody has seen God but much persons believed him, therefore he is famous. But I think that he is famous because much common persons believe to him. Do you believe to Aphrodite?”, and Andrew: “No”, and Bartholomew: “Why?”, and Andrew: “Because Aphrodite is a pagan god and I aren’t pagan and believer”, and Bartholomew: “Why now nobody believes to Aphrodite?” and Andrew: “Because Aphrodite not exists”, and Bartholomew: “Very right. Do you believe George Washington?”, Andrew was very astonish, he smiled and: “Yes”, and Bartholomew: “He isn’t certainly common persons”, and Andrew: “No certainly”, and Bartholomew: “If portraits and books around Washington disappear, who could remember Washington?”, and Andrew: “Nobody!”, and Bartholomew: “Who is nobody?” and Andrew: “I don’t know”, and Bartholomew: “We are nobody, common persons, and we have much power, because we give importance and fame to other; without us they are dead or, better, without us they are common persons, they who have power, because Aphrodite not exists because common person don’t remember her, therefore common persons can guarantee success or no of gods and historical person, you, as common person, haven’t success but you have power, success today is present and tomorrow isn’t, but power is present always”, and Andrew got up immediately and: “Have I power to piss?”, and Bartholomew: “If you are success no, otherwise yes”, and Andrew, with very serious expression: “I am very common person, and ordinary, politically apathetic” and Bartholomew: “I let you it, go bath room, ordinary man”.

Alessandro Lusana                                                          

Didactic Hesiod

I won’t certainly to enter in question around 7^th century before Christ, but his Τέόγενή, Born of gods, in fact shows a spirit which is again included in religious motive; all is borne for gods and for their will; with Homer this think there isn’t, because man kinder works for something, if it is war for Troy, with intervention also of gods but, above all, men kinder works, so in Odysseus will be very protagonist of his life, he in fronted of every danger and he tried, during all his travel, new experiences, therefore it is human spirit of acknowledge emerges, but now is man and not certainly a god who tries; in this poetical work Hesiod alone gods are present, and he writes without men, evidently Hesiod has a public again ignorant around this legend, which before of philosophy was rational think fit to justify word and life of men kinder; therefore he should satisfied a public may doesn’t know nothing around gods, Greek gods, because we usually think that ancient people in Greece has alone some gods, most famous is Jupiter, but truly gods in Greece were very much, a poet written: “We don’t know where hide wheat, everywhere is occupied by a god”, therefore is possible that Boeotian people has other gods but not certainly these were recognized to much town of Greece; Hesiod has given this possibility to know gods less or not known by Boeotian; this book seems more a handbook than a poem; it is true that from 7^th to today he has underwent much changes, original write of Hesiod we haven’t but I think that spirit is same, an original spirit both didactic and religious, which can justify origin of word and learn to people of low level, in fact adjective Boeotian is citizen of Boeotia, but is also synonymous of idiot, because in Attika citizens of this region were considered idiot for their roughness, therefore it is possible that Hesiod has explained origin of word with this book, it is a sign of poetical philosophy before that philosophy was present in Greek, therefore is also a didactic poem because explain gods and their human gender, because tell around gods is merely human, as ancient religion.

