style, and if it were not one of the keys to his personality. It is the crowning virtue of his
works. Beauty, truth, expression as defined above can be of many kinds. In Raphael's art they
receive their peculiar quality through his grace: his beauty never chills or overawes; his truth
is never injudicious or indiscreet, his expression is never forced or strained. Everything is
at its perfect ease. In the foolish quarrel between the admirers of Michelangelo and those of
Raphael, which began during their lifetime, Raphael's partisans pointed to his ease as one
of their best arguments. So Lodovico Dolce: "While Michelangelo continually stressed dif-
ficulties in all his works, Raphael aimed at ease. It is true that ease can be acquired only by
effort; he, however, achieved it to a degree which leads us to believe that his pictures were
done without plan, without labor, without exertion. This is a sign of high accomplishment."

Despite the painstaking preparation that preceded them, Raphael's works have the virtue
of ease; because of it, they never can be blamed for empty facility. That they hold the true
mean between the two extremes, lends them their grace. A further rationalization of this
quality is impossible. More than any other, the virtue to achieve grace is a gift from heaven
which can be cultivated, but not acquired, which can be felt, but not accounted for.

". . . Labour's vain extortion ne'er achieves
That grace supreme which willing genius gives."

Grace was the mark of Raphael's genius, as terribilita was that of Michelangelo's.

It is possible to analyze Raphael's art in other ways than is done here. The author preferred
to avail himself of some old-fashioned concepts and interpretations, because they seemed to
him well suited for the purpose. Modern criticism has by-passed Raphael but for a few con-
tributions and has missed its chance to train its thought and language on his art. To apply to
Raphael a modern analysis with its emphasis on externals seemed, to say the least, undigni-
fied. No matter how well his art might lend itself to a discussion of principles of form, like
composition, etc., in such an analysis the essentials would have to remain unsaid. Our an-
cestors, indeed, had a firmer grasp on art; moreover, their scheme of thought which has been
used here, has the advantage of being developed from the study of Raphael and Michelan-
gelo, and to a lesser extent of Titian and Correggio. Its roots reach back into the lifetime of
the artists themselves. If we are willing to listen to the old meaning of its terms and con-
cepts, it still can interpret Raphael better than any other.

Of course, the author does not want to advocate a wholesale return to these modes of
thinking. The consequence of that would be an intolerable dogmatism. Already in the past
these concepts did not fit every phenomenon, and their rigorous application led to prejudices
towards whole genres of art, towards entire schools and periods, towards single artists -- prej-
udices which nowadays seem appalling and almost ridiculous. We are inclined to do justice
to those artists who, in the controversies which arose, freely criticized this way of thinking. And
when-they meant to attack the evil at the root and thus in harsh sentences gave vent to scorn
for Raphael, we do not mind it either. In fact, it would be amusing to gather adverse criticism
of Raphael, as in these pages some of the favorable opinions about him have been brought
together. Yet our knowledge of Raphael would scarcely find itself furthered. Adverse criti-
cism of an artist of such rank almost never contributes towards understanding him; rather it
characterizes those who originate it.

-16-