Auction catalogue (english version) by international_32

Judith and Holofernes

Auction Toulouse â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 27 June 2019

Maître Marc Labarbe Hôtel des ventes Saint Aubin 3 boulevard Michelet 31000 Toulouse Tel: + 33. 5. 61. 23. 58. 78 contact@marclabarbe.com (www.thetoulousecaravaggio.com)

Auction of an exceptional painting by

MICHELANGELO MERISI da

CARAVAGGIO (Milan 1571 – Porto Ercole 1610)

Judith and Holofernes Halle aux Grains, 1, place Dupuy, Toulouse 27 June 2019 At 6.00 p.m.

Expert for the sale: Cabinet Turquin 69 rue Sainte-Anne 75002 Paris Tel: + 33. 1. 47. 03. 48. 78 eric.turquin@turquin.fr (www.thetoulousecaravaggio.com)

Viewing in Toulouse at Hôtel des ventes Saint-Aubin 17–23 June 2019, 2.00 p.m. – 6.00 p.m. For futher information, photographs and online catalogue: www.thetoulousecaravaggio.com

Contents

Introduction, Marc Labarbe ......................................................................................................... The painting of a lifetime, Eric Turquin ................................................................................. Chronology of a rediscovery.......................................................................................................... Catalogue ................................................................................................................................................. Rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio, questions answered ............................... Judith and Holofernes: iconography ....................................................................................... The Judith from Toulouse, Nicola Spinosa ......................................................................... Caravaggio: art history and art connoisseurship, Keith Christiansen .............. Study day at Brera, Keith Christiansen ................................................................................ Scientific analyses, Claudio Falcucci ..................................................................................... Conclusions of the scientific analyses, Rossella Vodret ........................................... The lightening of the varnish, Laurence Baron-Callegari ........................................ From Caravaggio to Caravaggio: image by image ....................................................... Caravaggio, brief biography ........................................................................................................

p. 13 p. 19 p. 24 p. 30 p. 56 p. 71 p. 95 p. 102 p. 104 p. 111 p. 121 p. 129 p. 132 p. 146

Ill. 1 Ottavio Leoni, Portrait of Caravaggio, Biblioteca Marucelliana, Florence.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;There is also a Michelangelo da Caravaggio, who is doing marvellous things in Rome.â&#x20AC;? Karel van Mander (1602)

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... p. 152 Conditions of sale .......................................................................................... p. 156 Credits and copyrights ............................................................................... p. 163

Introduction Marc Labarbe Auctioneer

The vision of a masterpiece sleeping among the secrets of a cellar or hiding in the attic under a layer of dust is the stereotypical fantasy for an auctioneer, one that inspired a whole generation of children, to which, I am happy to admit, I belong. I like to believe that from childhood to adulthood there is but one step and that the hours spent in the schoolyard hunting for lost treasure lead quite naturally to the choice of a profession devoted to discovery. Each of us has imagined blowing the dust off a canvas found by accident under the eaves. Even if that old cliché has been run into the ground by the dream weavers of popular culture, it still defines the distant and, truthfully, the rather naïve objective of our job. And yet, sometimes these things actually do happen—but not as we imagine them. The discovery is not the instantaneous and immediate revelation that we thought it would be. It is not the sudden observation of a signature, nor the rapid recognition of the hand of a great artist. The discovery is more of a slow germination, it is about time and patience and perseverance and prefers the long and rigorous process of silently executed research to the stroke of luck. On that day of 23 April 2014, upon arriving at the home of my client, I was invited up to the attic (fig. 1) where the painting had been placed on the landing. I had postponed this particular appointment several times, being caught up by other obligations and I had finally come by to give an estimate on the mysterious find that the owner had been reflecting on for several weeks. I had already handled the sale of several items of humble origin from this same attic and it was on that occasion, while clearing out space under the eaves, that the client had come across this strange canvas. Leaning against a wall, it had been completely hidden behind old box springs and mattresses, its surface obscured by a cloudy grey veil. The word “un-covering” or “un-veiling” could not have found a better fit.

Was this the moment of discovery, or would it take my dusting off the canvas and bringing back the varnish with a sweep of damp cotton for that to happen? The painting, just like its heroine, had become defiant and would only give itself up reluctantly. Forms appeared here and there in the darkness of the painting, with a random silhouette or splash of colour. It was with great difficulty that I managed to make out the faces, the shriveled skin of an elderly servant with a heavy goiter, the young woman’s glaring expression of ferocity, the death rattle of a man with a slit throat. There was something of a muted contrast between the agile beauty of a young widow and the austerity of a barely legible murder. A few seconds after running the cotton over the canvas, evaporation brought the scene back to the silence of the opaque varnish (fig. 2). It has to be said that a leak in the roof, repaired ten years earlier, had not made things easier because the right side of the work had caught the dripping water which had left marks along the varnish, turning Judith’s dress dark and shapeless. But as is said, every cloud has a silver lining. It is precisely this leak in the roof, making its way through to the floor below that forced the owner to make repairs, giving him the idea of using the space and clearing it out. The project took time and two years later, some uninspired thieves would strip this same attic of a certain number of small objects. If those thieves should ever read these lines they can rest reassured that no single eye, while preoccupied all at once by the crime, the darkness and the clutter, could have possibly noticed a painting by a master. One has to imagine this attic and its accumulation of small things, forgotten souvenirs kept by generations who never threw anything away: toys, bedposts, old perfume bottles, armchairs with their torn upholstery, dresses and petticoats, hats, papers, trunks piled up under the eaves, old wooden partitions and doors. What would have become of this painting had they stolen it as well? Here we have the makings of a news story that undoubtedly deprived art history of a resounding scandal. It is precisely history that has maintained a strong connection with our painting for which we still needed context, provenance, date, even an artist. Can a discovery without these things be considered a true discovery? Nothing is less certain, and there is a great risk in its being relegated to the ranks of a simple find. On that very topic, a conversation with the owner did not shed much light. As the descendant of an officer in the service of Napoleon during the Spanish Campaign, he thought—and this is just one possibility among others—that the presence of the painting in his attic was due to its having belonged to one of his ancestors. The explanation, although plausible, was perplexing because of the one thing of which I was certain: I had in front of me the most beautiful seventeenth century Italian school painting that I had ever seen in someone’s home. Of course the political connections between Italy and Spain were to be taken into consideration but the explanation warranted lengthy reflection. To overcome this lack of context, I called upon the expert in Old Master paintings, Eric Turquin, with whom I have worked for over twenty years. Photographs of the painting arrived at the offices of Cabinet Turquin in the late morning and although I had no idea of the enormity of the adventure to come, I was certain that this beautiful painting was worthy of a rapid response. That very afternoon I received a telephone call confirming that Paris shared my own feeling, this was a beautiful work of art that they wished to examine in person. I was happy

Introduction

Fig. 1 The attic where the painting was found.

Fig. 2 The painting at the moment of its discovery in 2014.

to give the owner the news that foreshadowed a future sale with a result just as timely as unexpected. But was there reason enough to call it a true discovery? As agreed, the painting was sent to Paris. Three months of intense activity followed during which Eric Turquin, Stéphane Pinta and Julie Ducher, to whom I would like to pay homage for their well-reasoned persistence, strove to get to the root of the mystery. Three months of intensive research, interviews and comparisons, during which they became convinced of the identity of the artist: Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio known simply as Caravaggio. The true discovery had happened. Let it be said, the news was significant. No work by Caravaggio had been sold on French soil for at least one hundred years or none catalogued as such, and never a fortiori at auction. If every auctioneer dreams of one day being a discoverer, none are mad enough to dream of discovering an artist such as this. Caravaggio, at once a genius and an assassin, for which only sixty-eight paintings are known in the world, mesmerizes the masses and provokes enthusiasm to such a degree that Caravaggiomania has become a household word. Not a year passes without at least one exhibition devoted to his art, in France, England, Spain, Italy, the United States, where he never ceases to fascinate. We had discovered the painting of a legendary artist. The research would continue for two more years. Numerous specialists brought to our discovery the experience of their eye and the credibility of their reputation. Our requirements demanded that we go beyond personal conviction because even an expert eye, as experienced as it may be, does not always see the same thing as the person standing next to them. The historian HenriIrénée Marrou attempted in his lifetime to extract history from the claws of subjectivity, saying that it should be a “scientifically established knowledge of the past”. No discoveries without history, no history without truth, no truth

Introduction

without science. We had no other choice, in order to access the truth of the painting than to submit our intuitions to the laws of physics. The stakes were high, and we needed the confidence of strong certainty after two years of hope and research to confront it with the most advanced technology in existence. More than ever before, the discovery was in danger. Luckily, Caravaggio’s technique is as unique as his own image. We were able to take advantage of the immense accomplishment of Rossella Vodret and Claudio Falcucci who laid bare, in their exhibition Dentro Caravaggio presented in Milan in 2017, twenty-three canvases by the master from Lombardy. The incised lines, the drawings, the preparatory layers, the varnishes, the pigments—the two specialists were able to illuminate these mysteries. We thus entrusted them with the painting for similar analysis. We invite the reader of this humble introduction to consult the conclusions of Claudio Falcucci in the present catalogue and experience the same immense joy we felt when we first read them. Five years of work now stand between me and the first apparition of Judith on the landing of that attic. The road was already a long one before we realized its importance and Judith continues to surprise us as shown by the recent cleaning of the varnish. Is she the brilliant discovery that every auctioneer dreams of? That is certain. But if a discovery does not happen in an instant, it is not destined to remain in the shadows and in secrecy. It must confront the world and be accepted, in all its splendour, in all its beauty. The time has come for our Judith to recover the rank that oblivion had denied her for a while: that of a masterpiece by one of the greatest painters of all time. 22 January 2019

“Listen to me, I intend to do something, the memory of which will be handed down … from age to age.” Book of Judith (8:32)

Introduction

The painting of a lifetime Eric Turquin Expert in Old Master paintings

My career as an expert in Old Master paintings working for auction houses took a dramatic turn at 9 a.m. on 24 April 2014. It is true that I was expecting an important discovery given that Stéphane Pinta and Julie Ducher had called the day before to tell me that Marc Labarbe had brought “a bombshell” to the office. But the face of Judith so overwhelmed me that I never once had a moment of doubt. The incredible strength of her expression, the sensuality of her mouth, the energy of her movement, the opulence of the red curtain that works as a backdrop to the murder scene could only belong to the greatest of all painters, Caravaggio. We knew that passions would be unleashed at the mere mention of his name, for Caravaggio is an artist who evokes a fervent reaction in both great connoisseurs as well as in amateurs of tragic destinies. Until April 2016 we kept the existence of the painting a secret. In order to avoid any indiscretions and rumors, my wife and I took advantage of the situation and were able to enjoy this extraordinary painting by keeping it hidden away in our bedroom. The secret was well guarded—and I thank my fellow experts, restorers, framers, bankers, insurers, photographers, shippers, etc. who all scrupulously respected this confidentiality which allowed us to peacefully carry out our research. Over two long years we were able to methodically test our first intuition with X-radiographs and technical analyses and then with the opinions of the greatest known specialists of the artist, notably Keith Christiansen, Nicola Spinosa, Rossella Vodret and then John Gash. Of course, I also wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to Jean-Pierre Cuzin, a champion of the painting from the very start. For us, Caravaggio is a difficult artist because he is unlike any other, forever evolving and unexpected in the treatment of his subjects, as much in their staging as in their execution. His constants: that exceptional virtuosity and that

sense for detail that touches us deeply. The artist is disconcerting by the tumultuous nature of his oeuvre—a reflection of his turbulent life—and our painting was created at a critical moment when the artist would, in Naples, far from the cultural vibrancy of Rome, develop a new Caravaggism, more personal, stripped down and darker. It is the savage beauty of this painting that makes it so difficult to understand for those who seek any references to the classical beauty found in the works of his early years. In Milan, our painting was compared to works by Finson coming from the collection of the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Marseille. Judith and Holofernes was exhibited for three months right next to the splendid and peaceful masterpiece of The Supper at Emmaus from the Pinacoteca di Brera. The two paintings were created several months apart. But what an extraordinary contrast between an evening at the tavern where three discouraged pilgrims, exhausted after a long day’s journey where all is calm and spiritual and that other version of an evening’s end with the drama of its tragic death in the enemy’s red tent. Yes, as Nicola Spinosa once told me, there are many Caravaggios, each one greater than the next, which makes pursuing them so difficult… and so exciting. 17 February 2019

“He was, indeed, in many senses the first modern artist; the first to proceed not by evolution, but by revolution.” Roger Fry (1905)

The painting of a lifetime

Chronology of a rediscovery 2014-19

23 April 2014 – Recovered in the attic of a house in Toulouse by Marc Labarbe,

auctioneer in Toulouse. 29 April 2014 – Sent to Cabinet Turquin in Paris. 30 April 2014 – First identified by Julie Ducher and Stéphane Pinta, then by Eric Turquin, soon joined by Jean-Pierre Cuzin, as being the original work by Caravaggio, the copy of which is in the Intesa Sanpaolo bank in Naples as published by Mina Gregori in her monograph of Caravaggio published in 1994 and by Giovanna Capitelli, Antonio Ernesto Denunzio, Giuseppe Porzio and Maria Cristina Terzaghi (2013). May 2014 – Regeneration of the varnish done by Laurence Baron-Callegari. 8 July 2014 – Mina Gregori is shown the painting; does not believe that it is by Caravaggio; suggests that research should focus on Finson. 17 December 2014 – Nicola Spinosa is the first to defend the attribution to Caravaggio. 22 December 2014 – X-radiographs are taken of the painting at the veterinary school in Maisons-Alfort. 9 January 2015 – Gianni Papi views the painting and considers it to be a fine copy by Finson of the lost Caravaggio. 27 January 2015 – Keith Christiansen is shown photographic documentation of the painting by Eric Turquin in New York City. February 2015 – A sympathetic reduction of the varnish is done to the ensemble of the painting by Laurence Baron-Callegari. 4 May 2015 – Keith Christiansen is shown the painting alongside Nicola Spinosa and recognizes it as the lost original. Late June 2015 – The painting is shown to curators and directors from the Louvre Museum: Stéphane Loire, followed by Sébastien Allard, followed by Jean-Luc Martinez.

29 September – 21 October 2015 – The painting is examined at the C2RMF (French Museums Center for Research and Restoration) at the request of the Paintings Department of the Louvre Museum. 25 March 2016 – The export licence is refused by decree from the French Minister of Culture, Audrey Azoulay, “for a painting possibly attributed to Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Judith and Holofernes, oil on canvas 1600–1610, a recently discovered painting, of great artistic value, which could be identified as a lost composition by Caravaggio. Known to us until now by indirect references, it deserves to be kept in the country as a landmark of ‘Caravagisme’, whose history and attribution remain to be examined.” 12 April 2016 – Presentation of the painting to the press at Cabinet Turquin, Paris. 19 May 2016 – David M. Stone and Sybille Ebert-Schifferer view the painting. The former gives a positive opinion on the attribution to Caravaggio, the latter disagrees. 9 June 2016 – Rossella Vodret and Claudio Falcucci view the painting and support the attribution to Caravaggio. 23 June 2016 – Catherine Puglisi views the painting and supports the attribution to Caravaggio. 7 November 2016 – 5 February 2017 – Terzo Dialogo. Attorno a Caravaggio. Una questione di attribuzione exhibition. Thanks to James M. Bradburne, director of the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan, the Toulouse painting is included in the exhibition where it is hung next to the version belonging to the Intesa Sanpaolo bank and where it can also be compared to the Supper at Emmaus in the Brera’s own collection. The painting is also confronted with works known to be by Finson, his copy of Caravaggio’s Mary Magdalen in Ecstasy and his Samson and Delilah, two paintings from the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Marseille, as well as another copy of Mary Magdalen from a private collection. 6 February 2017 – Article by Keith Christiansen (pp. 104–07). 15 March 2017 – Technical report by Claudio Falcucci. 13 June 2017 – A study day in the Grande Galerie in the Louvre: a meeting of the specialists regarding the Judith and Holofernes from Toulouse was held in front of the three paintings by Caravaggio from the Louvre as well as the Flagellation of Christ brought from the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Rouen (a meeting reported by Didier Rykner in an online article dated 13 June 2017 at latribunedelart.com). December 2018 – Small test cleaning is done. January 2019 – The cleaning of the varnish of the painting is done by Laurence Baron-Callegari. 28 February 2019 – The painting, in its recently cleaned state, is presented to the press and on view to the public at Colnaghi Gallery in London (28 February – 9 March). 9 – 17 May 2019 – Painting on view at Adam Williams Gallery in New York. 27 June 2019 – Sale at auction of the painting in Toulouse.

Chronology of a rediscovery

MICHELANGELO MERISI da

CARAVAGGIO (Milan 1571 – Porto Ercole 1610)

Judith and Holofernes On canvas. 144 x 173.5 cm. 56 11/16 x 68 5/16 in. The painting is executed on two lengths of canvas sewn together along a horizontal seam at the level of Holofernes’ raised hand. Relined in France between 1790 and 1820, a time frame that can be confirmed by the painting’s pine wood key stretcher that is certainly French.

Provenance Naples September 1607: With Louis Finson and Abraham Vinck in 1607; contemporary documentation indicates that the artists had the painting in their possession for sale for the price of 300 ducats. Amsterdam 1617: By descent to Vinck in 1617; Finson dies in Amsterdam on 19 September 1617 and according to his last will and testament, the painting is left to Abraham Vinck; the painting is not listed in the inventory done after the death of Vinck in 1619 in Antwerp; Antwerp 1678? Presumed to be in Antwerp in the collection of the engraver Alexander Voet as early as 15 October 1678, mentioned in the estate inventory done after Voet’s death in 1689.1 Toulouse: Private Collection. According to family tradition the painting has been with them since 1871, date of the purchase of the house where the painting was found. Exhibition Attorno a Caravaggio, Terzo dialogo, Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan, 7 November 2016 – 5 February 2017. Bibliography of the lost painting • LEONE DE CASTRIS Pierluigi, Il Patrimonio artistico del Banco di Napoli, Catalogo delle opere, Naples, Edizione Banci di Napoli, 1984, pp. 36–38 (the Naples copy of the lost Caravaggio by Louis Finson). • MARINI Maurizio, Caravaggio, Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio “pictor praestantissimu”: La tragica esistenza, la raffinata cultura, il mondo sanguigno del primo Seicento, nell’iter pittorico completo di uno dei massimi rivoluzionari dell’arte di tutti i tempi, Rome, Newton Compton, 1987, pp. 59–63. (The Naples copy of the lost Caravaggio) • GREGORI Mina, Caravaggio, Milan, Electa, “I maestri” series, no. 1, 1994, p. 152, no. 61 (ill.): Giuditta decapita Oloferne, (copia), 1607; Caravage, translated from the Italian by Odile Ménégaux, Paris, Gallimard, 1995, p. 152, no. 61 (ill.): Judith et Holopherne (copy), 1607, Naples, Raccolte del Banco di Napoli. (The painting belonging to the Intesa Sanpaolo bank, described as the copy of the lost Caravaggio.) • PACELLI Vincenzo, L’ultimo Caravaggi: dalla Maddalena a mezza figura ai due san Giovanni (1606-1610), Todi, Ediart, 1994, pp. 54, 58–59. (The painting from the Intesa Sanpaolo bank, copy after Caravaggio). • PAPI Gianni, “Finson e altre congiunture di precoce naturalismo a Napoli”, Paragone Arte, 52 (Ser.3, 39), September 2001, p. 36, fig. 2. (The painting from the Intesa Sanpaolo bank, copy after Caravaggio). • BOLOGNA Ferdinando, in Caravaggio. L’ultimo tempo 1606-1610, exhibition catalogue, Naples, Museo di Capodimonte, 23 October 2004–23 January 2005, Caravaggio: the final years, London, The National Gallery, 23 February–22 May 2005, Naples, Electa Napoli, 2004, no. 26, “Ignoto XVII secolo.” (Described as the copy of the lost Caravaggio). • GRUBER Gerlinde, in Caravaggio e l’Europa: il movimento caravaggesco internazionale da Caravaggio a Mattia Preti, exhibition catalogue, Milan, Palazzo Reale, 15 October 2005 – 5 February 2006, Vienna, Liechtenstein Museum, 5 March – 9 July 2006, Geneva, Milan, Skira, 2005, pp. 404–05, no. VI.I. (The Naples copy described as Finson after Caravaggio). •  SCHÜTZE Sebastian, Caravage : l’œuvre complet, Cologne, Taschen, 2009, p. 295, no. 82 (ill. 82, p. 293). (The Naples copy described as Finson after Caravaggio).