Alessandro Lusana

Other Gregorian’s

To Christ and centurion (Fig.1) is possible attribute it to same painter of Two Blind(Fig.2), in same gallery, who now he seems keeps some consideration to style, hair of centurion follows that of figure on left in episode with Preach on lake of Genezareth, but he sees very well also the chromatic made of pupil of Lombardelli to Vocation of Apostle(Fig.3), but he strengthen iridescent light and plastic form; mantle of Christ take again that of episode of two blind, extended made of cloth and finger of Christ follow same in episode mentioned; more over brushstroke which makes face follows that of two figure on right side; therefore a pupils of Sabatini who take all but after he personalizes. To Multiplication of bred(Fig.4) is same collaborator who has worked to Enter in Jerusalem(Fig.5), beard very compact follows that of Christ in that episode; brushstroke very summary on the faces, on right side, remind figures on left side, back Christ, in Enter; cloth of figure on back in centre in second plane, in same episode, it feels influence by figure mentioned above all for folds and light. To Christ in home of Marta works same master of Enter, board and hair of same Christ are mirror to episode with Enter; cloth of girl, on left side, translated that of same side of Multiplication, and profile of same figure considered follows that of girl; more over posture of hand, on bottom of our episode, follows both hand of figure in first plane and that of woman in second plane, on left side, in episode of Multiplication, which is same Master of Enter. To an collaborator of Sabatini is attributable brushstroke of drawing with Mother of sons of Zebedeo(Fig.7); fluent hair and fingers are similar to an angel(Fig.8) whom I have given back to collaborator of Sabatini, lips of figure follow that of other angel(Fig.9), and to cloth emerges a conjunction almost organic with two Angels(Fig.10-11); cloth plastic flouncing of first angel and light to second, fingers are took by Christ in episode of Christ and centurion; but the cloth remind also other author, who is collaborator of Sabatini who has worked to Flight to Egypt(Fig.12), but now he works with less precision. To this collaborator whom we call Master of Zebedee’s sons, is author also of episode with Peter find money in mouth of fish(Fig.13); hair is same take again that of Christ and child, in centre, in precedent episode, cloth of Christ takes that of same child, but now with strong folds; sharp fingers of girl, on right side in precedent episode, take for typology both of Christ and saint Peter in our episode, and fluent hair and board are mirror to same in precedent episode. To Lazaro’s resurrection(Fig.14) author is Giorgio Picchi, anatomy of restored to life reminds figure on cross in Miracle of true cross in Mercatello sul Metauro(Fig.15) episode, very tiny leg of restored to life remind those of figure on the cross, already mentioned, arms equal tiny, the neck of Christ in our painting remind that of figure considered, cloth of Lazaro’s, with folds scanned translates of figure, on left side, in same altarpiece. To Tribute to Caesar(Fig.16) works a collaborator of Sabatini, and in fact we understand precise work to cloth, although here took by a collaborator, who sees to colleague of Vocation of Apostle(Fig.17), fluent worked laps up that of Sabatini; brushstroke on the face  follows that of Christ and apostles in mentioned episode; therefore principal moment of this painting is cloth, directly assumed and without second thought. The last painting, Oration in garden(Fig.18) is worked by a modest collaborator of Sabatini, who seems assimilates some word of language of master; in fact eyes and some suggest cloth, all with usual borders of collaborator, who now last occasion very important for learned something to stylistical culture.

