IN the second of his Ragionamenti, a series of invented dia- logues with Duke Cosimo I de' Medici written in the mid- sixteenth century, Vasari stated: 'Hardstones can ... best preserve antiquity and memory as one has seen [of work] in porphyry, jasper, and in cameos and in other types of very hard stones which ... endure the pounding of water and wind and other mishaps of chance and time and that can be said as well of our Duke who, because of the constancy and virtue of his soul, can endure opposition to his governing and resolve with temperance all dangerous misfortunes'. His association of hardstones with the Grand Duke turns out to have been a prophetic conceit. Roughly forty years after the Ragionamenti were written, a stone mosaic portrait of Cosimo I de' Medici was produced in the Grand Ducal manufactory founded by Cosimo's son, Ferdinando I. The use of stones for this portrait was intended, as in Vasari's praise of the Grand Duke, to link the subject with the stones' symbolic power and intrinsic properties: permanence, preciousness, rarity and brilliance.

were written, a stone mosaic portrait of Cosimo I de' Medici was produced in the Grand Ducal manufactory founded by Cosimo's son, Ferdinando I. The use of stones for this portrait was intended, as in Vasari's praise of the Grand Duke, to link the subject with the stones' symbolic power and intrinsic properties: permanence, preciousness, rarity and brilliance.

THE attribution to Orazio Gentileschi of the painting of St Cecilia and an angel in the National Gallery of Art, Washington (Fig.3) has been accepted by all scholars who have worked on this artist and dealt with this picture - including Roberto Longhi, William Suida, Andrea Emiliani, Alfred Moir, and Sydney Freedberg, as well as by its distinguished former owner Vitale Bloch - notwithstanding the dis- concerting and seemingly obvious discrepancies in the handling of the paint in various sections of the canvas. However, the emergence some twenty years ago of another version in Todi (now in the Galleria Nazionale dell'Umbria, Perugia, Fig.4), published by Francesco Santi, strengthened the lingering suspicions of some scholars that the Washington picture might be a pastiche. Although the status of the Perugia painting remains controversial, Santi claimed it as the original, and has attempted to 'downgrade the Washington picture to the status of a copy', an attempt rightly rejected by Roger Ward Bissell in 1981. When Erich Schleier saw the Washington painting in November 1989, he observed that parts of it show the handling and style of Giovanni Lanfranco and these remarks prompted a re-analysis of the relevant documents and a re-examination of the physical structure of the canvas.

in the National Gallery of Art, Washington (Fig.3) has been accepted by all scholars who have worked on this artist and dealt with this picture - including Roberto Longhi, William Suida, Andrea Emiliani, Alfred Moir, and Sydney Freedberg, as well as by its distinguished former owner Vitale Bloch - notwithstanding the dis- concerting and seemingly obvious discrepancies in the handling of the paint in various sections of the canvas. However, the emergence some twenty years ago of another version in Todi (now in the Galleria Nazionale dell'Umbria, Perugia, Fig.4), published by Francesco Santi, strengthened the lingering suspicions of some scholars that the Washington picture might be a pastiche. Although the status of the Perugia painting remains controversial, Santi claimed it as the original, and has attempted to 'downgrade the Washington picture to the status of a copy', an attempt rightly rejected by Roger Ward Bissell in 1981. When Erich Schleier saw the Washington painting in November 1989, he observed that parts of it show the handling and style of Giovanni Lanfranco and these remarks prompted a re-analysis of the relevant documents and a re-examination of the physical structure of the canvas.

NO painting by Giorgione has so stimulated the art-historical imagination or elicited so much scientific enquiry as the Tempesta (Fig.8). The majority of this extensive commentary has centred, as might be expected, on deciphering the picture's iconography, a continuing preoccupation since Wickhoffs pioneering efforts of 1895. Yet, the substantial difficulties associated with the painting also extend to the problem of its whereabouts after its completion in c.1506-08 and before its curious re-appearance more than four centuries later. So forgotten was the painting until the middle of the nineteenth century that it has become an accepted axiom of its troubled provenance to believe that Jacob Burckhardt literally 'discovered' the work in the Palazzo Manfrin and published it in his Cicerone of 1855, thus, in a single stroke, establishing the importance of the canvas in Giorgione's œuvre.

.

ON 3rd April 1641, three days before his death, Domenichino drew up his last Will in Naples, perhaps having suspected what his wife later reported, that he had been poisoned by his Nea- politan rivals. The artist's Bolognese biographer, Carlo Cesare Malvasia, knew that Domenichino's only child, Maria Camilla, was the principal beneficiary of the estate, and he was also aware that Domenichino had spelt out conditions whereby Maria Camilla was supposed to marry one Geronimo Arduino of Pesaro. Malvasia further understood that Maria Camilla's inheritence was worth twenty-thousand scudi, in addition to 'many unfinished paintings' left by her father. However, the brevity of his account suggests that Malvasia never saw the actual Will but instead had heard a bit about its contents, probably from Domenichino's widow, Marsibilia Barbetti.

, in addition to 'many unfinished paintings' left by her father. However, the brevity of his account suggests that Malvasia never saw the actual Will but instead had heard a bit about its contents, probably from Domenichino's widow, Marsibilia Barbetti.

THE history of collecting parallels in some ways that of politics*. There are of course general trends and coherent strands of development; but in the end it is the contribution of individuals that tells. The methods applied by Namier and his followers to politics in eighteenth-century England have an equal relevance to the study of taste, and in many cases the characters that cross our paths are the same. By now the great collectors in the field of early Italian pictures have emerged, if sometimes with uneven clarity. Some aspects of their achievement may be illuminated by a sequence of not absolutely random gleanings from inven- tories, sale catalogues and letters.

OF the collections of old-master drawings formed in Eng- land in the first half of the eighteenth century, one of the most important and least understood is that known as the 'Bouverie' collection. Although smaller than the splendid assemblage created by the second Duke of Devonshire at Devonshire House, it was larger and in some ways more distinguished than the fine series of mainly Italian old- master drawings put together by the first Earl of Leicester at Holkham.

THE importance of inventories as an art-historical resource no longer needs to be argued. Lists of paintings - ideally with measurements and valuations as well as attributions - can bring to light previously unknown works, contribute to debates about authenticity, help to establish more fully the provenance of particular pictures, round out the taste of individual collectors and their societies, and reflect the impact of changes in fashion and economic climate on the market value of an artist's production. Sale catalogues are equally useful; and for Goya's œuvre and the history of his posthumous fortune between 1850 and 1945, Xavier Desparmet Fitz-Gerald's 'Essai d'un Relevé des Catalogues des Ventes ou le nom de Goya a figuré', published in 1950, remains an essential, if occasionally fallible, tool. The present article brings together earlier references to the artist's work, omitting only the lists of Goya's own collection (1812 and 1828) and that of Godoy (1807) which included twenty-seven Goya items, and drawing substantially on unpublished material.

A second unpublished redaction of Pompeo Leoni's post mortem inventory indicates that he was an early owner of Parmigianino's Conversion of St Paul now in Vienna and confirms, if it were still deemed necessary, that it is in fact a work by Parmigianino (Fig.42).'Surprisingly, Pompeo Leoni's collection has been little studied, even though it is the most important collection formed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by an artist active in Spain. The present notice is a small contribution in this regard.

now in Vienna and confirms, if it were still deemed necessary, that it is in fact a work by Parmigianino (Fig.42).'Surprisingly, Pompeo Leoni's collection has been little studied, even though it is the most important collection formed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by an artist active in Spain. The present notice is a small contribution in this regard.