28 30

• CAPITELLI Giovanna (ed.), Giuditta decapita Oloferne. Louis Finson interprete di Caravaggio, exhibition catalogue, Naples, Gallerie d’Italia, Palazzo Zevallos Stigliano, 27 September – 8 December 2013, Naples, Arte’m, 2013. (The Naples copy described as Finson after Caravaggio).

1. Erik Duverger, Antwerpse Kunstinventarissen uit de Zeventiende Eeuw, Brussels, Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, 2001, vol. 11, pp. 531, 569. “A Judith by Michiel Angelo da Caravasio” (sic).

A select bibliography of the present painting • BLUMENFELD Carole, “Un Caravage inédit retrouvé en France”, Le Quotidien de l’Art, 4 April 2016, no. 1036, p. 8. • GUILLON Francine, “L’authenticité du Caravage retrouvé prend corps”, Le Journal des Arts, 12 April 2016. • RYKNER Didier, “Le Judith et Holopherne enfin dévoilé”, Latribunedelart.com, 12 April 2016. • SAMUEL Henry, “French family stumbles on long lost €120m Caravaggio while mending leaky roof”, The Telegraph, 12 April 2016. • VITOLO Espedito, “Trovato a Tolosa il quadro che Caravaggio dipinse a Napoli”, Corriere del Mezzogiorno, 12 April 2016. • BANHAM Marc, “Suspected $135 million Caravaggio found in French loft”, Private Art Investor, 13 April 2016. • CARVAJAL Doreen, “Art Dealer says painting found in French attic is a Caravaggio”, International New York Times, 13 April 2016. • ESPOSITO Vincenzo, “Il Caravaggio napoletano ritrovato. Spinosa: ‘Sono stato tra I primi a vederlo, è sicuramente autentico’”, Corriere del Mezzogiorno, 13 April 2016. (Interview with Nicola Spinosa). • MANE KER Marion, “That Lost Caravaggio You’ve Heard About? Bendor Grosvenor Weighs In”, Artmarketmonitor.com, 13 April 2016. • BOUGLE Fabien, “Actualité. Trésor national médiatique”, La Gazette de Drouot, 22 April 2016, pp. 22–25. (Interviews with Eric Turquin, Julie Ducher and Stéphane Pinta). • LEOUFFRE Isabelle, “Immense découverte: le dernier des Caravage”, Paris Match, 22 April 2016, pp. 64–67. • BIETRY-RIVIERRE Éric, “Caravage : les lois de l’attribution”, Le Figaro, 25 April 2016, p. 32. • BROUSSARD Philippe, “Le mystère autour d’un tableau attribué au Caravage bientôt levé ?”, M le Magazine du Monde, 1 November 2016. • SPINOSA Nicola, “Attorno a Caravaggio : una questione di attribuzione”, Brera A Occhi Aperti. Terzo Dialogo. Attorno a Caravaggio. Una questione di attribuzione, exhibition catalogue, Milan, Pinacoteca di Brera, 7 November 2016 – 5 February 2017, Geneva, Milan, Skira, 2016, pp. 21–45. • BLUMENFELD Carole, “Judith et Holopherne, une affaire pas encore tranchée” and “L’avis de Keith Christiansen”, La Gazette Drouot, 18 January 2019, pp. 28–29. • EHRMANN Thierry, “The ‘Toulouse Caravaggio’ on show in London”, ARTPRICE, 28 February 2019. • DIXON Emily, “Lost Caravaggio painting found in attic could fetch $171 million at auction”, CNN, 28 February 2019. • GERLIS Mélanie, “Rediscovered Caravaggio goes up for auction”, Financial Times, 1st March 2019. • REYBURN Scott, “Is That a Caravaggio? It’s All in the Details”, The New York Times, 5 March 2019. • MOORE Susan, “It is for art historians to decide who painted this picture”, Apollo Magazine, 8 March 2019.

Catalogue

“The Lord has struck him down by the hand of a woman” Book of Judith (13:14–16)

Fig. 1 Excerpt of the letter from Frans Pourbus to the Duke of Mantua, 25 September 1607.

Catalogue

1. Stefania Macioce, Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: fonti e documenti 1532-1724, Rome, U. Bozzi ed., 2003, pp. 230–31.

The rediscovery of Judith and Holofernes, a long lost masterpiece by Caravaggio is a major event. It brings with it an important addition to the reconstruction and understanding of the oeuvre of one of the greatest painters in art history. Caravaggio is today an almost mythological figure whose revolutionary vision makes him one of the geniuses of pictorial representation. In addition to his artistic genius, his adventure-filled life with all of its violent chapters has turned Caravaggio into a true romantic hero. The subject of the painting, Judith and Holofernes, is taken from the Book of Judith in the Old Testament and can be found as early as the High Middle Ages (see p. 71). The painting discovered in Toulouse is of horizontal format and shows Judith, the widow from Bethulia, cutting off the head of the General Holofernes who has taken siege of the city and whom she has managed to seduce. The scene takes place in Holofernes’ tent. Unlike the biblical text, which describes Judith’s servant Abra as waiting outside, here she is a central figure holding the sack that will carry the head of Holofernes. As for Judith, she wears the black dress and veil of a widow whereas in the Bible she is said to have worn her most beautiful robes in order to seduce the general. The early history of the present painting can be retraced with near certainty thanks to several documents. On 25 September 1607, the Flemish painter Frans Pourbus (1569–1622), writing from Naples to his patron, Vincenzo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua states that he has seen two paintings by Caravaggio for sale in the city. He qualifies them as “bellissimi”. There is Il Rosario (fig. 1), which is none other than the Virgin of the Rosary, now in the collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna as well as “un quadro mezzano da camera di mezze figure et è un Oliferno con Giudita”,1 which we can translate as: “a medium-sized picture painted for an interior showing half-length figures who represent a Holofernes with Judith”. The prices that were being asked were enormous. The Virgin of the

Catalogue

Fig. 2 Caravaggio, The Madonna of the Rosary, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

2. Sebastian Schütze, Caravage : l’œuvre complet, Cologne, Taschen, 2009, p. 269.

Fig. 5 Excerpt from Louis Finson’s last will and testament, 1617.

Catalogue

Fig. 3 Caravaggio, The Death of the Virgin, Louvre, Paris.

Fig. 4 Louis Finson, Self-portrait, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Marseille.

Rosary was priced at 400 ducats, Judith and Holofernes for only slightly less at 300 ducats (fig. 2). One should remember that in April of the same year, the Duke of Mantua had paid 280 ducats for the famous Death of the Virgin (fig. 3) altarpiece, which today hangs in the Louvre Museum. Different documents lead us to the conclusion that the two works were up for sale at the atelier of two painters who were also art dealers and associates in Naples at the time; Louis Finson (fig. 4), often known as Ludovicus Finsonius (1580–1617) from Bruges and Abraham Vinck (1575–1619) from Antwerp. One can imagine, without certainty, that it might have been Caravaggio himself who consigned the paintings. As early as 15 September 1607, a letter sent from Naples to the Duke of Mantua by one of his agents, Ottavio Gentili, had alluded to the two paintings with less precision than Pourbus: “qualche cosà di buono di Michelangelo Caravaggio che a fatto qui che si venderanno”, but is clear in saying that both had been painted in Naples. The deal was not concluded since the two paintings appear ten years later in the will and testament of Finson upon his death in Amsterdam in September 1617 (fig. 5). He leaves them to Vinck, already half-owner of the works. The Virgin of the Rosary would first be sold to a group of artists led by Rubens to be donated to the Dominicans of Antwerp2 before finding its way at the end of the eighteenth century into the collection of the Emperor Joseph II; it has remained in Vienna ever since. The fate of Judith and Holofernes at that moment is unknown. It could be the painting found in Antwerp in 1678 and then in 1689 which would mean that it did not leave the Low Countries until the end of the seventeenth century. After that, it is material evidence, the lining of the canvas and its stretcher, which attests to the fact that the painting was in France at the end of the eighteenth century or at the start of the next one. Is it possible that Judith and Holofernes might have come through Toulouse, perhaps with other paintings by Caravaggio when Finson was staying in the city

Catalogue

Fig. 6 Louis Finson, Judith and Holofernes, Intesa Sanpaolo bank, Naples.

in 1614? The fascinating character that is Louis Finson, painter and art dealer who played an essential role in spreading the style of Caravaggio and Caravaggism in particular throughout Europe, is to be found as much in the canvases by Merisi that he carried with him as in his own paintings, often copies of works by the master.3 The Southwestern region of France also played an important part in the dissemination of this new style of painting. A letter from Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc of Aix-en-Provence dated 12 September 1614 to Merri de Vic makes mention of Finson’s voyage from Provence to Paris and his passing through Montpellier, Toulouse and Bordeaux. His visit to Toulouse in the autumn on 1614—on “some business” as he called it—seems to have lasted quite a longtime before an illness obliged him to lengthen his stay. It is suggested by Bodart that while there he is likely to have painted an Annunciation.4 A document discovered by the art historian Mickaël Szanto in the municipal archives in Toulouse, dated from March 1615, mentions a grouped lot of one hundred and sixty paintings in an itinerant lottery organized by both Finson and Peter de Bruyn of Brussels. Among the paintings comprising the lot was Caravaggio’s David and Goliath (no. 126, estimate 300 sols).5 These itinerant lotteries were commonly known as blanques. At the start of the seventeenth century Toulouse was an important catholic stronghold in a region where the wars of religion had led to destruction and where Protestantism had conquered more than one city. As early as 1590, the Catholic Reformation, under the impetus of Cardinal de Joyeuse, made the diocese of Toulouse a highly structured centre of Catholic revival. It would have appeared to be the appropriate place to sell paintings of religious subjects. There are two paintings of Judith and Holofernes that resemble each other very closely: the present one and the one belonging to the Intesa Sanpaolo

Catalogue

Fig. 8 Exhibition at the Pinacoteca di Brera 2016–17: on the left, the Toulouse Judith, on the right, the copy by Louis Finson.

Fig. 7 Cover, exhibition catalogue, Naples, 2013–14.

3. See the letter from NicolasClaude Fabri de Peiresc to Merri de Vic dated 25 May 1613 and quoted by Didier Bodart, Louis Finson, Brussels, Palais des Académies, 1970, p. 55.

4. See the letter from Peiresc to Merri de Vic dated 12 September 1614. Quoted in Bodart, Louis Finson, note 1, p. 27.

5. Mickaël Szanto, “Les ‘merveilles’ d’Anvers au royaume de France ou les loteries de tableaux de Pierre de Brun”, in Du baroque au classicisme : Rubens, Poussin et les peintres du XVIIe siècle, exhibition catalogue, Musée JacquemartAndré, 24 September 2010 – 24 January 2011, Brussels, Paris, Fonds Mercator, Culturespaces, 2010, p. 54. 6. One is in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Marseille, the other in a private collection.

bank in Naples (fig. 6 oil on canvas, 140 x 160 cm). That painting, before the reappearance of the Toulouse picture, was the subject of an excellent and very complete text published in 2013 by Giovanna Capitello, Antonio Ernesto Denunzio, Giuseppe Porzio and Maria Cristina Terzaghi titled Giuditta decapita Oloferne. Louis Finson interprete di Caravaggio, (Judith decapitating Holofernes, Louis Finson interpreter of Caravaggio) (fig. 7) which clearly takes a stand in seeing the picture as a copy of the lost Caravaggio, a copy done by Finson in Naples when the painting was in his possession. A comparison of the two paintings that took place in Milan at the Pinacoteca di Brera in 2016–17 (fig. 8), clearly demonstrates that the work from the Intesa Sanpaolo collection is a very faithful but dry and careful copy of the one from Toulouse. Of rigorously similar dimensions, it is executed as the original on two lengths of canvas of the same weave stitched together at the same place along a horizontal line, as if to imitate the original even down to its exact structure. This copy appears to have been made immediately after the original painting, perhaps at the same moment, in the same studio (fig. 9–14). It is almost certain that this copy was painted by Finson, even if there is no document to attest to it. Not even the accuracy, down to the demarcation of the canvases, can prevent one from recognizing the very particular style, with its use of harsher volumes and their slight sheen, of the painter from Bruges. The attribution of the work to Finson is, however, rejected by Nicola Spinosa as well as by Ferdinando Bologna (2004). Finson, who was a great admirer of Caravaggio, is a diligent copyist of his paintings: he is known to have made at least two signed versions of Mary Magdalen6 (fig. 15)—one of the painter’s lost works—and one of the Crucifixion of Saint Andrew (in Cleveland) and he uses the upper portion of The Seven Works of Mercy from the church of Pio Monte della Misericordia in several of his

Catalogue

Fig. 13 Louis Finson, detail of Judith’s face.

Fig. 9 Louis Finson, detail of Judith’s sleeve. Fig. 10 Louis Finson, detail of Abra’s cloak.

Catalogue

Fig. 14 Toulouse Caravaggio, detail of Judith’s face.

Fig. 11 Toulouse Caravaggio, detail of Judith’s sleeve. Fig. 12 Toulouse Caravaggio, detail of Abra’s cloak.

Catalogue

Fig. 15 Louis Finson, Mary Magdalen in Ecstasy, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Marseille.

Fig. 16 Louis Finson, Samson and Delilah, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Marseille.

Annunciation scenes. It is logical that he would have made a copy of the Judith and Holofernes—a painting that he owned. To see in the painting from Toulouse an original work by Finson seems impossible, as demonstrated by its confrontation in Milan, in 2016–17, with several other paintings by the Bruges painter such as the Samson and Delilah (fig. 16) from the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Marseille. Finson, a fine painter but a repetitive one, was very impressed by Caravaggio whom he copied, as previously mentioned, on many occasions but his powerful volumes never quite conceal a certain stiffness and their systematic metallic shapes. He is incapable of any inventive originality, of dramatic intensity and virtuosity of execution, so varied from one element to another that one finds in the Judith rediscovered in Toulouse. His own masterpiece, The Four Elements (Museum of Fine Arts, Houston fig. 17) is an example of his very different style. Everything attests to this being the painting owned by Finson and Vinck, everything attests to it being the original work by Caravaggio painted when he came through Naples between September 1606 and June 1607. The painting’s dramatic strength, the violence and the tension in the faces, combined with the beauty of its execution that is at once bold, simple and varied, the strong but subtle use of colour, with the reds of the drapery, the yellow ochres, the opposing of black and white are all that of Caravaggio. The energetic handling of the paint, the very long uninterrupted brushstrokes, the way that the ground is used to construct shadows, are all specific to his technique. The sumptuous quality of each element taken one by one, so particular to the artist, is easy to see given the remarkable condition of this painting, a rarity in the known canvases of Caravaggio. One is able to appreciate in all its sincerity the paint surface, which has minimal wear. There are numerous pentimenti, that is to say evidence of

Catalogue

Fig. 17 Louis Finson, The Four Elements, Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston.

7. Twenty paintings by Caravaggio were exhibited. Claudio Falcucci, “Come dipingeva il Caravaggio”? Forse così Dentro Caravaggio, exhibition catalogue, Milan, Palazzo Reale, 29 September 2017 – 28 January 2018, Milan, Skira, 2017, pp. 305–26.

changes made by the artist to outlines or details done during its execution. These are visible in the X-radiographs and in some places are visible to the naked eye— all elements that show we are indeed dealing with an original work. We can take as an example the pentimenti found in the hands of Holofernes (fig. 18–19), in Judith’s veil and décolleté, in the hands and clothes of Abra the servant (fig. 20), in the right corner of Holofernes’ mouth (fig. 21) and in the numerous contours that have been reworked or modified. A very thorough diagnostic analysis of the painting dated 15 March 2017 done by Claudio Falcucci, the person responsible for the scientific studies done on the thirty-five canvases by Caravaggio that were presented at the exhibition in Milan, Dentro Caravaggio, in 2016–17,7 corresponds perfectly to other works by the artist (preparation of the canvas, stages of execution) during his first Neapolitan period (1606–07). The abundance of pentimenti clearly demonstrates that this is an original work. The radiographic images show that initially Judith was looking at Holofernes and not towards the viewer, a fact confirmed by recent surface cleaning (see the report by Laurence Baron-Callegari, p. 129). It tells us that the face of Abra was reworked and that her wrinkles were strengthened. It shows that a newer light-coloured ground was placed before these changes were done but without an indication of the period between the original intention and the modification. An argument could be made for this intervention being done either by Caravaggio or immediately by another artist. These documents also show that initially the eyes of Abra were larger, almost bulging, and that they were consequently changed, bringing them to their current expression (fig. 22). In the version belonging to the Intesa Sanpaolo bank the eyes of Abra are close to those of the first idea of the Toulouse picture (fig. 23), which supports the theory of the two paintings having been executed at the same moment and in the same studio, or the changes made to the original painting having been

Catalogue

Fig. 18 Toulouse Caravaggio, detail of Holofernes’ left hand: pentimenti at the end of the fingers.

Fig. 19 Toulouse Caravaggio, X-radiograph of Holofernes’ left hand: pentimenti at the end of the fingers. Fig. 20 Toulouse Caravaggio, detail of Abra’s left hand: pentimenti in the fingers. 42

Catalogue

Fig. 22 Toulouse Caravaggio, X-radiograph Abra’s face.

Fig. 23 Louis Finson, Abra’s expression: first state. Fig. 21 Toulouse Caravaggio, detail of Holofernes’ face: pentimenti in the right corner of the mouth. 44

Catalogue

Fig. 25 Toulouse Caravaggio, detail of the seam of the canvas.

Fig. 24 Louis Finson, detail of the seam of the canvas.

realised just after the copy was completed. It is impossible to ignore the material characteristics that are shared by both paintings; they are the same size and are both executed on two lengths of canvas sewn together along the same horizontal line (fig. 24–25). Abra’s face, with its wrinkles lined up with such insistence and which had appeared harsh and mechanical before the recent cleaning, to such a degree as to lead one to suspect their having been painted by another hand, has now regained its fullness with volumes that are well constructed in the light without any discontinuity in relationship to the rest of the figure. This light cleaning has clearly revealed the continuity of historical craquelure that crosses the wrinkles. In relief, these wrinkles were particularly clogged with old varnish and dirt, which had reinforced their heaviness. The hypothesis of a reworking of these elements by another painter, perhaps Finson, the artist most likely (although not unanimously agreed upon) to have painted the copy of the work that stands in Naples today put forward by Rossella Vodret and accepted with caution by Keith Christiansen in Milan, does not seem tenable since neither the scientific analysis, no more than the sympathetic reduction of the varnish, were able to clearly demonstrate a painting executed in two stages. The idea of a “bottega aperta” or an “open atelier” in Naples that Caravaggio would have occupied and where he might have worked with foreign painters, not just Finson and Abraham Vinck, has been suggested by Nicola Spinosa, who from the very start has been a firm believer of an attribution to Caravaggio of our Judith. This would be one way to explain certain variations, done during their execution, between the original and the copy. But this is so contrary to the deeply ingrained image of the solitary Caravaggio, hostile to any form of collaboration, that it is difficult to imagine him accepting any intervention from anyone

Catalogue

and should be considered only with a great deal of reservation. It is important to remember the very large price being asked for the painting in 1607, 300 ducats, a price that would have only been possible for an original work executed by, and only by, Caravaggio himself!