Alessandro Lusana  

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

            Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

Fig.14

Fig.15

Fig.16

Fig.17

Fig.18

Gregorius quantus fuit

The architectural history of a open gallery, now Vatican, this is second architectural order of court of Saint Damaso, in Vatican City, is always acknowledge for architectural project to same famous architect of 16^th century, certainly better known than painting masters; anyway this second phase is very important in this assay, because very little studies have considered this open gallery, which is a commission of pope Gregory 13^th[1]; but is some assays is present to architecture it is very little to painting, which it not seems has pressed much assays, but I hope that with this written somebody, a good Samaritan, can considers this open gallery and continues this engagement; but we must start from first that has considered and, above all has written some name, this is Giovanni Baglione, not always trustworthy, but we must go on with exclusions and inclusion that same Baglione not considered. The painters will be distinguished and identified with their collaborators, although these are occasionally, but to these without names, or with alone conventional name for distinguish these, and I hope that future some other worked can be given them by some studious; a note to understand what is praxis on painting yard is given by a Holland painter and biographical writer Karl van Mander, who writes, in his Het Schilder-Boeck, to Niccolò Circignani, painter, “…he has used much collaborators”, who certainly has worked very much on drawing of masters. To this yard certainly some name is credible and among Lorenzo Sabatini and Raffaello Motta, or by Reggio, who are present among documents for payments, and therefore is very simple find them to painting, and Giovan Battista Lombardelli called from Marca, who I think he has suggested rather that painted, that certainly is worked of pupil, Jacopo Semenza, very unknown painter who worked in Rome and Veroli, south Latium, in church of Saint Salome; Mascarino, architect and painter, was represented by his pupils and collaborators, here called painter at day, this is painters worked a day or some days. Our search shows immediately the presence of a collaborator or pupil of Sabatini who has worked an Angel(Fig.1), the profile translates same profile of physiognomy, which reminds directly an Angel of Sabatini in an altarpiece with Assumption,(Fig.2) datable around 1573-1575 in Bologna; the form of foot follows of Sabatini used by him for altarpiece in Bologna, and eyes and lips of Angel follow directly of Sabatini, in same mentioned altarpiece, particular lips of baby almost hade, but we can see the heat on left side (Fig.3). Painter therefore is collaborator of Sabatini who, with drawing of master, painted this Angel, that has characteristic directly reported to Sabatini but with some contradiction, for exemple cloth, that is work of other collaborator, for his material treatment that is very different by Sabatini style; therefore fidelity drawing is different to two painters, because twice painters take some stylistical character of master but with much material and therefore they invalid formal result of master, some meteorologist has worked the clouds; an approximately form which will follows to other painting, but we must consider that this anonymous painter wants follows cotton nature of Sabatini for cloud in altarpiece of Bologna, certainly suggested by master but the collaborator has took alone superficiality and he has translated alone external nature, and so, he has disqualified the style, and more he has used a brushstroke  very heavy but rigid. A second Angel(Fig.4), is worked by a second collaborator of Sabatini, who translated in other where stylistical character of Lorenzo: lip is very next to Lorenzo, and that we have considered to baby on altarpiece of Bologna(Fig.2), the nose follows same formal character of baby in mentioned altarpiece and so to neck which follows of Virgin in same altarpiece, while the cloth is work of Sabatini who works with personal calibre for a work of luxury tailor’s, without that he leaves his style; it is sufficient the matter that he has used to angels in altarpiece of Bologna, and therefore scansion of felt to our Angel, very fine and air, so same in altarpiece of Bologna. Same distance between two textile moments is evident also by white cloth worked of same Angel and cloth which covers legs; first very summary and worked with intense brushstroke, while second is very better worked; finally the clouds show same stylistical character, already seen to precedent cloud, therefore it is same meteorologist already seen. We must consider something around this painter at day; he may considers very next Sistina Chapel, and he works with strong presence the body, and brushstroke seems ivory, perhaps suggested by advise of Sabatini who seen certainly Parmigianino. With blood to brush a third Angel(Fig.5) of a collaborator of Sabatini, and certainly he same has given drawing, collaborator take again character and Sabatini’s this is physiognomic and so corresponding to precedent Angel, therefore it is directly reportable, but he doesn’t’ renounces personal worked and personal style, although not overall; anyway typology of face, lips, eyes and the nose, fluent hair, ear and pectoral muscle are characters which attest very proximity of twice figures, but also Sabatini is present with one translated character, which attests again the origin of idea, posture of this Angel seems follows that of angel to below, on right side, in altarpiece of Bologna, and to cloud is present again same meteorologist already seen for two precedent Angels, but now with better style, because he uses very fine softness and he remarks immaterial nature of cloud. All style of this painting is, in confront of precedent(Fig.4), certainly better worked; brushstroke seems renounces enthusiastic light, the coherence used for anatomy with a brushstroke ivory, better skin, and light and dark is very delicate; while the cloth is work of second collaborator, who follows the soft work of Sabatini but with results uncertain or at last he tries but he doesn’t succeed; finally, to book, works third collaborator who used brushstroke with heavy material and he suggests presence of this object but he leaves the formal description. Other Angel(Fig.6) attests the style of collaborator of Sabatini reawakening, with some ability, some character of Sabatini, anyway face, to nose, eyes and feet remind Sabatini’s; in fact nose and eyes follow Virgin’s in altarpiece of Bologna, and right feet reminds, for drawing of master, that of angel below in same altarpiece, and we can’t leave lip, which again shows, indirectly, the style of Lorenzo. Confront, with other colleagues, shows the precarious style although better considered for worked cloth, that now is very different by heavy material of Sabatini, so establishes that this collaborator converges with some character of Sabatini, but meantime he disagree for owner consideration. An ephebic Angel(Fig.7), at last for face shows character of Sabatini, the typology of face of baby, on right, follows that of baby, on left, of altarpiece of Bologna, and long fingers are same of same Virgin mentioned; therefore drawing of Sabatini but worked of collaborator. All work to style leaves with plastic, in fact the cloth deviates by style of Sabatini, the brushstroke suggests rather that tell the cloth, and this shows a modest attention of author  for style of Sabatini. Other two Angels(Fig.8), the faces follow that of angel on right left in altarpiece of Bologna, typology face follow angel now mentioned, but after he takes his way; nose follows that of angel mentioned, eyes and long fingers are particular worthy of Lorenzo, while to hair collaborator find his way, may a moment of autonomy by presence of prompter, the cloth is very similar to other already seen, may the tailor’s of Bologna has saved the sleeve of right angel. Other collaborator of Sabatini, who differently by other wants moderate his party, is author of this Angel(Fig.9), which seems for long fingers, for chin and mantle, very rigid, seem follow suggest of Lorenzo, and ultimately he recalls also the altarpiece in Bologna; stylistical complex takes by Sabatini but not succeeds to translated stylistical character. Other collaborator is author of other Angel(Fig.10), who uses long finger of Sabatini, and takes some face of next colleague of angel, already seen, and from him he takes hair, while the cloth and the neck feels suggest very deeply of Sabatini and of his Virgin of Bologna, it is valid for nose and to lip, with evident borders; while cloth material changes, material is very flourishing, although not get out for rigid style. Lorenzo with some consideration to cloth, the profile follows exactly that of angel in altarpiece of Bologna, alone partial visible, but very distinct to profile and to eyes, which has suggested this collaborator that used here, fingers follow those of Lorenzo. Finally last Angel(Fig.11) is work of Sabatini, the face follows of angel on middle space, on lift, in altarpiece of Bologna, brushstroke, hair, eyes, eyebrow and fingers remind the Virgin of altarpiece. After much foreboding of verb, like angels, now we have protagonist, Christ, and to Christ and adulteress(Fig.12), author is collaborator of Sabatini, here called Master of Adulteress, this name is necessary because other painting are his and other, therefore we must distinguish, but now he is accompanied by Sabatini, who has worked somewhere, but without to outclass collaborator; this concept is alone one ideal valuation, because I think that Sabatini was very busied for painting and collaborators then he not doesn’t worked practical, meantime his collaborator translated this drawing with this episode; style of Sabatini emerges by figure of adulteress, hers cloth follows that of Judith, therefore folds follow the style of Lorenzo, long fingers take that Virgin of Bologna, and profile follows that of angel in inferior register of same altarpiece of Bologna. To Sabatini are also cloths of figure who indicate Christ, and that of older men, on left side, in first plane; versatile style of master is shown by coherence of cloth which is equal of with adulteress, dramatic coherence of scansion of cloth takes the cloth of angels in altarpiece of Bologna; body are worked by a collaborator, who works with uncertain and he uses brushstrokes to faces and to beard, fitted more to suggest than to describe, and in fact he renounces to faces. Face of Christ is other pictorial note of Sabatini, who here ended his presence to this episode. This