8. The date of the Barberini Judith series from one art historian to another. Yet they all agree that the painting was created sometime between 1597 and 1602, showing once again the difficulties in classifying works by this exceptional artist.

What place does the painting hold in Caravaggio’s oeuvre? It is almost certain that it was painted in 1606 or 1607 in Naples. The letter written by Ottavio Gentili to the Duke of Mantua leads one to believe that like the Virgin of the Rosary (fig. 2), Judith and Holofernes was painted in Naples. The almost sculptural strength of the volumes, the way the figures protrude from the dark background, the boldness of its execution, the large brushstrokes, are also to be found in the great Flagellation in the church of San Domenico Maggiore, today on view in the Museo di Capodimonte (fig. 26), in the Crucifixion of Saint Andrew in the Cleveland Museum of Art and in the Christ at the Column in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Rouen (fig. 27). The way the different fabrics are rendered here, notably that of the white cloth, is surprisingly close to that of Abra’s cloak (fig. 28). The painting appears as an echo to the famous Judith (possibly 1597)8 identified by the restorer Pico Cellini as a Caravaggio and published as one by Roberto Longhi in 1951 (fig. 29–33). That painting, which came from the collection of Vincenzo Coppi and is now in the Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica at the Barberini Palace was painted in Rome for Ottavio Costa. The structure of the composition is very similar, with the two women of similar facial features placed to the right of the bed, the servant seen in profile to the far right now standing in the centre of the composition. The position of Holofernes is very close, with his body arching backwards, arms and right hand on the bed, directly comparable (fig. 30–31). All this makes a good argument for the Judith from Toulouse being a Caravaggio: we know that the painting from the Costa collection was in Rome, hidden and

Catalogue

Fig. 26 Caravaggio, The Flagellation of Christ, Museo di Capodimonte, Naples.

Fig. 27 Caravaggio, Christ at the Column, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Rouen. Fig. 28 Toulouse Caravaggio, detail of Abra’s cloak. 48

Catalogue

Fig. 30 Toulouse Caravaggio, detail of Holofernes’ right hand.

Fig. 29 Caravaggio, Judith and Holofernes, Galleria Nazionale d’Arte, Palazzo Barberini, Rome.

Fig. 31 Caravaggio, Judith and Holofernes, Palazzo Barberini, Rome, detail of Holofernes’ right hand.

Catalogue

Fig. 32 Caravaggio, Judith and Holofernes, Palazzo Barberini, Rome, the face of Judith.

Fig. 33 Toulouse Caravaggio, Judith and Holofernes, the face of Judith.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Her sandal ravished his eye, her beauty took his soul prisoner and the scimitar cut through his neck â&#x20AC;? Book of Judith (16:9)

Catalogue

inaccessible, and could not have immediately served as an inspiration for any “follower”. Only Caravaggio could outperform Caravaggio! In this same way the restless red drapery, the one from the general’s tent, works in harmony with the movement of the figures in both canvases, a beautiful concept that is superbly developed in the second painting. But a comparison of these two paintings allows one above all to accentuate their complete opposition. On the one hand, in the Roman painting, there is breadth and breathing space. Judith is imposing and seductive in her fine white chemise, which reveals her physical beauty, an inspiration taken from antique statues—notably the Laocoön from the Vatican and those of the great Florentine and Roman Renaissance. On the other hand, the later painting is all about tension, contraction and worry, darkness and cruelty. That which the Roman picture holds in terms of taught elegance, its insistence on curvilinear rhythms, makes way for a more intense, less diluted composition resulting in a painting that is darker, more naturalistic, more acerbic, marking a more advanced stage in the painter’s art. The dark dress and veil of the heroine which seem to emerge from our painting, the terrible look of determination in her eyes, and at the same time looking away—but the scientific report by Claudio Falcucci shows us that originally she was looking at Holofernes!—are all completely different from what is being shown in the Roman canvas. Here Judith appears to be being encouraged by the servant to commit this act: the silent dialogue between the two women standing so close together constitutes the central drama of the painting. Judith’s heroism, which in this moment saves her own people, takes on an even greater dimension. Holofernes is represented as a hateful figure, ruthless, the invader, with black fingernails and hands weathered by the sun and the white body of a general. His face is twisted in pain and his eyes have already rolled back. This naturalism and this insistence on the power of the sword mark the evolution of the painter towards a concern with dramatic tension that reaches an almost unbearable height. The formal tension of these figures who are grouped together in the centre of the canvas with the union of their tightly contracted hands around the severed head, find their counterpoint in the draperies, amongst the most beautiful ever painted by Caravaggio, which, as they amplify, serve to elaborate the larger rhythms of the composition. The folds of the white sheet are treated with broad brushstrokes and the subtle mixing of colder and warmer shades, the heavy folds of the red drapery of Holofernes’ tent, with its large knot in the centre of the canvas, work as an echo to the knotted hands in their murderous gesture. It is impossible not to evoke the striking drapery that hangs down in the upper portion of the Louvre Museum’s The Death of the Virgin (fig. 3), whose ample rhythms harmonize with the whole of the composition. We do not know who commissioned Judith. The Madonna of the Rosary (fig. 2) that was up for sale at the same time, might have been brought from Rome by Caravaggio: one is struck by the difference in brushstroke from one painting to the other, and by the greater calm in the painting that today hangs in Vienna. It is almost certain, for the stylistic reasons previously stated, that our Judith was painted in Naples. And the rendering of the hilt of the sword is striking in its particularity. It is so finely done, so refined, with the unusual use of gilt, that one wonders if it might belong to the person who commissioned the painting, that he would have wished to see his sword represented by the artist, and given the subject of the painting, imbued with a special significance.

Catalogue

The attribution to Caravaggio of our Judith and Holofernes was defended early on by Nicola Spinosa (Attorno a Caravaggio, 2016–17, pp. 21–45). It was also defended by Keith Christiansen who viewed the painting a short time after and who organized the colloquium held at the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan on 6 February 2017 bringing together numerous experts on Caravaggio (see his report “Study day at Brera” pp. 104–07 and his interview in the Gazette de l’Hôtel Drouot, 18 January 2019, pp. 102–03). The attribution is notably defended by: Sergio Benedetti, now deceased who agreed to the attribution on the basis of a photograph and by David M. Stone, Catherine Puglisi, Wolfgang Prohaska (former director of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna), Rossella Vodret and Claudio Falcucci (who organized the exhibition Dentro Caravaggio at the Palazzo Reale in Milan), Guillaume Kientz (curator of European Paintings at the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth) as well as John Gash (Senior Lecturer and Head of the Art History Department at the University of Aberdeen). As John Gash himself writes: “There is every reason to believe that, stylistically and technically, the Toulouse Judith and Holofernes emanated from Caravaggio’s mind and brush, and is the original painting recorded as being for sale in Naples in September 1607, and previously known only through the copy in the Banca Intesa Sanpaolo. It is an imaginative reworking of Caravaggio’s earlier rendering of the story in Palazzo Barberini, adding new layers of psychological insight, spatial complexity, and expressive lighting in a hyper-realistic idiom, which verges on the grotesque. This latter raises the outside possibility of some limited studio collaboration or completion but, on balance, I consider such hypotheses unnecessary and unlikely.” (27 January 2019) The moment that the painting reappeared, divergent voices were raised, notably that of Mina Gregori—the renowned Caravaggio specialist responsible for numerous high-profile discoveries regarding the artist—who did not recognize it as being by his hand. And yet, in her own monograph of Caravaggio published in 1995, she described the painting with the Intesa Sanpaolo bank as being a copy of the lost Caravaggio (p. 152, fig. 61). As of today, while recognizing that the present painting is a work of the very highest quality, (see the article by Éric Biétry-Rivierre, “Le mystère du ‘vrai faux’ Caravage”, Le Figaro, 10 January 2019) she wonders if it might not be the work of Artemisia Gentileschi (1593–1652) but comparisons with works by this artist, whose subjects are often cruel, are unconvincing. Similarly, Gianni Papi, whose work on the subject of Caravaggism over the past twenty years has contributed so much, refuses the attribution to Caravaggio. He sees the painting as the work of Finson copying the lost original in direct contact with Caravaggio; as for the version in the collection of the Intesa Sanpaolo bank, he sees it as a second copy also done by Finson at a later date and not as close to Caravaggio in spirit and technique. We can only point out that the numerous pentimenti and the exceptional energy of execution found in the canvas from Toulouse do not plead in favour of it being a copy. Additionally, other specialists such as Francesca Cappelletti and Maria Cristina Terzaghi have also refused the attribution of Caravaggio to the Toulouse painting. It must be said that every new discovery of a work by Caravaggio has provoked a debate, often with very fierce opposition, before the attribution is ultimately accepted by a majority or unanimously. In the following pages are the most notable examples of paintings that were once strongly contested and that today are all considered as being original works by Caravaggio.

Catalogue

Rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio Questions answered

Without claiming to rewrite or add to the admirable book by André Berne-Joffroy, Le dossier Caravage (1959),1 it is important to remember to what degree the reconstruction of the oeuvre of Caravaggio, considered today as one of the greatest painters in history, has been arduous, difficult and fuelled by controversy, enthusiasm and disappointments. We will list a few examples, without making mention of the “rediscoveries” not recognized by the majority of art historians and the art market.

1. André Berne-Joffroy, Le dossier Caravage: psychologie des attributions et psychologie de l’art (second edition), Paris, Flammarion, 2010, foreword by Yves Bonnefoy, preface and notes by Arnauld Bréjon de Lavergnée.‎

Fig. 27 Caravaggio, Christ at the Column, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Rouen.

“An unpredictable and always surprising artist.” Keith Christiansen (2019) Christ at the Column, acquired in 1955 by the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Rouen as a work by Mattia Preti (1613–1699), was only confirmed as being by Caravaggio in 1960 by Roberto Longhi although he had previously considered another painting from a private collection in Lucca to be the original work. Denis Mahon, on the other hand, until his death in 2011, continued to maintain that the original was in a private Swiss collection. Today it is unanimously considered to be a masterpiece by Caravaggio.

Rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio

Fig. 34 Caravaggio, Salome receives the head of Saint John the Baptist, National Gallery, London.

Salome receives the head of John the Baptist in the National Gallery, London, coming from France and identified by Longhi, was brought to the attention of the National Gallery in 1970 by Mahon, purchased by the museum in spite of the reticence of some of the directors—including the director Michael Levey— who would leave it for many years in the reserves; today unanimously accepted as right.

Rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio

Fig. 35 Caravaggio, The Knight of Malta, Palazzo Pitti, Florence.

The Knight of Malta from the Palazzo Pitti in Florence, determined to be by Caravaggio by Mina Gregori in 1970 while the painting was confined to the museum’s reserves, an attribution long debated that today is widely accepted.

Rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio

Fig. 37 Caravaggio, Martha and Mary Magdalene, Institute of Arts, Detroit.

Fig. 36 Caravaggio, Saint Francis in Meditation, Pinocateca Civica, Cremona.

Saint Francis in Meditation from the Pinacoteca Civica in Cremona, long considered by Longhi to be a copy, today regarded as a masterpiece after having been rehabilitated by Mahon and Longhi himself, followed by Mina Gregori and Keith Christiansen.

Rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio

The painting of Martha and Mary Magdalene in the Detroit Institute of Arts was acquired by the museum at the initiative of Fred Cummings in 1973 after having been unsuccessfully offered at auction in 1971â&#x20AC;&#x201D;a failure due in part to opposition voiced by Michael Levey at the time. Its attribution to Caravaggio, supported by Mahon and Maurizio Marini, was controversial. The attribution to the master is now widely accepted.

Rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio

Fig. 38 Caravaggio, The Denial of Saint Peter, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

Fig. 39 Caravaggio, The Crucifixion of Saint Andrew, Museum of Art, Cleveland.

The Denial of Saint Peter at the Metropolitan Museum of Art was acquired in 1997, coming from a Swiss collection and attributed to Caravaggio by Longhi and published by Maurizio Marini in 1973 without immediatly convincing the specialists. Today it is considered by all to be an admirable original late work by the artist.

Rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio

1. Ann Tzeutschler Lurie and Denis Mahon, “Caravaggio’s Crucifixion of Saint Andrew from Valladolid”, The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, vol. 64, no. 1, 1977, pp. 2–24.

The Crucifixion of Saint Andrew, acquired in 1976 by the Cleveland Museum of Art, whose attribution to Caravaggio had been rejected by Alfonso Perez Sanchez, but following the publication by Ann Tzeutschler Lurie and Denis Mahon published in 19771 was then considered to be the original of the painting commissioned by the Count of Benavente. This attribution is unanimously accepted today.

Rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio

Fig. 40 Caravaggio, The Taking of Christ, National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin.

The Taking of Christ, belonging to a religious community and deposited at the National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, a fine discovery by Sergio Benedetti in 1993, which dethroned another version in Odessa, decidedly a copy. The Dublin painting is unanimously accepted today.

Rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio

Fig. 41 Caravaggio, The Cardsharps, Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth.

The Cardsharps from the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth was long considered lost. Purchased at the initiative of Ted Pillsbury, it was the subject of much disbelief in regard to the attribution until its relining, which revealed a Del Monte seal on the verso of the original canvas. Subsequently considered as an essential work by the artist.

Rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio

Fig. 42 Caravaggio, The Martyrdom of Saint Ursula, Intesa Sanpaolo bank, Naples.

The Martyrdom of Saint Ursula from the collection of the Intesa Sanpaolo bank in Naples, acquired in 1973 as a work by Mattia Preti, long debated, brilliantly defended by Mina Gregori and today admired, in spite of its state of conservation, as one of Caravaggioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s great late works.

Rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

1. The quotations are from the New Jerusalem Bible, published by Darton, Longman and Todd (www.catholic.org/bible).

The Book of Judith, a Bible story of only a few pages, has been a source of constant inspiration for writers and artists throughout the ages. In distancing itself from historical facts it has become timeless and European Christendom is happy to turn to its heroine whenever a political situation puts freedom at risk. Judith, a model of virtue inherited from the High Middle Ages, simultaneously embodies humility, chastity, temperance, strength, prudence and faith standing in victorious opposition to vices such as pride, lust and desire. At the turn of the seventeenth century, Caravaggio painted two versions of Judith and Holofernes, the first one in 1597 and the second in 1607, both capturing the moment of Judith’s victory. Of the thirteen chapters that make up the Book of Judith, the first seven describe the westerly advance of the armies of Nebuchadnezzar “who reigned over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh” (1:1).1 In order to defeat Arphaxad, the Kind of Medes who had fortified the city of Ecbatana, Nebuchadnezzar sought an alliance with the self-governing people of the region. Although none responded to his call, he still went on to defeat and kill Arphaxad and then turned against those rebellious peoples who had refused to take up arms (fig. 1). Having decided to seek revenge for this affront, he “sent for Holofernes, general-in-chief of his armies and subordinate only to himself…. Leaving the presence of his sovereign, [Holofernes] immediately summoned all the marshals, generals and officers of the Assyrian army and detailed the picked troops as his master had ordered, about a hundred and twenty thousand men and a further twelve thousand mounted archers…. He then secured vast numbers of camels, donkeys and mules to carry the baggage, and innumerable sheep, oxen and goats for food supplies. He then set out for the campaign with his whole army, in advance of King Nebuchadnezzar, to overwhelm the whole western region with his chariots, his horsemen and his picked body of loot.” (2:14-19) (fig. 2). That being done, he pillaged the land all the way to the coast, destroying sanctuaries and sacred trees everywhere “so that the nations should worship

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 1 France, Lyon ?. Combat Between an Assyrian and a Median soldier, circa 1275–1300, Initial of Arphaxad, prologue from the Book of Judith, Lyon, B.M. 0411 (0337), f.017.

Fig. 2 Spain, Pamplona, 1197, Holofernes and his Army Riding to Bethulia, Book of Judith, Amiens, B.M., 0108,f.143v.

Nebuchadnezzar alone and people of every language and nationality should hail him as a god” (3:8). Upon hearing of these events, the Israelites living in Judea who had just finished rebuilding the temple of Jerusalem, which had already been plundered and burned by the king of Babylon in 586 BC, organized themselves, fortifying the towns, occupying the hilltops and preparing for a siege: “Joakim the high priest, resident in Jerusalem at the time, wrote to the inhabitants of Bethulia [which the story places to the North of Jerusalem]…. He ordered them to occupy the mountain passes, the only means of access to Judaea, [for there] it would be easy for them to halt an attacking force, the narrowness of the approach not allowing men to advance more than two abreast” (4:6–7). In order to ensure their victory, in the whole of Judea and in Jerusalem there were long days of fasting and sacrificial offerings. The people of Israel implored their God. Faced with this renewed rebelliousness, “Holofernes was furious…. He said, ‘tell me what people is this that occupies the hill-country?… What are the sources of its power and strength?… Why have they disdained to wait on me, as all the western peoples have?’” (5:2–4). Achior, an Ammonite general and mercenary in Holofernes’ service, suggests that as long as they remained faithful to their God, these people would remain powerful because He protects them. Ignoring his answer, the assembly of notables and the crowd call out, “Why should we be afraid of the Israelites?… Forward! Advance! Your army, Holofernes our master, will swallow them in one mouthful!” (5:23–24). Having retorted to Achior, “You claim their God will protect them. And who is God if not Nebuchadnezzar?” (6:2), the Assyrian general abandons him to the inhabitants of Bethulia, promising him death under the coming onslaught of the city by the Assyrians. In spite of being from the enemy camp, Achior is spared by the inhabitants of Bethulia to whom he reveals Holofernes’ plans: “At this the people fell to

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

the ground and worshipped God. – Lord God of heaven, they cried, take notice of their arrogance…. Look kindly today on those who are consecrated to you” (6:18–19). The next day Holofernes rode towards Bethulia with an army “numbered one hundred and twenty thousand infantry and twelve thousand cavalry, not to mention the baggage train with the vast number of men on foot concerned with that (7:2)…. On the second day [he] deployed his entire cavalry in sight of the Israelites in Bethulia… reconnoitered the slopes leading up to the town, located the water-points, seized them (7:6–7)…. Tents and equipment made an immense encampment, so vast were their numbers…. For thirty-four days the Assyrian army, infantry, chariots, cavalrymen had them surrounded. Every water-jar the inhabitants of Bethulia had was empty; their storage-wells were drying up (7:18–21). In despair, they implored the leaders of the city to surrender: “no doubt we shall be enslaved, but at least we shall be alive and not see our little ones dying before our eyes” (7:27). Ozias asks that they hold out five more days. If once this deadline passed God had not intervened in their favour, he would then heed their demand. It is not until chapter 8 that we are introduced to Judith, the first woman to enter the story. Her name signifies “the Jewess”. Her genealogy that can be retraced for sixteen generations, one of the longest of all those mentioned in the Bible for its kings and heroes, attest to her being a daughter of Israel: “As a widow [she] stayed inside her home for three years and four months. She had had an upper room built for herself on the roof. She wore sackcloth next to the skin and dressed in widow’s weeds. She fasted…. Now she was very beautiful, charming to see. Her husband Manasseh [himself a son of Israel] had left her gold and silver, menservants and maidservants, herds and land; and she lived among all her possessions without anyone finding a word to say against her, so devoutly did she fear God” (8:4–8). Known for her good sense and intelligence she did not go among her people but she was informed of recent events. “Judith immediately sent the serving-woman who ran her household to summon… [two] elders of the town. When they came in [certain that God would save the people of Bethulia, the city that protects the sacred places] she said:… ‘You were wrong … to bind yourself by oath, in defiance of God, to surrender the town to our enemies if the Lord did not come to your help within a set number of days… Rather, let us plead with him to help us’ (8:10–11 and 17)… ‘So now, brothers, let us set an example to our brothers, since their lives depend on us, and the sanctuary, the Temple and altar rests on us’” (8:24). Ozias, recognizing the “excellence” of her heart, says, “You are a devout woman; pray to the Lord then, to send us a downpour to fill our storage-wells…. Judith replied. ‘Listen to me, I intend to do something, the memory of which will be handed down … from age to age. Tonight you must be at the gate of the town. I shall make my way out with my attendant. Before the time fixed by you for surrendering the town to our enemies, the Lord will make use of me to rescue Israel’” (8:31–33). Having prayed to the God of her fathers in these terms, “See the Assyrians,… observe their arrogance, send your fury on their heads, give the strength I have in mind to this widow’s hand…. Break their pride by a woman’s hand (9:7–10)…. And demonstrate to every nation, every tribe … that the race of Israel has no protector but you” (9:7–14), Judith calls her servant and comes down from her room

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 3 The (Latin) Kingdom of Jerusalem (Acre), c. 1260–70, Judith led before Holofernes, Dijon, B.M., 0562, f.151v.