collaborator, with two colleagues, seems monopolizes every episodes of Sabatini; episode with Christ and Canaanite(Fig.13), here worked same Master of Adulteress he follows his style, above all for cloth of Christ and he worked so he equalizes figure of Christ in episode with Christ and adulteress; strong plastic impression, and his iridescent light on cloth of Christ in episode with Christ and adulteress, translates to this episode same iridescent light, hands of Christ are same of figure on left side on first plane in episode with Christ and adulteress, and faces are very easily reportable to faces of figure in episode above mentioned, equalized by same brushstroke very summary and so showing the stylistic character of Master of Adulteress. Architectures support practical definition of same author; in fact the structure of arch repeated, in below, are very specular to ideation of Sabatini for Christ and adulteress(Fig.12); but other collaborator, here called Master of Canaanite, who worked two female figures on first plane; in fact style is very distinct by other, anatomies are rigid, but to faces he take style of Sabatini, anyway fingers are same of Virgin in altarpiece of Bologna, it is possible for drawing of Sabatini, but same collaborator worked to cloth of woman kneel down; strong plastic impression of folds seems equalizes, because may took by same drawing, That of other figure, in following text. Third collaborator worked head of figure on left side: compact beard with precarious style that we will find other where. Sabatini is present also to idea for ideation episode Christ and Hebrews(Fig.14), although idea is alone Sabatini, while work is to two collaborators, one to figures and second to architecture: hair of figure bent on first plane take disordered hair of angel, below on right side, of altarpiece in Bologna, to posture of same figure, some suggestions of Raphael certainly this collaborator had, the figure of Euclid in Atene’s school has given posture this figure, the cloth tries emulate that of Allegory of Lepanto battle(Fig.15), in the Sala Regia, but result is very modest, also because this collaborator seems follows Sabatini but occasionally, while other collaborators; therefore compact beard of figure on centre on second plane, translated a character of collaborator who has worked  head of figure, on left, in episode with Christ and Canaanite; long fingers is character that show work of collaborator, who tries suggestions of Sabatini but he find equal valour to other collaborator alone, for exemple long fingers of Christ which are assimilable to same fingers in episode of Christ and adulteress; all worked is modest, the precary brushstroke compromises both cloth and faces; this collaborator works with totally autonomy which he translated in figures; while a second collaborator works to architecture, that are very next to episode with Christ and adulteress, very next for geometrical subdivision, but without participation, this is without a physical distribution, almost aseptic. To Recovery of epileptic(Fig.16) worked three collaborators: first is mentioned Master of Canaanite, he works two figures on first plane, identifiable for iridescent light on the cloth, and with delicate clear and dark, but always considering his personal style, and better with some iridescent light the face of woman kneel down, who we has seen in episode with Christ and Canaanite, but now bettered. Christ of second collaborator a remind of Sabatini emerges by face which is easily with Christ in episode with Christ and adulteress, same Master works to figures on left side. For Delivery of keys(Fig.17) work at last four collaborator, which first is Master of Adulteress, who for this episode takes face of saint Peter of saint Peter walks on water, second collaborator, this is master of Canaanite, on contrary, cuts and sews the cloth of saint, to third collaborator works figures on the left side, now called Master of Hebrews, that has worked also to precedent episode, the beard very soft of figure half hade on second plane follows that of episode now mentioned, as fingers of figure on first plane, with green mantle follow style of Christ, in same episode, which in fact takes by Master of Adulteress, therefore compact hair, and alone suggested, follows that of Christ in episode with Christ and Canaanite; to Christ works third collaborator who follows Sabatini to cloth, for profile he takes typology of Master mentioned, although very different is result; other figures are worked by fourth collaborator. Parable of child(Fig.18) we must give back three collaborators with different cultures, one is certainly a collaborator of Giovan Battista Lombardelli; the beard with yellow cloth, in first plane, anticipates that some figure in episode with Roman citizen recognize saint Gregory Magnus on the Foconi(Fig.19), room in Vatican City, which here I give back to Lombardelli, same density to cloth  and dramatic hairs of figures, on right side, follow the style of room of Foconi, as face of figure, on right side of saint Gregory; but this painting shows an impression of a collaborator of Lombardelli who after, gradually, flows for other figures; Christ is worked by a second collaborator, who remarks his difference by other. Third collaborator works at last three figures, two on right side and other back child; his style is in the beard, to eyes and hair, to on right side figures he follows Lombardelli and his colleague who has worked Christ. The Recovery of leprous(Fig.20), is worked by four collaborators, who work with their culture: author of Christ is same of Parable of child, and here called Master of Parable of Child: cloth is same of episode mentioned, with his analytical precision for folds, and sharp fingers, the leprous shows same style of same collaborator of Lombardelli already seen in same Parable, form of foot takes that of figures, on right side, of Christ in same episode, a length very impressive which we must consider a stylistical attestation rather that a stylistical representation of anatomy, more over taped fingers translated those of figures, on right side, of Christ; finally third collaborator has worked figures on lift side who, to lip, have character directly of Sabatini, while a fourth collaborator worked to figures on right side. To Dispute in the temple(Fig.21) two collaborators work, which first used a heavy brushstroke and he seems forgets both anatomy and cloth; this painting seems almost a motive for dismissal, while emerges, but it is very easily, luxury tailor’s to cloth on left side, in second plane. To Massacre of innocents(Fig.21a) works a collaborator of Marco by Faenza, but he follows his stylistical culture; the brushstroke is given very summary, he seems have considered that he was a painter alone to figure of soldier on right side, in fact anatomy reawaken. The Wedding in Cana(Fig.22) Lorenzo Sabatini shows his style with some typological face which after his son Mario in other painting; the cloth translates that used by to an Angel, which keeps very fine precision, and this is to Lorenzo, above all for style that emerges by the mantle, internal side, so stylistical language is evident; to figures on right side a second collaborator works, but he seems to exclude style of Lorenzo and he prefers a personal consideration of cloth, although to faces he takes Lorenzo. To Virgin hers face translates that of an Allegory(Fig.23) of Palace of Archiginnasio of Bologna, fingers are took by same Allegory; innkeeper kneel down shows same style, more over cloth of Virgin keeps the style of cloth to figure on right side next column; other figures are worked by other painter. The Call of Apostles(Fig.24) keeps chromatic impression of episode precedent, style of Christ gives in temptation to remark his habit with Sabatini, it is sufficient also a modest confront with cloth of episode the Wedding in Cana, although we must consider that this cloth is worked by collaborator of Sabatini, but this collaborator seems wont emulate master, in fact he falls between some fold very rigid and also too flourishing, while style of Mascarino emerges by face to centre, which remind that of figure next column, already considered; anomalous fingers of Christ remind those of Christ in precedent episode. To Enter of Christ to Jerusalem(Fig.25) is worked by a collaborator of Raffaellino da Reggio, who takes style to cloth of his master, ochre mantle, in second plane, follows the plastic scanned well tailor’s of Raffaellino with Tobia with angel(Fig.26), but he not emulate style, but with very much will he tried and he reached alone tailor’s, the face of figure, on right side, follows that Isaia in roman church of Saint Silvester to Quirinale, and Tobia has perhaps suggested some reference to face of figure on right side spreads mantle, and finally face of figure on left side laps of angel in episode with Tobia and angel. The wash of foot(Fig.27) is worked by Raffaellino directly, cloth repeats that Isaia, equally gather for precise work, and almost geometrical, so that equalize the mantle of figure on first plane on right side, and his gingers are very next to that Isaia; other figures are worked by a collaborator. Dinner in home of Simon(Fig.28) is worked by Raffaellino and his collaborator, same tailor’s for mantle here which has sewed cloth of Tobia and Isaia, and also to tailor’s  red mantle of figure on left side set takes with formal symbiotic, the style of yellow cloth of apostle on first plane, here given back to Raffaellino; face of apostle with red mantle has similar face which we have seen to Isaia, fluent hair of Christ equalizes that of same figure in Wash of foot, fingers are suggestion by Wedding of Cana of collaborator of Mascarino, which has took this particular and he has assimilated to his stylistical character, dishes on bottom are worthy of a luxury jeweller, and these establish style of Raffaellino; it is sufficient confront with same dishes on second plane in Wish of foot; but some figures are different, and therefore present is a collaborator. Resurrection of son of Nain(Fig.29), the cloth shows influence of Sabatini for large superficies with heavy brushstroke, but he uses also some fold, but chromatic reference is Mascarino to episode of Wedding of Cana; meantime a presence until now obscure emerges, this is Jacopo Semenza, and precisely a collaborator who has worked to Three of life in Veroli; lesson of master seems learned, but style become very precarious to face on second plane, brushstroke which laps ivory takes lesson of master, but leaves formal definition; anatomy leaves connotations and limits his work to suggest. Other painting of this collaborator of Semenza is this Christ calms storm(Fig.30), faces very summary