Fig. 4 Abbey of Citeaux, c. 1100, Holofernes’ Banquet, Dijon, B.M. 0014, f.158.

to prepare herself. “Taking off her widow’s dress, she washed all over, anointed herself plentifully with perfumes, dressed her hair, wrapped a turban round it and put on the robe of joy she used to wear when her husband Manasseh was alive. She put sandals on her feet, put on her necklaces, bracelets, rings, earrings and all her jewelry, and made herself beautiful enough to beguile the eye of any man who saw her. Then she handed her maid a skin of wine and a flask of oil” (10:3–5) and provisions and both of them left Bethulia, “while the men of the town watched her all the way down the mountain and across the valley, until they lost sight of [them]” (10:10). Stopped at an Assyrian outpost, Judith poses as a fugitive preferring to bring information to Holofernes enabling him to enter the city without a fight instead of perishing by his blows. She is thus given an escort of a hundred men who accompany her into Holofernes’ tent: “they were immediately impressed by her beauty and impressed with the Israelites because of her. (fig. 3) Who could despise a people who have women like this?” (10:19). “Holofernes was resting on his bed under a canopy of purple and gold studded with emeralds and precious stones” (10:21). He goes out and the first encounter takes place under the awning of the tent. Troubled by Judith’s beauty, the general trusts her words of praise for Nebuchadnezzar “king of the whole world”, who must have seen in Holofernes a being with “no rival for ability, wealth of experience and brilliance in waging war” (11:8). Judith tells him of the punishment that awaits the people of Bethulia if, driven by hunger and thirst, they distrust their God and sin against Him by consuming consecrated drinks. Abandoned by Him, they will then surrender. Convinced by her words, Holofernes offers Judith a tent where she can wait for her God to inform her of the most opportune moment for the taking of the city and of Jerusalem. She stays there for three days, going out each night into the ravine to pray. On the fourth day, Holofernes holds a banquet and invites

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 5 Giorgio Vasari (1511–1574), Judith and Holofernes, Saint Louis Museum of Art.

Fig. 6 Jacques Stella (1596–1657), Judith and the Head of Holofernes, private collection.

Judith because “we shall be disgraced if we let a woman like this go without seducing her” (12:12). Judith goes, preceded by her servant and attired in “her dress and all her feminine adornments…. The heart of Holofernes was ravished at the sight; his very soul was stirred (fig. 4). He was seized with a violent desire to sleep with her…. Holofernes was so enchanted with her that he drank far more wine than he had drunk on any other day in his life. It grew late and his staff hurried away … [one] closed the tent from the outside,… and Judith was left alone in the tent with Holofernes who had collapsed wine-sodden on his bed. Judith then told her maid to stay just outside the bedroom and wait for her to come out as she did every morning to pray…. Standing beside the bed, Judith murmured to herself: ‘Lord God, to whom all strength belongs, prosper what my hands are now to do for the greater glory of Jerusalem; now is the time to recover your heritage and to further my plans to crush the enemies arrayed against us.’ With that she went up to the bedpost by Holofernes’ head and took down his scimitar; coming closer to the bed she caught him by the hair (fig. 5) and said, ‘Make me strong today, Lord God of Israel!’ Twice she struck at his neck with all her might, and cut off his head. She then rolled his body off the bed and pulled down the canopy from the bedposts after which she went out and gave the head of Holofernes to her maid who put it in her food bag (fig. 6). The two then left the camp together, as they always did when they went to pray. Once they were out of the camp, they skirted the ravine, climbed the slope to Bethulia and made for the gates” (12:15–13:10). The gates of the city were opened for her and she urged her people, “Praise God! Praise him! Praise the God who has not withdrawn his mercy from the House of Israel, but has shattered our enemies by my hand tonight! She pulled the head out of the bag and held it for them to see (fig. 7). ‘This is the head of Holofernes, general-in-chief of the Assyrian army; here is the canopy under which he lay drunk!

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

The Lord has struck him down by the hand of a woman! Glory to the Lord who has protected me in the course I took!” (13:14–16). After prostrating themselves to worship God and to praise him, the inhabitants of Bethulia hung the head of Holofernes on the rampart and left the city. Immediately, the Assyrians went to alert Holofernes, but in finding him decapitated and thrown on the threshold of his tent, with the tent of Judith empty, they fled in shame, leaving victory to the Israelites. The high priest Loakim and the Ancients came from Jerusalem to pay tribute to Judith (fig. 8): “You are the glory of Jerusalem!… May you be blessed by the Lord Almighty in all the days to come!” (15:9–10). “The people looted the Assyrian camp for thirty days. They gave Judith the tent of Holofernes, all his silver plate…. With all Israel round her, Judith broke into this song of thanksgiving and all of the people sang this hymn [with tambourines and cymbals] (15:11–14):… Assyria came down from the mountains of the north, came with tens of thousands of his army (16:3) … no proud giants made that attack but Judith, the daughter of Merari, who disarmed him with the beauty of her face…. Her sandal ravished his eye, her beauty took his soul prisoner and the scimitar cut through his neck! (16:9)…. When they reached Jerusalem they fell on their faces before God…. All Holofernes’ property given her by the people, and the canopy she herself had stripped from his bed, Judith vowed to God as a dedicated offering. For three months the people gave themselves up to rejoicings in front of the Temple in Jerusalem, where Judith stayed with them. When this was over, everyone returned home…. [Judith] lived to the age of one hundred and five. She emancipated her maid, then died in Bethulia” (16:18–23). There is a lot of controversy regarding the historical accuracy of the Book of Judith that Émile Mâle classifies under “legendary heroines of the Bible”. 2 In actual fact, Nebuchadnezzar never ruled over Nineveh but over Babylon, no king of Medes by the name of Arphaxad is know to us and the city of Ecbatana was in fact conquered by Cyrus the Great in 554 BC. There is no archeological evidence to confirm the existence of the city of Bethulia, the “house of God”, in spite of it being described as being strategically placed for the defense of Jerusalem. This story should be seen as a result of an oral tradition taken from a historical novel that is said to date from the second century BC, when Judaism had to affirm itself before the Hellenization of Judea. The origins of the story would be the revolt of the Maccabean kings against Antiochus IV (167–164 BC). In the Jewish tradition, the figure of Judith is still associated with the feast of Hanukkah that commemorates this event: it is the women who light the candles in remembrance that the liberation of the Jews is thanks to a woman. It is also during the time of the Maccabees that the Jews of Alexandria, eager to have writings in their own language, wrote a Greek translation of the Torah, the book that recounts the story of the Hebrews from the creation of the word to the death of Moses. To this they also added books written directly in Greek. Used by the first Christians, these works—the Septuagint—remain the source for both Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. At the end of the first century of our era, the rabbis of Palestine reworked the Septuagint, keeping only the writings that were originally in Hebrew, exempt from any Hellenistic influence. Even if the Book of Judith, which came to us in Greek, was not included in this Hebraic canon, the story was still passed on by the Jewish community. Hebrew manuscripts, that were not the translations of Greek texts

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 7 Salomon de Bray (1597–1664), Judith Offering the Head of Holofernes, Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid.

2. Émile Mâle, Iconographie de l ’art chrétien,T.II, Vol.1: Iconographie de la Bible, Ancien Testament, pp. 329–35.

3. The texts of the Apocrypha are a record of oral tradition regarding the people or events from the Bible, figures of Christianity or from the Jewish tradition, they are writings of different genres, from different periods and provenance, found in numerous manuscripts, in all sorts of languages (see François Bovon and Pierre Geoltrain, eds., Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, Paris, 1997, vol. I, p. 9). Appearing first between the eleventh century and the Middle Ages in a geographic area that runs from Egypt to Syria, they were widely used by artists. 4. Martin Luther, Biblia/das ist/ die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deutsch, Wittenberg, 1534, Leipzig, 1983, vol. 2, p. 1.

Fig. 8 Francesco Curradi (1570–1661), The Triumph of Judith, Musée des Augustins, Toulouse.

known to the Jews of Alexandria, were circulating at the time of the Middle Ages. Judith then becomes a model of resistance to oppressors, Crusaders or others, and to the discriminatory legislation adopted by the Lateran Council in 1215. Saint Jerome, appointed in 380 to the task of translating the Septuagint from Greek into Latin, said that he used for his translation of the Book of Judith preexisting Latin translations and an Aramaic text, now lost, which could have been the original version. He translated the word “servant” by “abra”, a common surname that later became the first name Abra, in all likelihood when the Book of Judith was adapted for theatre and opera. In 1522 Luther, who was preparing a translation of the Bible into German called into question the historical exactitude of the Book of Judith. Nevertheless he includes this “religious fiction” in the texts of the Apocrypha3 “which is useful and good to read all the same”4. Following his lead, the Protestants would only keep texts in the Old Testament that had been written in Hebrew, that is to say the Jewish Bible, placing the Greek Apocrypha between the Old and the New Testament. The situation would not change until the rise of Bible societies at the beginning of the twentieth century. Interested in as wide a circulation as possible for the Bible, they considered it of no use to print the little used texts of the Apocrypha and it is in this way that they disappeared from everyday use. In 1546 the Council of Trent (1545–63) convened to respond to the criticism of the Catholic Church, reaffirmed the canonical status of the Book of Judith. It placed it, in spite of its being late and having been written in Greek, within the books of the Old Testament. Cited by Dante, Boccaccio or Petrarch, Judith possesses the virtues that are considered those of “good government” whereas Holofernes is placed among the Proud in the first circle of Hell. When Ambrogio Lorenzetti decorates the

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 9 Ambrogio Lorenzetti (c. 1290– 1348), Allegory of Good Government, detail, Palazzo Publico, Sienna.

walls of the room of representatives of the Republic of Sienna in around 1340 with a fresco of this theme, he represents Justice as a woman holding a sword whose hilt rests upon the bearded decapitated head of a man, a clear reference to Judith and Holofernes (fig. 9). Towards 1450, the Mystère de Judith appears in the Mystères du viel Testament, a dramatization of the patriotic chronicles of the people of God. Written in French, these mystery plays popularized and widely diffused the story of the heroine, first through miniatures and then by engravings in illustrated Bibles and theological works. Judith is considered as a character who prefigures that of the Virgin. Translated into several languages, the poem in Latin (Mirror of Human Salvation) spread this idea of exegesis that was quite common until and during the seventeenth century (fig. 10). In the same way that Judith gives herself to God in order to defeat Holofernes and save her people, Mary gives herself to God to defeat evil and save humanity. Ozias welcoming Judith who returns to Bethulia with the head of Holofernes is a parallel to Elisabeth welcoming Mary during the Visitation. Seen as a prophetess, Judith is easily associated with her masculine counterpart, David. The boy chosen by God to defeat the giant Goliath by the sword is seen as a victory of Christ over Evil. When Giorgione paints Judith circa 1505 (fig. 11) he uses the iconography of the Virgin overcoming the serpent from the Apocalypse. Just as here she rests her foot on the head of the serpent, Judith, a young woman of idealized beauty, places her foot on the head of Holofernes. The brick wall evokes the walled gardens of medieval virgins; the image of the inner garden represents the soul. The young woman is brought to the foreground, protected from falling into the ravine that lies between her and Bethulia. The city appears in the distance with its fortifications and, beyond that, Lake Tiberius5 that the Jews called “the sea”.

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 11 Giorgione (1477– 1510), Judith, Hermitage Museum, SaintPetersburg.

Fig. 10 Alsace, fourteenth century, The Virgin Mary fighting Satan and the Death of Holofernes, Speculum salvationis Humanae, Paris, BnF, Latin 511, fol.30v.

Fig. 12 After Ambrosius Benson, Judith, Musée de Grenoble.

The contrast between her bare leg and the one that is draped in cloth translates the ambiguity of the figure. All the while that she is being seductive, ready to remove her belt, behind her cloak she hides a sword that is disproportionately large for her size and proof of her crime. In this way, the most sensual part of the painting is also that which reveals the horror of the subject. If it seems rather incidental at first glance, it is the head of Holofernes, subject of the crime, to which the gaze of Judith and the curves of her body lead us, her pale skin contrasting with the bright colour of the dress.

6. Geneviève Breerette, Bruges, portrait d’une ville au xvie siècle, in Le Monde, 4 September 1998.

5. Jan Bialostocki, “Judith: Story, Image, and Symbol” in The Message of Images (Vienna, 1988), pp. 113–31.

Ambrosius Benson, coming to Milan from Bruges, a city open to humanist ideas, goes farther in 1531 in painting a Judith as seductive as a Venus, “an astonishing painting in which the naked murderer is imposing, with her geometrical breasts as heavy as those Michelangelo sometimes gave to his allegories”6 (fig. 12). The head of Holofernes, which alone is enough to identify Judith, is relegated to the shadows and the sword is evoked only by its hilt. The transparent veil and the heavy red velvet cloak remove any questions as to what has happened in the tent that she is exiting. This allegorical vision of Faith victorious over the senses is one that will be repeated by all of European Mannerism. Cranach, and following him all the painters of Lutheran Germany and the Northern School, went so far as to depict Judith completely naked. In placing her God given beauty in His service, she is unable to feel desire and can thus display her veiled modesty with the utmost innocence in order to test Holofernes’ resolve. Cranach’s portraits of women portrayed as Judith around 1530 are completely different. Here the sitter is always half-length, richly dressed as a contemporary courtesan, and gazing calmly towards the spectator. Between these women and the spectator lies a railing where Holofernes severed head rests

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 13 Lucas Cranach (1472–1553), Portrait of a lady dressed as Judith, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

Fig. 14 Donatello (c. 1386–1466), Judith and Holofernes, Palazzo Vecchio, Florence.

Fig. 15 Sandro Botticelli (1445–1510), The Discovery of the Head of Holofernes and The Return of Judith to Bethulia, Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.

and which should be seen as a warning. They grasp his hair in their left hand and a warrior’s sword in their right (fig. 13). These women are depicted as strong and vigilant in a century that saw the likes of Louise de Savoie, Margaret of Parma, Catherine of Medici, Amalia van Salms, Elizabeth I and others surround themselves with erudite courtiers and remodel Europe with their games of political alliances. They presented themselves as having the same qualities as the vefve chaste et virile craignant Dieu avec une ferme confiance, an example taken from Le miroir des vefves: Tragédie sacrée de Holopherne et Judith written by Pierre Heyns and performed in Antwerp in 1582. In the paintings mentioned here, Judith appears alone. The artists were interested in showing her radiant beauty, valuing her perfection over her actions. Depicting Judith’s murderous act was not insignificant in European Christendom in the sixteenth and seventeeth centuries. At a time when communal liberties were clashing with centralizing powers, war was ongoing. In this context, there was a growing interest in the saga of Judith, renewed and recounted in poems and given a more political interpretation. The movement begins in Florence, where Donatello, between 1453 and 1460, created a life size bronze of Judith and Holofernes (fig. 14) for the gardens of Cosimo de Medici. In this sculpture, Holofernes’ throat has already been cut and Judith is about to deliver a second blow. The subject is explicitly described by the inscriptions on the pedestal: “REGNA CADUNT LUXU/SURGENT VIRTUTIBUS URBES/CAESA VIDES HUMILI COLLA SUPERBA MANU.*” Judith, symbol of the city-state of Florence triumphs over her enemies as symbolized by Holofernes. Fifty years later, in 1494, when the king of France Charles VIII entered the city of Florence, the Medici family was driven out and a Republic established. The statue was moved to a public space and a new inscription

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

* Erected by the citizens as an example of the public salvation 1495.

7. Patricia Lee Rubin in Renaissance Florence, the Art of the 1470s, exhibition catalogue, London, 1999, p. 331.

* Kingdoms fall through luxury [sin], cities rise through virtues. Behold the neck of pride severed by the hand of humility.

was engraved in the granite pedestal to invert the roles: EXEMPLUM SALUTIS PUBLICAE CIVES POSUERE 1495*, Judith had now become the symbol of the Republic triumphant over the tyrannical Medicis. The Florentines could also contemplate the Book of Judith with small format works that were for private contemplation. A Medici inventory done in 1492 mentions, among the gemstones, medals and cameos in a cabinet, a Judith with the head of Holofernes, a “tavoletta” painted by Squarcione (1395–c. 1470).7 After the assassination of Giuliano de Medici and with Savonarola preaching in the city against the excess luxuries of the Medici, the contemplation of such a subject in the midst of all these precious objects was a reminder of how dangerous it could be to use public goods for private gain. In the same period, Botticelli (c. 1444–c. 1510) paints as a small diptych (31 x 25 cm each) The Discovery of the Death of Holofernes and The Return of Judith and her Servant to Bethulia (fig. 15). The cleverly constructed composition leads to the contemplation of the work in a back and forth from one scene to another. On one side, the naked body of Holofernes, which is enhanced by the contrast of colours, brings to the fore his vigor and youth with a clear erotic connotation. One is drawn to the curve of his torso, forced to notice the bloody punishment that awaits those who fall into luxury and lust. There is a strong contrast between this and the head being carried by the servant in the opposing panel, which resembles that of an old man. Dismembered to the point of being depicted across two panels, Holofernes’ body becomes the symbol of a city divided by rivalry. Although Botticelli has faithfully depicted Judith wearing sandals and Abra carrying wine and oil, he disregards biblical detail in placing Holofernes’ head not hidden in the sack but wrapped in cloth and placed in a basket on Abra’s head, where we clearly see his punishment. Holofernes’ guards are squeezed into the tight space of the tent pitched before the encampment of

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 16 Michelangelo Buonarotti (1475–1564), Judith and her Servant, Zachariah, David and Goliath, Sistine Chapel, Vatican.

the Assyrian army. Those who prostrated themselves before Nebuchadnezzar can only lament as Judith and her servant rush towards Bethulia where the citizens come forward to greet them. With a final glance towards Holofernes’ body, Judith carries forth an olive branch of peace in one hand and the scimitar of dissension in the other. Those who are looking at her must consider the choices that she is offering. A few years later, in 1511, a new image of Judith is magnificently revealed in the midst of the figures of the Old Testament in the Sistine Chapel in Vatican. Entering into the chapel dedicated to the Assumption of the Virgin, Pope Jules II would discover above and in front of him the prophet Zachariah studying the scriptures. In the spandrel on the left, Judith and her Servant are leaving Holofernes’ tent and in the one to the right, David is about to decapitate Goliath who is attempting to stand (fig. 16). Zachariah was a prophet during the taking of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jews to Babylon (587–583 BC) by its king Nebuchadnezzar. He urged his people, who were discouraged by poor crops and internal dissension, to fight the oppressor, predicting that they would be victorious with the help of God. The actions of Judith and David are in this way a warning to a papacy involved in wars of conquest.