is motive for identification; cloth of Christ  follows folds of figure with green cloth to precedent painting; hat of marines anticipates that of a figure in Veroli. Transfiguration of Raffaello is followed by Master of Adulteress, and two collaborators to this episode(Fig.31), this Master take again some anatomical character, fingers of hand and foot, eyes and nose, but he take and use again some character of Sabatini, like cloth of figure with red cloth, on second plane, in episode with Christ and adulteress, but worked with very summary, and this suggestion is considered by second collaborator, author of three apostles in inferior register, style emerges by polished cloth, in fact it is very soft and strong for material presence; a take again it isn’t disturbs, apostle on left side, follows face of figure on left side in episode with Recovery of leprous; third collaborator works figures on sides of Christ, who has very merit for his brushstroke to anatomy, and he has worked some cloth very commendable. Recovery of man with arid hand(Fig.32) work both Massei and a collaborator, style of cloth of Christ report directly, to material cloth, with Christ in front of Cafe, on wall of Roman Basilica of saint Prassede, profile of man recovered anticipates the town same on episode of saint Prassede, long fingers remind those of soldier on side of Christ, painted in mentioned basilica, the leg of recovered man follows  these of soldier mentioned; collaborator works figures in bottom, very different to quality, although he tries to emulate his master but result is very modest. To Recovery of daughter Jarou’s(Fig.33), work both Massei and his collaborator, but Jerome emerges by precise definition of cloth, which follows these in precedent painting, but double work and style emerges in all stylistical work, cloth of figure in centre, with opened arms, shows style of Massei, so to mantle of figure on left side; while other figures are worked by collaborator. To Sermon to lake of Genezareth(Fig,34), Massei works with a collaborator and Massei changes profile of woman on right side on precedent painting, cloth is very similar to precedent painting, and that of woman in first plane follows idea tailor’s of woman in episode mentioned. To Expulsion of merchants by temple(Fig.35) work two collaborators of Mascherino, one has worked also to Wedding of Cana; long fingers take again those of Christ on same episode mentioned, cloth of figure on right side follows that of figure adherent to column in same painting, the mantle of merchant in first plane follows that of Virgin in same episode mentioned, hat of figure, to centre, seems asked on loan to innkeeper kneeled in same episode; others figures are worked by second collaborator, who take colour but with evident border. To Christ in home of Zacchaeus(Fig.36) emerges same chromatic character already seen to Wedding on Cana and to Expulsion of merchants, which figures in bottom seem follow style, distant eyes of kneeled figure to centre follows those of Archiginnasio of Bologna(Fig.37), arm of kneeled figure almost herculean and arm of figure on right side which escapes in episode of Expulsion, cloth is took by that of innkeeper kneeled in Wedding of C, fingers of figure in second plane with green cloth follow those of merchant to centre in Expulsion; same cloth plastic shows same author, fitted above all for precise definition of cloth, more over profile of Christ in episode of Expulsion is used here for profile of figure in second plane, therefore same paternity of brush for these two figures, therefore same collaborator of Mascarino, who uses, and it can’t be otherwise, the cloth style of cloth of Christ in episode of Expulsion, deep folds signed by light and shade. Finally to woman who feeds works Raffaellino da Reggio, since very similarities to face between this woman and angel with Tobia; while Mascarino works figure of Christ and that back on. To Christ in synagogue(Fig.38) work both Mascarino and collaborator who has worked in episode of Wedding, Mascarino works figure on back on right side, while collaborator prefers take again it by bottom adopted to figure on back in episode of Christ in home of Zacchaeus, adopting same cloth plastic and same beard, to others figures Mascarino finds help of collaborators. To Christ and Samaritan(Fig.39) work totally Massei who follows his character to face; therefore anticipates profile of Christ on wall of basilica of saint Prassede, in Rome, and follows profiles of figures in episode with man with arid hand(Fig.34), for exemple that figure with white board which is very similar to profile with Christ in this episode, and profile of Samaritans is very next to woman on left side in episode with Christ preaches to lake of Genezareth. To Recovery of possessed(Fig.40) works a collaborator of Giovan Battista Lombardelli, but with proximity to Massei and Raffaellino da Reggio, whom collaborator take and used for different town of this episode, Massei to cloth of Christ while second he used to apostle on right side, hair anticipates that of same apostle in episode with delivery of keys, fingers follow these of figure in episode with Wedding of Cana, while figure of possessed follows, to anatomy, some figure in an episode on vault of Gallery of Geographical Maps in Vatican, precisely Fall of Simon Mago. To Recovery of paralytic(Fig.41) work two