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Michelangelo borrows certain elements from Botticelli: the contrast between the darkness of Holofernes’ tent and the luminosity of the two women whose clothes are an indication of their social status, their complicity and Judith’s last glance towards Holofernes’ tent. He places the head of Holofernes on a platter, a motif that is frequently used which often leads to confusion between Judith and Salome. In the years following Luther’s calling into question the Book of Judith (in 1522), the German reformists turned Judith into an allegory of resistance. She becomes for some the symbol of the Roman Catholic Church cutting the head off the Lutheran heresy represented by Holofernes; for others, the symbol of Lutheran heresy cutting the head off the Roman Catholic Church. In the Château of Ancy-le-Franc, in Burgundy, built for Antoine II de Clermont-Tonnerre by Sebastiano Serlio there is a fascinating cycle, of nine wall paintings, that tells the history of Judith. Dating from 1573–74, just after the Saint Bartholomew Massacre (24 August 1572), the paintings adorned the walls of the bedroom intended for Henry III of France who was to arrive from Poland. In these works, Judith stands alongside goddesses (Diane, Juno, Minerva, Ceres) and heroines of antiquity (Lucretia committing suicide, Medea killing one of her sons, Portia).

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 17 Attributed to Nicolas de Hoey (1547–1611), The Triumph of Judith, Château d’Ancy-Le-Franc.

Reserved for the medallions on the ceiling, the mixing of pagan and biblical subjects was not uncommon at the time. Marie Houllemare8 demonstrates that this “feminist” iconography is an homage to Diane de Poitiers, a figure of Catholic intransigence. The painter used her features in his depiction of Judith and those of Coligny for Holofernes. The mistress of King Henry III was, in fact, the sister of Françoise de Poitiers, wife of Antoine de Clermont-Tonnerre who owed his success and fortune to the king. These works, unique in the importance they give to the consequences of the Assyrian defeat, represent the two trophies of Judith: the head of Holofernes and the drapery from his tent (fig. 17). One can interpret this as a double warning to Henry III. Viewed as the one responsible for the massacres that were multiplying, the newly crowned king of France would have to, like Judith, not only have true faith triumph over heresy, but also limit his personal ambitions for the greater good. This same Henry III becomes a Holofernes at the hands of Jacques Clément, a Dominican monk who kills the king on 1 August 1589 as revenge for the king’s assassination of the Duc de Guise. Justifying his act at the trial that took place after Clément’s death, it was said “que celui qui avait tué le feu Roy, qui estait un vrai tiran, devoit estre annobli avec toute sa race; qu’il avoit fait un acte plus généreux que Judith, qui tua Holopherne; qu’il faloit nécessairement se desfaire de cestui-ci”.9 In this same period, in the Low Countries, an entire biblical rhetoric was being developed and propagated by Calvinist preachers. The figure of Judith was transformed into a formidable unifying symbol for the first Republic—The Seven United Provinces—formed from the resistance led by William of Orange (William I) known as “William The Silent” or Stadhouter in 1599. In 1579, the provinces of the Low Countries joined together in order to

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 18 Rembrandt (1606–1669), Judith at the Banquet of Holofernes, Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid.

8. Marie Houllemare, “Une femme en guerre, l ’iconographie de Judith à la Renaissance” in Marion Trevisi and Philippe Nivet, eds., Les femmes et la guerre de l’ antiquité à 1918, Paris, 1910, pp. 77–90.

10. In this Dutch addition to the Old Testament, the United Provinces appear as a new Zion, Philip II as the King of Assyria and William the Silent as the pious captain of Judah. See Simon Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age, Berkeley, 1988.

9. Quoted by Marie Houllemare, Une femme, note 58, p. 13.

Fig. 19 Veronese (1528–1588), Judith and Holofernes, Musée des Beaux-arts, Caen.

defend their privileges against Spain, which was literally at the throats of both bourgeois and peasant. Devoted to protecting their sovereignty and their local ways, they did not adopt a constitution nor a common language. What truly united them, beyond a common geography, was their refusal to be governed by a state and their perception of themselves as being the guardians of the waare vrijheid, “true freedom”. Just as the Hebrews fleeing slavery and idolatry, the people of the Low Countries took refuge in their devotion, to live and proclaim the plan that God had conceived for the world, in honor, prosperity and glory as long as they followed His commandments. “In this Netherlandish addendum to the Old Testament, the United Provinces featured as the new Zion, Philip II as a king of Assyria and William the Silent as a godly captain of Judah.”10 Several years later, in 1634, Rembrandt painted a Judith representing the victorious Dutch Republic, honored and covered with riches (fig. 18). Venice would not escape this turmoil. Its three great painters: Titian, Tintoretto and Veronese all treated the subject. In the 1580s Veronese used the image of Judith to defend the liberties of a city governed by the Council of Ten, just as Bethulia was governed by a council of elders. He included his Judith and Holofernes (fig. 19) in a cycle of four large canvases dedicated to the heroines of the Old Testament. The two-headed eagle of the Hapsburgs that figures on the standard at the entrance to Holofernes’ tent as well as on the lace that runs along the edges of his bed leaves no doubt as to the message. The servant, in a completely unprecedented fashion, is depicted with African features, a detail that underscores the important role that Venice held and claimed for itself at the heart of the Mediterranean. The city’s position as favoured intermediary of the Ottomans, its presence on the coast of North Africa and the Middle East drew the envy of Philip II, who is once again associated with the figure of

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 20 Caravaggio (1571–1610), Judith and Holofernes, Galleria Nazionale, Palazzo Barberini, Rome.

Holofernes. Veronese had his own reasons for this, having himself been the subject of an investigation by the Inquisition. In the course of a trial where the painter was accused of transforming The Last Supper into a sumptuous banquet—very inappropriately for the subject—he was forced to change the title to The Feast in the House of Levi. Thus, all of Europe was debating tyrannicide. Those who upheld the idea of an authority founded on the rights of the people opposed the “Machiavellians”, defenders of tyranny. It is in this context that Caravaggio twice decided to represent the murder of the tyrant Holofernes, the first time in around 1597 (fig. 20) for the banker and patron of the arts Ottavio Costa, who came from an ecclesiastical background. In this first version he seems to illustrate the vers chrestiens of Gabrielle Coignard published in 1594. The poetess from Toulouse, famous in her time, transcribes as follows verses 9 and 10 of chapter 13 from the Book of Judith: “Elle prent les cheveux d’une teste assoupie,[puis]/Criant à Dieu tres haut, je te pry’ ceste fois/Exauce les souspirs de ma dolente voix,/Puis assenant son coup de la lame pointuë,/Ayant frappé deux fois le tyran elle tuë,/Tranchant avec le fer tous les conduicts vitaux,/Qui de sang bouillonnant ouvrirent les canaux./Il change son sommeil en la nuict éternelle,/Vomissant le venin de son ame cruelle,/Qui s’en va recevoir le loyer de son mal,/Au gouffre tenebreux du manoir infernal”11 Confronted with this terrible reality, Judith remains “astonishingly beautiful”. In both versions she has only a single jewel, a sign of her personal wealth, the precious teardrop pearl that she wears as an earring. The same jewel can be found among the ones given up by Repentant Mary Magdalene in the painting of 1595–96 (canvas, 122.5 x 98.5 cm, Rome, Galleria Doria-Pamphilj).

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

12. Stefano Zuffi, Le Caravage par le détail, Paris, 2016, p. 59.

11. Gabrielle de Coignard, L’Imitation de la victoire de Judith. Œuvres chrétiennes, de feue dame Gabrielle de Coignard, vefve à feu monsieur de Mansencal, Sieur de Miremont, President en la cour du Parlement de Tholose. 1595 edition transcribed by Bérénice Mauguil-Bellucci, 1301 to 1311, accessible online.

If, in 1597, Caravaggio follows the biblical text by showing Judith in a brocade dress and an ample pleated chemise—although one can discern the outline of her breasts—he covers her ten years later with a dress of simple dark satin. She has fastened the bodice revealingly in order to seduce Holofernes. Under her widow’s veil one can see her well-kept hair, following the text that says she “combed her hair”. Having given herself to God’s will in these terms: “Give the strength I have in mind to this widow’s hand”(9:9), she grasps the hair of the tyrant with her left hand while with her right she cuts off his head without looking at him, led by the God of her people, she will strike the second blow. She is holding a sword, traditional symbol of justice and not the scimitar of the Bible that Caravaggio had painted in 1597. The weapon, used in fact by the Assyrian army in other episodes of the Old Testament, has a richly inlaid blade similar to the one that David is holding (David holding the Head of Holofernes, canvas, 90.5 x 116.5 cm, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna) in a painting from 1607. Symbol of Holofernes’ power, it also reflects the luxury in which the Assyrian general lived when he received Judith “preceded by porters bearing silver torches” (10:22) before “bringing her where his silver dinner service was already laid” (12:1). When, having returned to Bethulia, Judith receives her portion of the spoils, she is given “Holofernes’ tent, all of his silverware, his bedding, his basins and all of his furniture” (15:11) and it took a mule and chariots to carry it all. The tip of the blade glints and fascinates, sending skyward the light that then falls on Judith’s face and hand. One must imagine the painter, wandering through Rome with the vigilantes of the Campo de Marzio. He knows their leader, the brother of Ranuccio Tomassoni, the man he had killed with a sword during a duel. They are all armed and Caravaggio knows very well how blades shine in the torchlight in the alleys that he walks after nightfall. He is arrested several times for possession of illicit weapons. On 4 May 1598, he is accused of carrying a sword and on 28 April 1605 he is arrested by the Capitol’s police for possession of a sword and a dagger.12 The ambiguity of Judith is perfectly conveyed by the contrast between her two hands. While the one appears, delicate and fully lit, the other, guided by the Divine, forceful and in the shadows, kills the tyrant. As in his first version, Caravaggio strays from the story when he shows Judith’s servant by her side. This is undoubtedly the person who has all her trust and who the Bible describes as “running her household”. The Scriptures specify that the tent was “closed from the outside”, that “Judith was left alone” and that she “told her servant to remain outside”. By bringing her servant into the tent, the painter anchors the sacred text in the reality of the people. He has chosen as his model an old woman who might have been there at Judith’s birth. In this version, the servant is no longer in the foreground. She holds the leather sack open, the one that Judith had filled “with barley girdle-cakes, cakes of dried fruit and pure loaves“ (10:5) in order to refuse any food from Holofernes and to respect foods forbidden to the Jews, and she stands at the ready to make the tyrant’s head disappear. The play of contrasting light, the ugliness of her wrinkles and her goitre, the difference in generations are all elements that show the opposition between the two women who are, in spite of this, working in unison. Her servant admires Judith and is giving her an encouraging look. Her insistence obliges the viewer to turn towards the one who says with such

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

authority: “Listen to me, I intend to do something, the memory of which will be handed down … from age to age” (8:32). In the Palazzo Barberini version, Judith, who is looking at Holofernes, has neither this determination nor this authority. The richness of the drapery, even more imposing than in the version from 1597, deserves our attention. It is, of course, the fabric of Holofernes’ tent, a length of which has been knotted to the left, another which is folded to the right on a stake, probably the one where Holofernes would have hung his weapon. The Biblical account gives some details of the tent, specifying that “Holofernes was resting on his bed under a canopy of purple and gold studded with emeralds and precious stones and he came out to the entrance to the tent (10:20–21). What is important here is the way in which the drapery is used in the narrative: immediately after having cut off Holofernes’ head Judith “rolled his body off the bed and pulled down the canopy from the bedposts” (13:9). Upon returning to Bethulia, while it was still dark, she pulls from her sack, not only Holofernes’ head but, as additional proof, the rich drapery, and says, “This is the head of Holofernes, general-in-chief of the Assyrian army, and here is the canopy under which he lay drunk! The Lord has struck him down by the hand of a woman! Glory to the Lord who has protected me in the course I took!” (13:15–16). The story continues with the plundering of the Assyrian encampment. As her part of the spoils, Judith is given Holofernes’ tent: “all Holofernes’ property given by the people, and the canopy she herself had stripped from his bed, Judith vowed to God as a dedicated offering” (16:19). With this gesture, she stands up against the abuse of power by tyrants who give the riches to themselves, including that belonging to the people. Even as Caravaggio reworks the classical image of Holofernes’ face, often elongated and with a longer beard, he has kept his abundant curly hair, beard and moustache. Faithful to his preoccupation with realism, he is the first to represent Holofernes surprised in his sleep, yet truly present. Up until now, artists who had chosen to represent him while still alive, showed him sleeping, drowned in drunkenness and unaware of what was going to happen. Caravaggio’s Holofernes is still trying to get up even though it is too late. Even if we can still admire his powerful form, the blood is flowing. Judith is not looking at him and he only has enough time left to turn, perhaps, towards God. A mutilated body cannot be resuscitated and He alone could save him from Hell. Very quickly, other artists took hold of this idea of Holofernes being surprised in his sleep and struggling to fight back. Artemisia Gentileschi was only fourteen years old when Caravaggio painted his second version of Judith and Holofernes in Naples. She was eighteen and Caravaggio had just died when she set herself the challenge of painting her own version. Out of this came an original work striking in its realism, which for a time was attributed to Caravaggio himself. In a more compact space than that of Caravaggio from whom she borrows the position of the servant’s arms, Artemisia focuses on the first blow of the sword and the inevitable blood bath, not concerned with the biblical narrative which only devotes a solitary verse to the actual decapitation. Closer to a theatrical adaptation, she shows two women of similar age but from a different social standing, working together to overpower the tyrant (fig. 21). The vertical format of the painting, rare for the subject, connects it to the work that Rubens had painted shortly before, now lost, that is known from an engraving.

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 21 Artemisia Gentileschi (1593–1654?), Judith and Holofernes, Museo di Capodimonte, Naples.

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 24 Master of the Doubting Thomas (Jean Ducamps?, active in Rome in the seventeenth century), Judith and Holofernes, courtesy of Porcini gallery. Fig. 22 Artemisia Gentileschi, Judith and Holofernes, Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.

Fig. 23 Valentin de Boulogne (1591–1633), Judith and Holofernes, Musée National des Beaux-Arts, La Valette.

After this first version painted in 1612–13, she takes up the subject again circa 1620 (fig. 22), most likely for Cosimo II de Medici (1590–1621). In 1613, Antonio Tempesta dedicates to “Grand Duke Cosimo” a series of panels representing twenty-four Old Testament battles, reminding him that like the leaders of Israel, his ancestors had shown themselves worthy in battle under the protection of God and that he himself was following that path thanks to the same benevolence from above. The Murder of Holofernes that comes at the end of this cycle is a warning to Cosimo who sided with the Spaniards in various conflicts. More tumultuous than the previous one, there is a mention of this Judith and Holofernes in 1774 as a work by Caravaggio. The blade of the sword that Judith is holding tight catches the light in the same way as the one in Caravaggio’s work of 1607. Judith’s dress is of the same brocade that Caravaggio had used in 1597. For the first time, Artemisia shows with exactitude the blood that spills out and runs down the white sheets. What it gains in realism, the scene loses in intimacy. In distancing herself from the biblical narrative, Artemisia turns Judith into a woman who, in spite of all her beauty and wealth, cannot defeat the tyrant on her own. Other painters working a short time later, between 1620 and 1630, stayed faithful to Caravaggio’s invention. Valentin de Boulogne (Coulommiers, 1591– Rome, 1633) the greatest of the French Caravaggisti, painted Judith beheading Holofernes around 1626 (fig. 23). He chose a similar lighting to that of Caravaggio, highlighting Judith’s décolleté, Holoferne’s musculature and the bed sheet. His Judith also wears the same pearl teardrop-shaped earrings. She is impressive with her calm, the honesty of her gesture and her divine inspiration. Holofernes begs her with his eyes but nothing can dissuade her from her mission. Like Carvaggio, Valentin paints the servant as an old woman. Slightly set back, more worried than Judith, she takes care that nothing occurs to compromise her plan and stands ready to receive the precious trophy.

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

Fig. 25 Filippo Vitale (1589/1590–1650), Judith and Holofernes, private collection, Paris.

Another similar Judith and Holofernes, on a black background, was recently on the art market (fig. 24). This is a painting to be added to the oeuvre of the Master of the Doubting Saint Thomas, identified by several art historians as Jean Ducamps (Cambrai, circa 1590–Madrid, 1648), an artist who arrived in Rome around 1610. The position and the expression of Judith, as well as the right hand of Holofernes are taken directly from the painting that we are presenting today. Filippo Vitale (Naples, 1589/90–Naples, 1650) is an artist who only worked in Naples. The importance that he gives the red drapery in his painting evokes the painting being presented today that he would have seen before Caravaggio’s departure for Rome (fig. 25). Circa 1597–circa 1607, ten years stand between the two versions of Judith and Holofernes painted by Caravaggio. The majority of severed heads that we know from the artist date from this period. Apart from the shield adorned with the head of Medusa, done in homage to the valiant Grand Duke of Tuscany Ferdinand de Medici, the others are all from Old Testament stories: David Holding the Head of Goliath, Salome Receives the Head of Saint John the Baptist, Judith and Holofernes. The only signature that he ever left on a painting was as if traced in the blood from the head of his Saint John the Baptist of 1608 (The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, Saint John’s Co-Cathedral, Valletta). His choice of subjects shows his closeness with the milieu of the CounterReformation. It should be remembered that he stayed in Rome in the home of Cardinal del Monte, that his brother was a priest and that he would have been aware of the contemporary debate around the interpretation of religious facts. Caravaggio participated by taking his own path in revisiting with his own personal vision the great stories of the Bible.

Judith and Holofernes: iconography

The Judith from Toulouse Nicola Spinosa Former director of the Capodimonte Museum in Naples

On 14 June 1607 Caravaggio left Naples where he had been living since early October 1606, having fled Rome after killing Ranuccio Tomassoni in a brawl over a gambling debt in May of the same year. From Rome he went on to Zagarola, Palestrina and Paliano, fiefdoms of the Colonna where he spent some time before settling in Naples, then in Malta (there is mention of his being there from 22 July) where he entered into the service of the Knights of the Order of Saint John. During his first Neapolitan stay—he later returned to the city between 1609 and 1610 having fled Malta and stopping first in Messina and Syracuse—Caravaggio painted, among other works, the Seven Acts of Mercy for the church of Pio Monte della Misericordia, the Flagellation for the De Franchis chapel in the Basilica di San Domenico Maggiore (now exhibited at the Museo di Capodimonte) and the Crucifixion of Saint Andrew (Cleveland Museum of Art) for the viceroy of Naples (1603–10) Don Juan Alfonso Pimentel Enriquez, Count of Benavente. However, prior to his departure for Malta, Caravaggio left two paintings— the Madonna of the Rosary and Judith and Holofernes—(possibly for sale) in the Naples studio belonging to Louis Finson, a painter from Bruges who is recorded in Naples between 1604 and 1605, and his partner Abraham Vinck, born in Antwerp and present in the Southern capital between 1598 and 1599. The latter is described by certain sources as already being in Rome and as a close friend of Caravaggio. In fact, both paintings are mentioned for the first time as works of the Lombard painter in a letter dated 15 September 1607 sent to Vincenzo I Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua by Ottavio Gentile, his agent in Naples. In that letter, both paintings—without specifying the subjects—are listed as being in the possession of an (unnamed) Flemish painter and estimated at 300 and 400 ducats respectively. A few days later, on 27 September, the Flemish painter Frans Pourbus, in Naples to authenticate paintings belonging to the Prince of

Conca sent a letter to the Duke of Mantua in which he advises him to buy the paintings seen in the studio of Finson and Vinck: “I have seen here two paintings by Michelangelo da Caravaggio: the first, that represents a rosary, is designed for an altarpiece; it measures 18 hands across and they will not take less than 400 ducats; for the other, a painting of average size designed for an interior and representing Judith and Holofernes; they will not sell it to you for less than 300 ducats”. Both paintings are mentioned again, this time listed in the last will and testament dated 19 September 1617 drawn up by Finson in Amsterdam—where he had moved after having spent time in Provence—and where he joined his friend and partner Abraham Vinck, who had already been there for some years. In his will, the Franco-Flemish painter bequeathed all of his belongings to Vinck, including two paintings that they had jointly owned for some time: the Madonna of the Rosary, which Finson himself had copied, a canvas sold in 1631 by the dealer Charles de Koninck, and the Judith. Finson’s death was soon followed by Vinck’s and The Madonna of the Rosary was put up for sale after 1619 by his heirs and bought for 1800 florins by a committee of Flemish painters and “amateurs”—of which Peter Paul Rubens was a member—for the church of the Dominicans in Antwerp. It is there in 1781 that the Emperor of Austria Joseph II of Habsburg, on a visit to the city, admired it. In 1786, the painting was either given or sold to him, placing it first in the imperial collections before joining that of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. Recently dated as belonging to Caravaggio’s first Neapolitan stay on stylistic grounds as well as by the possible identification of the person kneeling to the left as being the Viceroy Count of Benavente (Denunzio 2009, pp. 175–94), the monumental painting of The Madonna of the Rosary is more likely to be situated—as suggested by Prohaska—(Prohaska-Swoboda 2010, pp. 71–84)— alongside other paintings done by Caravaggio shortly before he fled Rome (for archival documentation on both canvases left in Naples by Caravaggio, see Bodart 1970, pp. 10–16, 50–56 and Macioce 2010, pp. 236 and 279). It is likely that the painting was then taken to Naples by Caravaggio and left in Finson and Vinck’s studio—just like the Judith that was painted in situ and at the same time as the Crucifixion of Saint Andrew (now in the Cleveland Museum of Art) for the Count of Benavente—before the artist’s departure for Malta. Unfortunately, even though the presence of The Madonna of the Rosary is known successively in Naples in 1607, Amsterdam in 1617, Antwerp after 1619 and Vienna as of 1786, there is no trace of the Judith subsequent to the death of Finson and Vinck. However, in recent years, it was suggested that the painting from a private collection in Naples, known since the mid-twentieth century that had entered the collection of the Intesa Sanpaolo bank, should be identified as its copy.1 That is what was known up until 2014, year of the appearance at the offices of Cabinet Turquin in Paris of a painting, a Judith and Holofernes—coming from an attic in an old house in Toulouse—in every respect identical to the copy of the Intesa Sanpaolo bank. The painting differs only slightly in its dimensions (144 x 173.5 cm as opposed to the 140 x 160 cm of the Naples painting) and presents the same iconographic solutions and even the same composition, as well as an identical assembly of twill canvas of Neapolitan manufacture. The two paintings are each made up of two lengths of canvas that have been sewn together with a seam that runs horizontally from Holofernes’ left hand to the right of

The Judith from Toulouse

1. Long considered as being the work of an anonymous caravaggesque painter, the Judith of the Intesa Sanpaolo bank has since been attributed either to Finson between 1607 and 1613 (his years in Provence), or to the so-called Master Emmaus of Pau (a painting of this subject belongs to the collection of the Musée des BeauxArts of Pau (see Navarro, Naples, 1991, pp. 261–62; Bologna, Naples, 2004, pp. 166–67). Subsequently, Giuseppe Porzio suggested a rather controversial attribution to the Neapolitan painter Filippo Vitale, painted during his naturalistic period when he came into contact with Caravaggio (Porzio, Paris 2012, pp. 14–23). The attribution to Finson of the Intesa Sanpaolo bank Judith was confirmed by Gianni Papi and Maria Cristina Terzaghi. However, it is necessary to consider the obvious differences in the pictorial representation that became apparent once the Intesa Sanpaolo Judith was placed in comparison to other works by Finson, for example the 1611 painting of the Allegory of the Four Elements (Quattro Elementi) today in the Blaffer Foundation in Houston, but also with known copies—some signed and dated— of certain originals by Caravaggio (such as copies of The Crucifixion of Saint Andrew that can be seen at the Musée de Beaux-Arts de Dijon—attributed also to Vinck— and in the Back-Vega collection in Vienna, then considered, with little credibility, as being a replica done by Caravaggio himself). Just like the Ecstasy of Mary Magdalen painted by Caravaggio at the time of his second Neapolitan stay and intended as a gift, along with two Saint Johns, for cardinal Scipion Borghese for which we know of one signed copy at the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Marseille and another signed and dated 1613 in a private collection in Saint Rémy-deProvence, or even the Resurrection of Christ in the Fenaroli Chapel at Sant’Anna dei Lombardi which can be considered a copy, probably with variations, of a painting by the Bruges painter (Aix-en-Provence, Eglise Saint-Jean de Malte).

Judith’s. At the time of its discovery, the picture was in decent condition but very dirty with some minimal losses to the original paint surface and covered with several layers of abundantly oxidized varnish, notably on the right-hand side due to superficial traces likely caused by rainwater and humidity. After a first lightening of the varnish, the picture was displayed in 2016 at the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan for a comparative study with the museum’s The Supper at Emmaus—painted by Caravaggio in Paliano after his flight from Rome—with the Intesa Sanpaolo Judith and with two of the innumerable copies known (the one signed by Finson from the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Marseille and another one from a private collection) of the lost Ecstasy of Mary Magdalen, painted, as defended by Gianni Papi, during Caravaggio’s second Neapolitan stay. When I saw the painting again during the comparative study at the Pinacoteca di Brera it seemed obvious to me, just as it had the first time that I saw it at the Cabinet Turquin in Paris, that the Judith from Toulouse, for pictorial reasons, was of a superior quality in comparison to the Intesa Sanpaolo version—that was attributed with little certitude to Finson—but that it differed in every aspect from Finson’s other known compositions. This allows for the confirmation, as long as one is ready to lay aside prejudice, of the previous hypothesis that identified the Toulouse Judith as the original painting left by Caravaggio in 1607 at Finson and Vinck’s Neapolitan workshop at the same time as The Madonna of the Rosary. This hypothesis had already been put forth by certain scholars when the picture was seen for the first time at the Cabinet Turquin. Today, it is all the more substantiated by the light cleaning that was done to the varnish which highlighted the clearly original qualities of the painting confirming the very elaborate stylistic elements that concur with certain works executed by Caravaggio at the end of his Roman stay (in particular The Death of the Virgin today in the Louvre, and The Madonna of the Rosary in Vienna), in Paliano when he was under the protection of the Colonna (The Supper at Emmaus at the Pinacoteca di Brera) and in Naples between 1606 and 1607 (notably The Crucifixion of Saint Andrew, now in Cleveland). These are the qualities that we find today in the Judith from Toulouse with its intense stylistic pictorial representation: as clearly visible in the depiction of the tragic event as in the treatment of various details. For example, there is the rendering of the sumptuous red drapery of Holofernes’ tent that recalls a theatre backdrop (just like the one in The Death of the Virgin and The Madonna of the Rosary) and which amplifies the appearance and the realism of the painting. The skilful treatment of Judith’s rich black velvet garment is another example. The use of colour in the rendering of Abra’s humble garment and the cloth she wears on her shoulders echo the previously mentioned paintings from the Pinacoteca di Brera and the Cleveland Museum of Art. The recent cleaning enhances the finely decorated golden hilt of the sword with which Judith finally cuts Holofernes’ head off as well as the clever entanglement and almost inextricable crossing of Abra’s left hand with that of Judith’s as she grasps Holofernes’ hair. Furthermore, thanks to this recent light cleaning, other elements have reappeared that enable us to definitively consider the Judith from Toulouse as the painting left by Caravaggio—as he is about to leave for Malta—in Naples with Finson and Vinck alongside The Madonna of the Rosary. Of particular importance is the discovery of pentimenti that were previously invisible: these pentimenti are found in the shortening of the fingers on the left hand of Holofernes,

The Judith from Toulouse

Judith and the servant; as well as in the treatment of the edge of the chemise that covers the heroine’s breast. Conversely, in regards to the chromatic treatment of the white sheet, upon which lies a howling Holofernes, one might have initially thought before the sympathetic reduction of the varnish that it’s appearance was caused by an earlier cleaning of the original paint surface when in fact it is quite the opposite. It now seems that it was the result of a specific method used by Caravaggio that can be found in other paintings done after his flight from Rome: The Crowning with Thorns at the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, the Saint Jerome in Meditation at the Montserrat Museum, the Saint John the Baptist at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, The Madonna of the Pilgrims in the church of Sant’Agostino, The Supper at Emmaus at the Pinacoteca di Brera, Salome with the Head of Saint John the Baptist at the Palacio Real in Madrid as well as the Crucifixion of Saint Andrew at the Cleveland Museum of Art. It is known that in 1602, Caravaggio had already painted a Judith beheading Holofernes in Rome for the Genovese banker Ottavio Costa—for whom he painted shortly thereafter a Saint John the Baptist—today in Kansas City. The subject of Judith beheading Holofernes (an episode from the Old Testament’s Book of Judith 13:1–10) can be found in paintings and sculptures since the beginning of the Quattrocento. Judith, a young and beautiful woman from Bethulia, recently widowed, thought up a plan to kill Holofernes, the general of the Assyrian army who had taken siege of the city of Bethulia in Judea. Having approached and seduced the general during a feast held for her inside his tent, and with the help of her maid Abra, Judith, as Holofernes was lying drunk on the bed, cuts off his head, which is then put in a sack and taken to be brandished triumphantly before the Bethulians. The Costa Judith, passed down to the collection of Vincenzo Coppi’s ancestors in the mid-sixteenth century and acquired in 1971 by the Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica di Palazzo Barberini is noticeably different, as much by its iconographic choices as in its pictorial representation, to that of the painting rediscovered in Toulouse. In the version from the Palazzo Barberini, Caravaggio underscores the beauty of the biblical heroine in dressing her in an ample white shirt that clings to her breast while exalting it, as well as by highlighting her triumphant and disdainful attitude that contrasts with a howling Holofernes in the final moments of his life. In this way, the painter accentuates the contrast with the old servant, who stands to the side (according to the biblical text Abra had, in fact, remained outside Holofernes’ tent) and is viewed in profile with her prominent nose and throat and deeply wrinkled face. On the other hand, in the Toulouse painting—in opposition to the Barberini version—the depiction of Holofernes’ violent death is immersed in an atmosphere of dark and austere tones, as found in Shakespearean tragedies: the painting is set in a moment of maximum physical and emotional tension for the three protagonists. Abra suffers from a goitre just like the old woman who appears on the lower left of the Crucifixion of Saint Andrew in the Cleveland Museum of Art. Surprised and frightened, she turns to a proud Judith who has accomplished her violent act with determination. Judith wears a black dress, sign of her widowhood. Although still beautiful, here she is not as young as the Barberini Judith. She turns her gaze towards us instead of towards Holofernes, as if to make us accomplices to her dreadful gesture and witnesses of her heroic deed. In any event, the whole scene differs from that of the Palazzo Barberini version; not only by the iconographic choices and the pictorial solutions but also in the expression of the human

The Judith from Toulouse

condition, of being and existence. These are elements that Caravaggio distilled in other compositions, in particular in Malta, Messina, Syracuse and during his brief second Neapolitan stay. He had gradually matured since the painting in Rome of The Death of the Virgin and The Supper at Emmaus in Paliano, and which he pushes to an extreme first in Naples; in particular with the Flagellation (today at Capodimonte), the Crucifixion of Saint Andrew for Benavente and then with the “rediscovered” Judith from Toulouse. In light of the stylistic elements exposed here, it is clear that the Judith from Toulouse can be placed chronologically between the earlier Supper at Emmaus at Brera and the later Crucifixion of Saint Andrew of Cleveland, executed before the painter’s departure for Malta. When he embarked on one of Fabrizio Colonna’s ships headed to Valletta, Caravaggio was compelled to leave both the Madonna of the Rosary and the Judith in “good hands” in the studio of his friends, Louis Finson and Abraham Vinck.

Bibliography: • D. BODART, Louis Finson (Bruges, before 1580–Amsterdam, 1617), Brussels, 1070. • P. LEONE DE CASTRIS in Il patrimonio artistico del Banco di Napoli, N. Spinosa, Naples, 1984. • F. NAVARRO in Battistello Caracciolo e il primo naturalismo a Napoli, exhibition catalogue, F. Bologna, Naples, 1991. • F. BOLOGNA, “Caravaggio, l’ultimo tempo (1606 – 1610)”, in Caravaggio. L’ultimo tempo 1606– 1610, exhibition catalogue, N. Spinosa, Naples, 2004. • A. E. DENUNZIO, Per due committenti di Caravaggio a Napoli: Nicolò Radolovich e il viceré VIII conte–duca di Benavente (1603 – 1610), in Nápoles y España. Coleccionismo y mecenazgo virreinales en el siglo XVII, symposium, J. L. Colomer, Madrid, 2009. • W. PROHASKA and G. SWOBODA, Caravaggio und der Internationale Caravaggismus, Cinisello Balsamo, 2010. • S. MACIOCE, Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. Documenti, fonti e inventari 1513–1875, Rome, 2010. • G. PORZIO, “Filippo Vitale, La Cène à Emmaüs [ou les Pèlerins d’Emmaüs],” in Regards croisés. Sur quatre tableaux caravagesque, R. Morselli, Paris 2012. • C. TERZAGHI in Giuditta decapita Oloferne. Louis Finson interprete di Caravaggio, exhibition catalogue, G. Capitelli, A. E. Denunzio, G. Porzio, M. C. Terzaghi, eds., Naples, 2013. • Attorno a Caravaggio. Una questione di attribuzione. Dialogo a cura di Nicola Spinosa, exhibition catalogue, J. M. Bradburne, Milan, 2016.

The Judith from Toulouse

Caravaggio: art history and art connoisseurship Keith Christiansen Chairman of European Paintings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Excerpt from an interview by Carole Blumenfeld with Keith Christiansen, La Gazette Drouot, 18 January 2019, p. 29. From the first time I saw the picture in May 2015 and became convinced of its authorship, I also recognized that this was one of those pictures that would not achieve a consensus among specialists. We all like to think that our views will prevail, but I think that, deep down, we know this is not the case. I was personally taken aback to discover that the portrait of Maffeo Barberini in the Corsini collection in Florence—a picture the Corsini family inherited from the Barberini collection and that could be traced back to the early seventeenth century— was not instantly embraced as a significant addition to Caravaggio’s oeuvre when it was included in an exhibition of Caravaggesque painting in Florence (I wrote the entry). To me, it seemed what I would call a “no brainer”: a picture the attribution of which seemed so obvious and could be situated so conspicuously to a specific moment in his career, that there would be no discussion— once one got over Roberto Longhi’s mistake in having rejected it in a famous article written in 1963. Instead, there has been significant reluctance. So I am not in the least surprised that a far more difficult picture—the Toulouse Judith—has met with such skepticism. To my way of thinking, art history and art connoisseurship (the two are not the same, though they are interconnected) are different from science. In so many cases empirical proof for an attribution is lacking. Which is why technical information has assumed a sometimes overly important place. It is well to remember that for years the Crowning with Thorns in Vienna was viewed with skepticism (this was still so when it was shown in The Age of Caravaggio in 1986). Even among those who did accept it, the rather abbreviated style (which some found coarse) led to a wide range in dating. But we now know it is the painting from the Giustiniani collection and everyone accepts it and considers it a Roman—not a Neapolitan—picture. Similarly, if you look at the earlier

102

“authoritative” literature discussing the Odescalchi Conversion of Saint Paul— Caravaggio’s first version for the decoration of the Cerasi Chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo—you will find that at certain points it was rejected by Roberto Longhi, Denis Mahon and Walter Friedlander, who in his 1955 monograph described it as follows: “There are decidedly Caravaggesque elements in the work, such as the face of the angel supporting Christ, which greatly resembles that of the Amor Victorious, or of the Isaac in the Sacrifice of Isaac. However, the whole composition is crowded and composed in crossing diagonals, somewhat in the manner of Central Italian painters such as Federico Barocci…. Whether or not this is really the first version by Caravaggio for the chapel is extremely difficult to decide.” No one today would agree with any of this and, instead, consider it one of the most astonishing masterworks of the artist. The questions now turn to the motive for the replacement and the date that separates the two versions (the documentary evidence now suggests they were probably not painted back to back). Finally, I am reminded that despite the fact that a well-known picture in Genoa—the Ecce Homo—is accepted in just about every book on the artist, it has long seemed to me a work the attribution of which cannot be defended either on stylistic or technical grounds; nor on the basis of documents. Its acceptance is merely the consequence of the weight of past consensus that seems to have blocked a truly critical reevaluation. Of course, the foregoing observations do not mean that those who reject Caravaggio’s authorship of the Toulouse picture are wrong. Time will tell where the predominant opinion goes. But it does remind us that this is an artist who cannot be put in a box and whose work constantly demands fresh looking.

Caravaggio: art history and art connoisseurship 103

Study day at Brera Keith Christiansen Chairman of European Paintings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Monday, a day after the closing of the third dialogue at Brera with the exhibition of the newly discovered and much discussed painting of Judith and Holofernes attributed to Caravaggio, a group of invited specialists and conservators assembled for a morning of talks and an afternoon of discussion before the picture and the copy of it that belongs to the Intesa Sanpolo bank, Naples. As James Bradburne emphasized in his introductory remarks, if a museum is not a place “per facilitare lo studio e la conoscenza”—a place where one can “aprire e facilitare il discorso”, then it has not served its public or fulfilled its obligation to deepen our knowledge of the works of the great masters. What follows is not so much a summary as a digest of the major points of the day. Let us begin by reminding readers that the intense interest in this picture results from the fact that in September 1607—just months after Caravaggio left Naples for Malta—the Duke of Mantua was informed by his agent that there was on the market “qualche cosa di buona di Michelangelo Caravaggio che ha fatto qui.” Ten days later we learn what these “qualche cosa di buona” in Naples were: “doi quadri bellissimi di mano de M. Da Caravaggio. L’uno e d’un Rosario et era fatto per un’ancona et e grande da 18 palmi et non vogliono manco di 400 ducati; l’altro e un quadro mezzano da camera di mezze figure et e un Oliferno con Giudita, et non dariano a manca di 300 ducati.” We can follow the history of these two pictures, which were in the possession of the painter Louis Finson, until 1617, when, in Amsterdam, the painter—following work in Aix-en-Provence and Toulouse—drew up a will leaving the two pictures to his colleague Abraham Vinck. The history of the Madonna of the Rosary can be followed without interruption down to the present and is in the Kunsthistorisches Museum. The second picture—the one that interests us—disappears after 1617, though in 1697 we have notice of a Judith and Holofernes by Caravaggio in the

104

Parisian collection of Francois Quesnel; whether this has any relevance or not to the present picture cannot be said. The appearance of this lost work by the great Lombard master would have remained mere speculation were it not for the existence of the painting of Judith and Holofernes in Naples that many scholars have believed must be a copy after the lost painting by Caravaggio that was taken by Finson to Amsterdam. This picture is today in the collection of the Banca Sanpaolo, and has, at various times, been attributed to Finson, who is known to have made copies after a number of Caravaggio’s paintings. The discovery of the painting in Toulouse therefore presented the possibility of the recovery of a lost masterpiece by Caravaggio. A picture of undeniable quality, it nonetheless contains details that, from the outset, have seemed to many scholars too crude to be from Caravaggio’s hand. Three theories have been advanced: 1) that the Toulouse picture is the lost painting by Caravaggio but with some features that require explanation (notably, the concentric wrinkles of the old servant and the summary treatment and brutal features of Holofernes); 2) that the picture is not by Caravaggio but by another artist, the prime candidate being Louis Finson (Gianni Papi has argued that Finson painted both the Toulouse picture and the copy in Naples at an interval of several years—this in order to explain the qualitative difference between the two, since the Naples picture is decisively inferior); 3) that both pictures are copies after a painting by Caravaggio still to be found; 4) that neither picture is based on the lost Caravaggio. Adherents to all of these positions were present at the study day and all had the opportunity to present their points of view. The morning opened with a presentation by Claudio Falcucci and Rossella Vodret, who had been invited to do a diagnostic examination of the picture and who reported on their findings. It is to be hoped that these will be published in full. Here it needs to be said that: 1) the technique of the Toulouse painting is fully consistent with the work of Caravaggio, except in one particular: the concentric wrinkles of the old servant’s face, which are painted over a pale layer rather than the more habitual brown ground one might expect with Caravaggio; 2) the use of a red pigment for the abbozzo is a characteristic of the Lombard master’s Neapolitan paintings. However, it also emerged that both the Toulouse and Naples pictures are painted on two canvases of different weave stitched together in similar fashion and at the same place and that, moreover, their grounds are similar and, more surprising still, the same initial ideas visible in x-rays and then altered in the Toulouse picture are present as well in the Naples painting. Among those changes it should be noted that the old servant originally had bulging eyes and the gaze of Judith was initially directed at Holofernes rather than at the viewer. This shared phenomenon would only be possible if both pictures were painted simultaneously in the same bottega, side by side. Moreover, the fact that the concentric wrinkles of the old servant are painted on a pale layer raises the possibility that the picture was perhaps finished by another hand. This point was raised with due caution by Vodret.