collaborators of Mascarino; style complex shows the dramatic brushstroke of Expulsion of merchants by temple, posture of figure in centre, with raise hand, repeated same posture of figure on left side in same Expulsion, fingers of Christ follow those of same figure in episode with Wedding of Cana(Fig.22); more over style of cloth is same to Expulsion, therefore this collaborator of Mascarino, here called conventionally Master of Expulsion of merchants, is a second collaborator which we will see other painting after, but here he works Christ figure but he follows much personally the impression of Mascarino to cloth, in fact he adopts same chromatic impression and brushstroke equally dynamic. To Vocation of apostles(Fig.42) work both Master of Expulsion by temple and master of precedent episode; Christ follows same figure in precedent episode, both to face impressionistic and to cloth, painting rigidly to folds; hair of apostle on back, on left side, take again by figure, on left side in second plane, in episode already seen; fingers follow those of Christ in episode with Wedding of Cana; more over profile of apostle on back follows that of figure with red turban in bottom in episode with recovery of paralytic. To Recovery of mother in law of Peter(Fig.43) we find same collaborator who has worked precedent two, but now he is busied both figure on right side and Christ, while second collaborator works all figures on left side: in fact neck of Christ follow same of Christ in two precedent episodes, fingers follow same character of Mascarino, while cloth seems undergoing influence of Massei; polished style borrows plastic of Mascarino and correlates to brushstroke of Massei, second collaborator works to figures to left side. To Flight to Egypt(Fig.44) is worked by two collaborators of Sabatini, who follow, with suggestion of Lorenzo, face of Virgin by altarpiece in Bologna, and as neck and nose translated that Bolognese, and more over these figures are wetted by light of Sabatini; but our collaborator deviates by Sabatini and betrays because he approaches to Lombardelli of Foconi room, and he takes some face, as that of figure to three, on right side, follows typology of profile of saint Joseph in this episode. To Preach of saint John Baptist (Fig.45) walks on way of Sabatini but with some typology to face of Lombardelli, cloth of figure, on left side, follows the iridescent light of cloth of saint Joseph in precedent episode; therefore style of this collaborator sees to style of colleague in precedent episode. To Vocation of apostles (Fig.46) is worked by a collaborator of Lombardelli; colour takes same iridescent light of his colleagues, as cloth of apostle on back on left side. To Christ tempted in desert(Fig.47) work two collaborators one may of Sabatini, but now he takes style of Massei in episode with Christ and Samaritan, but he not forgets graphical style of Sabatini; therefore nose of Christ follows that of Virgin of altarpiece in Bologna, while hands are similar to hands of Christ in precedent episode. Second painter is collaborator of Mascarino; style of other figure to long fingers, board and profile follow figure with yellow cloth, in centre, whom we have seen in Recovery of mother in law of Peter(Fig.43), and he keeps also the style of tailor’s, in fact strong fold and polished material of cloth shows impression of Mascarino, but in version of collaborator; more over fingers follow to paralytic of Recovery(Fig.41). To Vocation of Jacob and John(Fig.48) work two collaborators of Massei, first work to faces following same impressionistic style used to Preach to lake of Genezareth(Fig.37), hair of Christ follows that of figure on profile, on left, of mentioned episode, fingers of apostle with joined hands follow those of figure in bottom, left side, in same Preach. Cloth on contrary is worked by second collaborator, who seems deviates by cloth of Massei for to encounter plastic form of Sabatini. To Vocation of saint Matthew works a collaborator of Massei and to cloth of Christ he follows rightly style of his master, other figures are worked by a collaborator of Mascarino, who gather board, drunk faces, long fingers and follows the style of cloth of figure on right side in episode with Wedding of Cana. To Episode of two blind(Fig.49) is worked by an autonomous collaborator, much versatile and eclectic, in fact he sees cloth of and light of Sabatini, and hairs of collaborators of Massei who has worked to Vocation(Fig.46), as profile of Lombardelli used to blind in first plane on right side, but he follows everybody but not emulates nobody.

Alessandro Lusana

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

Fig.14

Fig.15

Fig.16

Fig.17

Fig.18

Fig.19

Fig.20

Fig.21

Fig.21a

Fig.22

Fig.23

Fig.24

Fig.25

Fig.26

Fig.27

Fig.28

Fig.29

Fig.30

Fig.31

Fig.32

Fig.33

Fig.34

Fig.35

Fig.36

Fig.37

Fig.38

Fig.39

Fig.40

Fig.41

Fig.42

Fig.43

Fig.44

Fig.45

Fig.46

Fig.47

Fig.48

Fig.49

---

[1] J.S.Ackermann, The Cortile del Belvedere, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1954, pp. 102-103.

Ackermann, with documents shows that pope Gregory 13th took again, at 1574, to project of Martino Longhi il Vecchio, construction of this open gallery, while to decorative phase is responsibility with other, of Lorenzo Sabatini, and his successor, at 1576, his son Mario, and after Ottavio Mascarino.