Study day at Brera 105

The results of this examination—previously unknown—transformed the discussions of the rest of the day, for it raised points that had not heretofore been considered. In the first place, it is no longer possible to consider that the Toulouse painting and the Naples painting are by the same artist working at an interval of several years. Second, the pictures—of distinctly different quality—cannot possibly be by the same artist. Third, some of the troubling features of the Toulouse painting may be due to the intervention of a second hand. Finally, because of the technique of the Toulouse painting—the various changes in it, the presence of an abbozzo, etc.—it must be accepted as the prime version. Which is to say that the idea that both pictures reflect a still lost work must be abandoned. To some in the group, the evidence of Falcucci and Vodret reinforced the view that the Toulouse painting is, indeed, the lost work by Caravaggio, though possibly with the intervention of a second hand. This conclusion, shared by the present writer, would, however, add a new element to Caravaggio studies: that upon arrival in Naples, Caravaggio established a workshop he shared with at least one other painter. The possibility of una bottega aperta was taken up by Nicola Spinosa in his intervention. The fact that Abraham Vinck—the close colleague of Louis Finson and the later owner of the Judith and Holofernes—was described in a letter of 1673 as “amicissimo di Caravaggio” is of obvious interest. Spinosa accepts the Toulouse picture as substantially by Caravaggio and believes the Naples copy to be by a northern artist other than Finson. For his part, Gert Jan van der Sman—an expert on Finson—noted that Finson shared some of the same patrons as Caravaggio. He also noted the important fact that x-rays of the painting of David with the Head of Goliath in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna—a work usually but not universally accepted as by Caravaggio—reveal that it is painted over a composition of Mars, Venus and Cupid by a northern painter, adding another element to the question of Caravaggio’s relations with the northern painters active in Naples. Van der Sman noted, moreover, the many copies Finson made after Caravaggio and that he had an extremely active role as a dealer. He believes the Naples painting to be by Finson, the Toulouse painting to be by an artist “vicino a Caravaggio” and suggested—despite the overriding evidence to the contrary presented by Falcucci and Vodret—that both works may depend from a still lost work by Caravaggio. Conversation during lunch was lively, with many passionate exchanges of points of view.

Omnia in Berlin and the Sleeping Cupid in Florence, both deluxe paintings). There remained those, among whom Gianni Papi, who continue to believe that the Toulouse picture is by Finson: he gave a presentation illustrating his conviction. In short, no consensus emerged, though all agreed that the basis of discussion had been fundamentally transformed. At the end of the day, the picture was taken into the natural light of the Brera courtyard, which greatly enhanced its qualities—it is a picture that really reveals its qualities only in natural light—and where, I believe, it was generally conceded that, regardless of attribution, this is a very major work of art, indeed, and one fully worthy of the controversy it has inspired. The day was judged a rare occasion in which conflicting points of view could be discussed and a new understanding of the picture gained. Milan, 6 February 2017

To the present writer, the most interesting ideas raised in the gallery in the course of the afternoon, with the benefit of standing in front of the pictures, was the question of the portrait-like features of the Judith and her black garments—those of a widow, thus contradicting the biblical text, in which Judith is said to shed her widow’s garb and put on her finery to seduce Holofernes. Might this explain some of the variations in treatment of the various heads, with Judith’s being the most carefully described and most physically present, her gaze engaging—or rather challenging—the viewer? The idea that Caravaggio may have left the Toulouse Judith unfinished when, by July 1607, he moved to Malta, was raised, though it is difficult to believe that a picture with oro di conchiglia decoration on the sword could ever have been considered unfinished (such decoration would have been added at the very end of the painting process and is present in only two other works by Caravaggio: the Amor Vincit

106 Study day at Brera

Study day at Brera 107

Scientific analyses Claudio Falcucci M.I.D.A. (Metodologie d’Indagine per la Diagnostica Artistica),

The painting is executed on two canvases that have been sewn together horizontally along the line of Holofernes’ left ear, approximately 100 cm down from the upper edge of the painting and approximately 44 cm above the lower edge. An X-radiograph reveals, all along the perimeter of the painting, deformations to the canvas that are created when an artist stretches the canvas prior to priming and painting, as well as a darker coloured contour (less radiopaque) produced by the thickness of the ground where it corresponds to the placement of the stretcher. One can deduce that the canvas was originally on a simple stretcher that lacked horizontal and vertical bars—which would have otherwise shown up under the X-rays as darker lines similar to those created by the stretcher bars along the perimeter—and that the ground was applied to the canvas once it was stretched in this manner. We can also confirm that the painting has retained its original dimensions and has not been subject to any important trimming. The painting is not on its original stretcher. It is currently on a key stretcher that follows the models that only existed after the beginning of the nineteenth century (that enables the tension of the canvas to be adjusted in two different directions, with dovetail joints and bevelling at a 45-degree angle on the outside edges). This particular stretcher is likely to have been placed on the painting at the time that the canvas was relined. That said, it is also possible that at that moment in the early nineteenth century, the painting would no longer have been on its original stretcher either but on one that would have resembled the present one in terms of size (although the horizontal and vertical bars would not have been as wide as the current ones). The poor job of re-stretching that was done on this intermediary support, the principal cause of the canvas resting against the wooden bars of the stretcher, is responsible for the minute bits of paint loss that can be found

111

in the servant’s left hand that lies at the level of the horizontal bar and in the face of Holofernes which lies along the vertical one. The painting has been re-stretched in modern times and strip lining has been used on the lower and left margins of the canvas. The X-radiograph shows that the two canvases that comprise the painting do not have the same weave. However, the X-radiograph did not allow for a more precise description of the differing characteristics of the two canvases because of a radiopaque substance on the back of the canvas that prevented a clear reading. This substance was either applied when the painting was relined or it may have already been present on the original canvas, in which case it would have been applied as a way of protecting the canvas while it was being prepared by using the same mixture as the ground itself, a practice which was widely used in Naples at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The X-radiograph does, however, allow one to distinguish between the weave of the two canvases, specifically in terms of density (approximately 7 x 10 threads/cm2 for the lower canvas and 8 x 11 for the upper one). Because of this difference, the two sections absorbed the primer coat differently and are more or less radiopaque. An in-depth analysis shows that the upper canvas is a twill weave and the lower one a plain weave. The ground has been applied in a single coat; it is of a brownish colour and principally made up of earth pigments, a small amount of lead white and carbon black; it is heavily enriched with a granular calcium carbonate, which has given a certain roughness to the surface. X-ray fluorescence analysis has also found traces of copper based pigment in almost all of the samples that were taken. The composition has been traced out onto the ground by using different techniques. Infrared reflectography reveals underlying traces of brushstrokes that delineate the faces of Judith and the servant, the fingers and arms of Holofernes and Judith’s left hand. In the figure of the servant, these brushstrokes concentrate on the position of the nose, the eyes and the mouth in order to fully define the structure of her face. Subsequent retouching of these contours on the final paint layer has henceforth complicated the reading of this preparatory design of the servant’s face. A detailed analysis of the surface of the painting reveals some incised lines: a rapidly done line is drawn along the back of Judith’s left hand, parallel to the shadow that leads to the junction between the wrist and the hand. A second line, running perpendicular to that one, continues towards the fingers, specifically the digits of the little finger and the ring finger. A short etched line seems to define the hairline on Judith’s forehead, above her left eye another etched line can be found under the eyebrow of the same eye and a longer one, almost invisible under raking light but visible in the X-radiograph, can be found along the length of the outer contours of Holofernes’ right arm. In certain areas, the final painting does not respect these brushstroke “sketches” that were done when the artist was first laying out the composition. Looking closely at the servant’s left hand, one can make out preparatory brushstrokes in red for the thumb (which was longer) and probably for another finger, the position of which leads one to think that the original intention was to represent the hand differently (this particular brushstroke goes from the first digit of the ring finger towards the little finger, see p. 110). Similarly, close observation of the canvas, the X-radiograph and the infrared reflectography, all indicate an earlier version of the index finger

112 Scientific analyses

of Holofernes’ left hand, which originally was intended to extend to his right forearm but was ultimately resized (see pp. 116-17). The contour of Holofernes’ mouth is also traced in red (see p. 44, fig. 21), along the left side of his face, down to his beard. This sort of red sketch is likely to be found in more than one detail of the composition; as witnessed by the cheeks and the ear of Holofernes. The artist has used a preparatory brushstroke that is quite light to correspond to the shadow between Judith’s left eye and eyebrow, perhaps to avoid creating too great a contrast with the lighter flesh tones of her face. The infrared reflectography and the X-radiograph (see pp. 114-17) show numerous modifications between the preparatory composition, the different stages of the painting of the composition and the final pictorial layer. A comparison of the X-radiograph and the micrographic images show how this dark halo is the result of two distinct lines: a first one drawn on the ground—before the rendering of the curtain—and a second one painted on the red fabric itself. The first line is irregular; wider and lighter in tone when viewed under the infrared light compared to the second one; the line painted on the red of the curtain is instead, a true outline, approximately 2 cm wide, made using an earthy pigment, brownish in colour and clearly visible in the macro photographic images. It is reasonable to assume that the role of these two layers is decidedly different: the first was probably intended to define the chiaroscuro of the curtain, in outlining on the ground the profiles of Holofernes and the servant who are the two figures closest to it. This does not apply to the figure of Judith, given that she is positioned farther away from the curtain, as well as the fact that she is illuminated by a vertical light source which means she doesn’t seem to create any shadows. The second line seems to be there to intensify the contrast between the figures in the light and the red of the curtain in order to give the scene an important three-dimensional feel. The painter was not looking to include Judith in this construction as that figure finds itself in a completely different relationship—in regards to chiaroscuro—with the curtain in the background. We have already mentioned the pentimenti apparent behind the servant’s left hand as well as those behind the left hand and the mouth of Holofernes but the X-radiograph shows that modifications were also made to the servant’s other hand and to Holofernes’ index and middle finger. The expression on Holofernes’ face has also been modified: the left eyebrow has been extended towards the nose—this gives the face a mournful cast; the nose, slightly enlarged, thus conceals a part of the face that contracts even further. The figure of Judith has numerous pentimenti, in the face as well as in the clothes: Judith was initially depicted as looking towards Holofernes but she now looks out towards the spectator; before her expression would have seemed more intent on the act of violence she is committing—as witnessed by the images taken with infrared reflectography which show her half-closed eyes with pupils directed down and to the right (visible in the X-radiographs of the eyes). Her left sleeve, currently fastened around her bracelet, was originally opened all the way up to the forearm (see the infrared reflectography pp. 116-17) leaving visible a circular element—a bracelet?—that has been repeated to create the folds of the sleeve. The figure of the servant cannot be dissociated from the complex elaboration of the drapery and the X-radiograph shows the technique used by the artist who constructed the veil with the superimposition of successive coats of paint. In this way, certain portions of the veil disappear completely (e.g. the detail

Scientific analyses 113

Fig. 1 Toulouse Caravaggio, Judith and Holofernes, X-radiograph. 114 Scientific analyses

Scientific analyses 115

Fig. 3 Caravaggio, The Crowning with Thorns, Vienna, detail of the IRR imagery.

Fig. 4 Caravaggio, Saint Catherine of Alexandria, Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid, detail of the IRR imagery. Fig. 2 Toulouse Caravaggio, Judith and Holofernes, IRR imagery. 116 Scientific analyses

Scientific analyses 117

of the veil which previously ran from the head down to the right shoulder, now eclipsed by the extension of the red curtain). The cloth sack has been painted in this same manner and the folds produced by the servant’s grip have been modified. The most significant modification in the figure of the servant, clearly visible in the X-radiograph (see p. 45 fig. 22), are the eyes: they were originally wideopen, almost bulging—a logical side effect of the goitre indicated by the depiction of an enlarged thyroid—whereas now the servant’s expression is a more reassuring one directed towards Judith. Other modifications of note are: the overlapping veil which descends from the right of Judith’s head down towards her breast, which hides part of the servant’s shoulder, the retouching of the black sleeve worn by Judith which partially covers Abra’s arm and ochre robe. Furthermore, the X-radiograph shows that the folds of the servant’s dress were completed before disappearing under Judith’s right sleeve once it was extended. This layering of paint is not, however, proof that the figure of the servant was executed before that of Judith: the dress worn by Abra seems to stop abruptly along the line initially used to delineate the space for Judith, whose black dress was progressively made bigger—effectively redefining the figure of the servant by the enlargement of the sleeve and the addition of the veil. Stratigraphic analysis of a coloured paint fragment taken near an area of paint loss in the black veil worn by Judith, at the level of her breast, reinforces the hypothesis that the veil was painted after the figure itself. Under the veil’s coat of black paint one finds a thinner white paint, probably related to a blouse (partially visible in the fabric that covers Judith’s breast). The painting’s palette, analyzed in a non-invasive fashion by X-ray fluorescence, is composed of cinnabar and red lacquers for the curtain and the blood spatter (respectively lighter and darker) on Holofernes’ neck, lead white used practically pure for the drapery and ochre for the servant’s dress. Judith’s dress, which is currently black, contains a copper-based pigment, probably light blue (apparent when observing the paint surface with a microscope) which would have given the velvet of her dress a colour closer to night blue rather than the black which is likely to be due to the alteration of the pigment over time. In the same fashion, the cloth sack held by the servant has undergone a similar alteration of colour. It is currently brown but was probably originally a greenish colour as it contains a green, copper-based pigment (probably copper acetate). There are also traces of gold, used in the decoration of the hilt of Judith’s sword. The flesh tones have been executed with lead white and earth pigments, allowing the brownish ground to show through. In the face of Judith, for example, the preparation has been left visible in order to better accentuate the shadows between the mouth and the chin and the one under the nose. As for the more heavily accentuated shadows, the eyes for example, the painter has applied a light coat of highly transparent glazes of a darker colour, almost black. The ground has also been left uncovered in areas that include the back of the hand that is grasping Holofernes’ hair and for the figure of Holofernes itself, in the shadow of the right hand that is projected onto the drapery, the beard and the moustache. This is also the case in the background, where the ground has been left exposed between Judith’s breast and the white veil, and in Holofernes’ forearm.

118 Scientific analyses

This rendering of the servant appears to have been painted quite differently. The turban shows an outline similar to the one around Judith’s breast or around Holofernes’ forearm. The face is painted in a completely different manner. Instead of leaving the ground visible, the painter has applied different paint glazes either directly onto the preparation or to areas already covered with paint of a lighter colour. On top of these lighter coloured areas as well as over the aforementioned paint glazes placed directly on the ground, brushstrokes have been used in a rather abrupt fashion to render the wrinkles on the face. A colour sample was taken from one of these wrinkles (c17/017) and the stratigraphy shows that the composition of the uppermost paint layer here is slightly different from the one underneath: both comprise lead white and earth pigments but the fluorescence from the ultraviolet light of the uppermost paint layer is more intense compared to the one just underneath and of an orange colour. This is proof that from one coat to another a different binder was used, or that there was a different quantity of binder to pigment and that the uppermost paint layer contains bright red pigment that is absent in the one underneath. These observations, coupled with the fact that during the taking of the sample, the fragment came apart along the line separating the initial paint layer from the final paint layer that corresponds to the wrinkle (thus demonstrating a lack of cohesion between the two paint layers) could support the hypothesis that the face of the servant was modified. It is probable that the wrinkles were not there originally for in the X-radiography we see a face characterized by the bulging eyes brought on by hypothyroidism and a primal and disturbing expression, later changed to depict a wrinkled old woman. 15 March 2017 Tests: Techniques used for the scientific expertise of the painting: • Photographic and macrophotographic documentation • Infrared reflectography 1650-1800nm • X-radiography • Analysis of the X-ray fluorescence (XRF) • Stratigraphic analysis • Spectrophotometry

Scientific analyses 119

Conclusions of the scientific analyses Rossella Vodret Storico dell’Arte già Soprintendente Speciale per il Polo museale romano

1. The results of this research were published in R. Vodret, G. Leone, M. Cardinali, M.B. De Ruggeri, S. Ghia, eds., Caravaggio a Roma. Tecnica e stile, Cinisello Balsamo, 2016. 2. The results of this research were published in Dentro Caravaggio, exhibition catalogue, R. Vodret, Palazzo Reale, Milan, 2017. In particular the ebook attached to the catalogue. 3. All of the analyses have been carried out with the same quality standards of that of the ISCR (Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il Restauro). 4. The twill weave canvas consists of the weaving of the weft chain with a ratio of at least 1:2 (in which the weft wire passes under two warp threads) which gives a diagonal rendering, with a front and a reverse. 5. The Judith and Holofernes from Toulouse is painted on two pieces of canvas joined by a horizontal seam placed in the lower part of the canvas. The upper part is of a larger dimension and is twill weave canvas. See the report written by Claudio Falcucci in this same volume (pp. 110-19).

120

I have had the opportunity to study the Judith and Holofernes found in Toulouse on many occasions; in Paris (at the offices of Eric Turquin as well as at the Louvre) and in Milan at the Brera during the course of a comparative study day held on 6 February 2017 when the painting, of great strength and tremendous stylistic quality as underlined by Keith Christiansen, was compared to its copy from the Intesa Sanpaolo bank in Naples. At the beginning of that day, I presented a few technical and stylistic observations elaborating on the information gathered during the technical analysis drawn up by Claudio Falcucci. During the meeting held at the Louvre on 13 June 2017, I re-presented my observations based on some deeper insights. On that occasion, the Judith was placed next to masterpieces by Caravaggio belonging to the famous French museum. The following text is a summary of my two presentations given during those two study days in Milan and Paris. Comparative study between the Judith and Holofernes from Toulouse and Caravaggio’s stylistic techniques Thanks to the diagnostic analysis campaigns that were done from 2009 to 2012 on the twenty-two works by Caravaggio that are still held in Rome1 and on thirteen of the works lent to the exhibition Dentro Caravaggio,2 we now have comparable technical surveys available3 for thirty-five paintings by Caravaggio spread out through his career; that is to say about half of those that can be reliably attributed to him. On the basis of the studies conducted so far, it is possible to establish some comparisons between the painting technique used for Judith and that of the great Lombard master. These comparisons show how in the whole of the painting there are a number of elements of Caravaggio’s technique known to date. The twill weave canvas4 that comprises the upper part of the painting of Judith5 is used by Caravaggio in all of the known works that date from his first

121

Neapolitan stay. The brown primer or ground, containing large grains of calcium carbonate, which give the surface a granular quality the better to make the light vibrate, is similar in colour and composition to that of other works by Caravaggio. We can give as an example the same ground that we find in the David with the Head of Goliath at the Galleria Borghese. The wide outline—reinforced by a finer subsequent additional line—which delineates the figures of Holofernes and the old servant (IRR imagery, pp. 11617), used to define the placement of the two figures and to enhance the contrast with the background as well as the painting’s three-dimensionality, is an element which can be found in various works by Caravaggio from the late Roman period as well as the first Neapolitan period. By way of example, this is visible in the Madonna and Child with Saint Anne (Dei Palefrenieri) in the Galleria Borghese and The Crowning with Thorns from the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. The delicate brushstroke drawing is widely used by Caravaggio on the light ground that he uses in his early works. As the preparatory ground becomes darker, the paintbrush drawing—becoming less visible—is lessened (but does not disappear), and is combined with the sketched and incised lines. Even in our picture, some lines of preliminary brushstrokes are visible on the head and the hands of the servant, as well as in Holofernes’ hands and in the outline of Judith’s face. In the canvas from Toulouse, the under drawing executed with a brush is there to a great extent, indicated by lighter or reddish brushstrokes, used by Caravaggio to set his composition on the darker ground. Sketched lines that are similar to those used by Caravaggio are to be found in the three figures of the Toulouse painting: a clear sketch relative to the initial position of Judith’s left eye has been found between the eyebrow and the eye, while reddish sketches can be seen on the beautiful hands of the servant as well as on Holofernes’ lips, cheekbone and ear.6 Analogous reddish lines can be found for instance on The Crucifixion of Saint Andrew in Cleveland, a work that refers to the painter’s first Neapolitan stay, and on the Flagellation of Christ of Capodimonte. There are numerous incised lines, drawn into the ground when it is more or less fresh,7 that define certain parts of the composition. These incised lines are visible only on the figures of Judith and Holofernes. There are two on Judith’s hand, one on her left eyebrow and another on her forehead to mark the start of her hairline. A wider one runs the length of Holofernes’ right arm. There are no such incised lines visible on the old servant. These are mainly short lines, similar in number and in size to those that Caravaggio used after fleeing Rome. The use of profili a risparmio, a technique of leaving the darker ground visible (or only slightly veiled) to delineate the areas of colour and to construct the shadows, is widely used in this painting. This is a practice already used by Caravaggio in the last years of the Cinquecento, which has been finely honed by the time we find it used for the canvases of the Contarelli chapel of SaintLouis-des-Français. The ground a risparmio is then constantly used in further works, to such an extreme in The Martyr of Saint Ursula that the painted surfaces come close to being dominated by the use of the exposed ground. In the canvas from Toulouse, we find that the ground is used for outlines as well as rendering shadows: in the shadowing of the eyes, nose and chin of Judith, in her hand, in Holofernes’ beard and moustache as well as in a detail of the old servant’s headdress. However there is no trace of the dark ground being used in

122 Conclusions of the scientific analyses

the face of the servant where the shadows of the face as well as the wrinkles are rendered using paint glazes over a clear ground that had possibly already dried. In light of the above, it is clear that the most important of the characteristics that epitomize Caravaggio’s technique are present in this painting. If the appropriation of some of these traits that are specific to Caravaggio is known to have been done by some of his followers (above all the use of the incised line), at this point in the research, the presence of so many of the same aspects of the artist’s technique has only been found in original works by the genius from Lombardia.

6. There are no signs of any sketched lines for the servant’s face.

7. There are various types of etched or incised lines used by Caravaggio throughout his career. This is a practice taken up by some of his followers.

8. Letter from Naples written on 25 September 1607 by Pourbus, in service to the Mantua court to Duke Vincent I of Mantua: “I have seen here two splendid paintings by Michelangelo da Caravaggio: the first, that represents a rosary, is designed for an altarpiece; it measures 18 hands across and costs 400 ducats; for the other, a painting of average size designed for an interior and representing Holofernes and Judith, they will not sell it to you for less than 300 ducats” Quoted in S. Macioce, Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. Documenti fonti e inventari 1513 – 1875, II edizione corretta, integrata e aggiornata, Rome, 2010, p. 236. 9. Other pentimenti concern Judith’s left sleeve that had a different form, with the cuff opened and part of the arm uncovered. A large ringed bracelet adorned her arm, which then was reused to create a crease in the sleeve.

The modifications of the composition The most important technical fact that the diagnostic analysis brought out is the important number of modifications done to the compositional structure of the painting—not small adjustments, but substantial changes to the composition—which demonstrates that the Judith from Toulouse is an original painting and not a copy. In fact, by definition pentimenti is only found in original works. Thus, in my opinion, the theory of some scholars suggesting that the Judith from Toulouse is a copy of a lost original by Caravaggio, referred to in a letter from Pourbus (written on 25 September 1607, a little more than two months after the painter fled to Malta)8 has to be dismissed. As proven by the infrared reflectography and the X-radiography, the most important compositional modifications concern the three figures that appear in the painting: Judith, Holofernes and the elderly servant. Judith: she is the key figure of the whole painting; her stylistic quality is the one closest to that of Caravaggio. The most significant pentimento concerns Judith’s eyes, which initially did not look towards the spectator but were turned downwards towards Holofernes, exactly like the Barberini Judith.9 Other interesting comparisons with the Roman masterpiece can be found in some morphological elements such as the three-quarter profile of her magnificent face: the relationship between the nose, the eyes and the ears of the Judith Barberini are very close, almost identical to that of the Toulouse Judith. Beyond the obvious stylistic differences, due to the time frame that separates them, the two faces coincide even in the way they were executed, for example the slight double-chin—illuminated by a beam of light—the lighting of Judith’s nose and lips, the position of her mouth, the reflection of light on her eyelids, the shadow between her chin and her lower lip and the light on her neck. Some differences can be noted, however, on the left side of the face of the Judith from Toulouse, which is rounder and illuminated differently compared to the Barberini Judith, whose lips are fuller. Such a coincidence is quite strange and presupposes, in my opinion, that the author of the painting from Toulouse had intimate knowledge of the Roman Judith painted for Ottavio Costa probably in 1602, given that he paints here the same eyes and their same expression. This detail is difficult to explain if we hypothesize that the Judith of Toulouse had been painted by an artist other than Caravaggio; especially given the particular attention that the banker Costa bestowed upon the painting, the masterpiece of his collection, which he kept hidden behind a curtain. Holofernes: the X-radiography sheds light on various modifications done to his left hand. All of the fingers have been shortened, corrected and the position changed. A modification very similar to the one found in the fingers of Maria

Conclusions of the scientific analyses 123

Cleofa in Caravaggio’s Deposition, today in the Vatican Museum. Another significant compositional modification is in the thumb of Holofernes’ left hand, which was originally much nearer to his thorax. This first thumb was subsequently taken out by integrating it into the figure’s thorax and covering it with a luminous brushstroke. The old servant: she is the most tormented and the most modified figure. There are various modifications, notably to the eyes, the hands, the veil and the sack. The most important one is to the eyes, which in the first version were truly impressive: completely wide open, reflecting the true aspect of thyroid disease and goitre. This detail was then reduced to the point of making it disappear. Other modifications concern the placement of the figure: it can be clearly seen in the X-radiography that the servant was “invading” the space reserved for Judith with her shoulder and left arm.10 The unusually predominant role given to the central figure of the servant was, perhaps at a later moment, partially scaled down by the enlarging of the dark veil on Judith’s head and her left sleeve, which hide the servant’s shoulder and left arm. The enlarging of Judith’s veil and left sleeve is clearly visible because of its opacity (the red line delineates the part that was there before), and by the interruption of the original brushstrokes that gave light to the sleeve. This correction has in part re-balanced the spatial relationship between the two female figures but it remains confused and unresolved. The surprising and insistent pattern of wrinkles is the stylistic and compositional element that is the most alien to the rest of the painting and to the style of Caravaggio.11 The analyses not only show that the light coloured wrinkles were rendered in a different colour (pigment and binder) from that of the paint layer underneath, but that they are of a different composition; so much so that during the stratigraphy, the coloured surface of the sample taken from the wrinkles cleanly detached itself from the one underneath.12 This leads us to believe that the wrinkles were painted at a later moment over a light coloured base that had already dried. This also explains why, unlike the other two figures, there are no sketches or incised lines or use of the darker ground as outline or shadow on the servant’s face, which is logical given that the underlying paint layer there is lighter in tone.13 Conclusions on the Judith and Holofernes from Toulouse From all of these elements, we can conclude that the figures of Judith and Holofernes were painted using the most significant aspects of Caravaggio’s technique (type of canvas, the ground, incised lines, sketches, outlines, under-drawings, use of the ground a risparmio in the shadows, etc.). It would be strange to have all these elements together in the same painting if the work had not been painted by Caravaggio. It still has to be considered that the work seems to have been “corrected” or completed by the enlargement of Judith’s dress and veil and by the wrinkles on the old servant, which are foreign to the stylistic practice of Caravaggio. My opinion is that Caravaggio, in leaving Naples for Malta (June–July 1607) perhaps left the Madonna of the Rosary and the Judith to be sold with Finson and Vinck, with whom he was quite evidently in some kind of relationship (he used their bottega in Naples). This would explain why, only two months later in September 1607, the two paintings were up for sale in Naples, where Pourbus

124 Conclusions of the scientific analyses

10. The shoulder and arm of the servant as well as the yellow cloth covering it were already completed before the enlargement of Judith’s veil and left sleeve.

11. The rendering of the wrinkles is completely different to that of other Caravaggio’s paintings where they are generally obtained from the darker ground and not superimposed on a lighter coloured base.

14. C. Falcucci, C. Maura, “Le indagini diagnostiche”, in Giuditta decapita Oloferne. Louis Finson interprete di Caravaggio, exhibition catalogue, Naples 27 September – 8 December 2013, G. Capitelli, A. E. Denunzio, G. Porzio, eds., Arte’m, Naples 2013, pp. 75-80. The two canvases are sewn more or less at the same point at roughly 40 cm from the lower edge. 15. The ground used in the Toulouse Judith and in that of Naples are practically identical, both in colour and granulometry. 16. The analysis of the report of the Toulouse Judith and her Neapolitan copy is very complex and I will analyze it in detail at another time.

saw them and gave a detailed description to Vincenzo Gonzaga. According to this hypothesis, it is possible that following Caravaggio’s departure for Malta, the Judith might have been “corrected” by another painter (Finson?) to redesign the space between the two female figures, to add the dense pattern of wrinkles to the old servant and maybe even to mitigate certain difficult aspects such as her wide-open eyes. The author of the “corrections” made to the Judith from Toulouse might well be the author of the modest copy in Naples, a painter of inferior quality, who in my opinion could be Louis Finson. The Neapolitan copy, although largely lacking the stylistic characteristics and above all the painterly technique of Caravaggio, seems to have closely followed the making of the Toulouse painting, as if the copyist had had the opportunity to see it while it was being painted and was thus able to repeat some of its technical details, that then became “invisible”, covered by the final paint layer (the size and the type of the canvas,14 the type of ground used,15 the dark outlines around the figures, the wide-open eyes of the old servant, etc.).16 These details are too precise for them to be simple coincidence. A possible explanation is that the two Judiths (Toulouse and Naples) were painted simultaneously by two different painters in the same studio, probably Finson’s studio in Naples, which Caravaggio might have had at his disposal during his first Neapolitan stay. The provenance from the same studio might explain the use of the same strange type of canvas sewn together and used to paint the two paintings. We can wonder if Caravaggio and Finson had come to an agreement by which Finson would have received authorization to copy the precious originals in exchange for allowing Caravaggio to have the studio at his disposal? This hypothesis could explain the existence of so many copies done by Finson of the works of the great Lombard painter.

12. See the report by Claudio Falcucci in this same volume (pp. 110-19).

13. The a risparmio preparation can be found only on certain parts of the old servant’s headdress.

N. B. The use of infrared reflectography during the recent restoration of the Saint Catherine from the Thyssen-Bornemisza collection reveals the same structural lines made by the artist around the wheel to the left of the painting as well as the length of the dress to the limit of the background. (see p. 116 fig. 3-4 and Descubriendo a Caravaggio, Discovering Caravaggio, Madrid, Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, exhibition catalogue by Ubaldo Sedano, Andrés Sànchez Ledesma and Suzana Pérez).

Conclusions of the scientific analyses 125

The lightening of the varnish Laurence Baron-Callegari Restorer

The painting, at the time of its discovery, was buried under several thick coats of yellowed varnish. On the right side of the canvas dripping water had caused heavy blanching, which gave the varnish in that area a whitish cast. This film of yellowed varnish, in darkening the whites and in reducing the depth of the blacks, had diminished the overall contrast of the composition and the half tones had completely disappeared. The visual aspect of the painting had been profoundly affected. It was first decided to remove the surface dirt from the pictorial layer and to regenerate the varnish in order to recover some of its transparency. The visual aspect of the painting, even if it had improved following this first intervention, remained unsatisfactory. In 2014, after deliberation, it was decided to do a test patch of a light clean of the varnish to see if it was feasible and opportune to subsequently proceed to do the same over the whole of the painting. These tests were conclusive. Given the magnitude of the task, we decided to proceed first with other tests and after discussion at the end of December 2018 it was finally decided to lightly reduce the varnish and to remove any points of repainting. The oxidized varnish was very old (undoubtedly dating from the nineteenth century) and likely to have been heavily oil based. The spectacular result confirmed that our decision was well founded. This gesture of conservation had brought back the power of the contrasts, the virtuosity of the paint handling and the subtleness of the modeling. This transformation was particularly striking in the face of the servant Abra. While covered with the yellowed varnish, the wrinkles of her face appeared stiff and systematically done. The lightening of the oxidized varnish allowed the recovery of all of the half tones that now softened the contrasts. In fact, the darkened varnish that had settled into the cavities of the paint surface had slightly modified the drawing of the wrinkles, hardening them. Painting conservation allows one an unparalleled opportunity to observe in great detail the paint and the painterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

129

Fig. 1 Toulouse Caravaggio, its state in 2014.

technique in applying it. Our observations were solidly supported by the (photographic) imaging and detailed analysis done by Claudio Falcucci. The numerous pentimenti testify to a composition developed and rethought during its execution. These pentimenti are so decisive for the structure of this work that they could never be attributed to the hesitation of a copyist correcting an error in an outline. The two pentimenti that are the most noteworthy are those to be found in the eyes of Judith, whose gaze was initially turned towards Holofernes and which the painter modified in order to direct it towards the spectator, effectively turning them into witnesses to the scene. The modification in the position of Holofernes left hand is not a simple adjusting of the shape during its execution but a deliberate changing of its position within the space of the composition. The artist’s technique is very distinctive. In various places the artist intentionally leaves the brown ground visible. He uses it in the modeling of the white bed sheet or as a colour in itself, for example in the fingernail of the thumb on Abra’s right hand. This same technique of using the ground is exploited to create the shadow on Judith’s chin. Here the cleft in her chin under her lower lip is drawn by a touch of black laid against the bare ground. In numerous places the artist surrounds the shapes using a darker outline. It was decided not to do any retouching of the small losses and wear. The aspect of the mastic present in these areas was simply softened to lessen the impact of it contrasting with the rest of the paint surface. The lower edge of the canvas had suffered numerous losses, most likely from being exposed to excessive humidity due to water infiltration in the attic where it had been stored. Over the whole of the composition there are only the very occasional small spots of paint loss, deep and insignificant. There is some superficial wear in the flesh tones. The one area that has moderate damage is to be found in the white sheet. Superficial wear has, in some spots, erased the smoothness of the transition from lighter accents to the deeper shadows. Judith’s skirt is also lightly worn. There were however no areas of paint loss or wear that needed to be retouched.

Fig. 2 Toulouse Caravaggio, its state after the initial lightening of the varnish.

The painting is in excellent condition for a work of this period. A condition report is available on request.

Fig. 3 Toulouse Caravaggio, its state after the final cleaning of the varnish, February 2019.

130 The lightening of the varnish

The lightening of the varnish 131

From Caravaggio to Caravaggio: Image by image

Fig. 2 Caravaggio, Salome receives the head of John the Baptist, National Gallery, London.

Fig. 1 Toulouse Caravaggio, detail.

Fig. 3 Caravaggio, Salome with the head of John the Baptist, Palacio Real, Madrid.

132

From Caravaggio to Caravaggio 133

Fig. 4 Caravaggio, The Seven Acts of Mercy, Pio Monte della Misericordia, Naples.

134 From Caravaggio to Caravaggio

135

Fig. 5 Caravaggio, The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, Saint Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Co-Cathedral, Valletta, Malta.

Fig. 6 Caravaggio, The Supper at Emmaus, Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan.

From Caravaggio to Caravaggio 137

Fig. 7 Caravaggio, Portrait of Alof de Wignacourt, Louvre, Paris.

138 From Caravaggio to Caravaggio

Fig. 8 Caravaggio, Portrait of Fillide Melandroni, previously in Berlin, destroyed during World War II.

From Caravaggio to Caravaggio 141

Fig. 9 Caravaggio, Mary Magdalen Repentant, Galleria Doria-Pamphilj, Rome.

142 From Caravaggio to Caravaggio

Fig. 10 Caravaggio, The Seven Acts of Mercy, Pio Monte della Misericordia, Naples.

144 From Caravaggio to Caravaggio

Caravaggio Brief biography

1603–4 Several run-ins with the law for slander, defamation, illegal possession of a weapon. Creates the altarpieces for the churches of Sant’Agostino and Santa Maria in Vallicella. 1605 After several episodes of brawling, he is forced to leave Rome for Genoa where he remains for several weeks. 1606 8 May – during a violent altercation, he fatally stabs Ranuccio Tomassoni.

Wounded himself, he flees Rome for refuge in the lands of the Colonna in Latium. He is sentenced to death in absentia. September or October – goes to Naples. 1607 Decides to leave Naples in spite of receiving numerous and prestigious commissions for paintings. 12 July – arrives in Malta with the intention of becoming a Knight of the Order. 1571 29 September – birth of Michelangelo Merisi in Milan.

1608

Spends his childhood in Caravaggio, a few kilometres from Bergamo; his father is in the service of Francesco Sforza, Marquis of Caravaggio.

14 July – after a year as a novitiate, he is made Knight of the Order of Saint John

1584 Enters the studio of Simone Peterzano (1540–1599), one of Milan’s most prominent painters. 1592 After refusing his inheritance, he leaves Milan, possibly for Rome. According to recent publications, his settling in Rome did not happen before 1595. Late 1595–early 1596 In Rome he enters the studio of Giuseppe Cesari, known as the Cavaliere d’Arpino. Paints scenes of daily life and character portraits. 1597

of Jerusalem. Shortly thereafter he is thrown out of the Order and imprisoned. He escapes and leaves by boat to Sicily where he is welcomed in Syracuse by his friend Mario Minniti. 1609 Until September, travels through Sicily and works in Syracuse, Messina and Palermo. Returns to Naples; is almost immediately injured in a street fight. 1610 Sets sail for Rome with the intention of pleading his case in the hopes of a pardon. Is arrested and thrown into prison during a stopover at Palo Laziale. Freed, he is deprived of his belongings including his last paintings, which left the port without him. Attempts to return to Rome by other means. 18 July – Dies in Porto Ercole, after having just been pardoned by the Pope, at not quite 39 years of age.

July – documents show him working for Cardinal Francesco Maria Del Monte.

1599–1600 Paints for well-known collectors other than Del Monte, for example the Marquis Vincenzo Giustiniani or the banker Ottavio Costa. Commissioned to execute the paintings for the Contarelli chapel in the church of San Luigi dei Francesi. 1600 Commissioned to execute the paintings for the Cerasi chapel in the church of Santa Maria del Popolo.

146

Caravaggio brief biography 147

68 paintings by Caravaggio across the globe 5 of which are in private collections :

Italy and Malta : 40 Rest of Europe : 20 USA : 8

St-Petersburg: 1

Detroit : 1 Cleveland: 1 Hartford: 1 New York: 3

Kansas City: 1

Dublin: 1 London: 4 Rouen: 1 Paris: 3 Nancy: 1

Fort Worth: 1

Berlin: 2

Vienna: 3

Milan: 2 Cremona: 1 Florence: 6 Rome: 22 Montserrat: 1 Madrid: 3

The Vatican: 1 Naples: 3 Messina: 2 Syracuse: 1 Valletta: 2

148

149

Acknowledgements

Sylvie Robaglia and her correspondents, Julian Roup and Mozell Miley-Bailey; Christian Baraja a great professional photographer ; Antoine Béchet, frame dealer and such a good neighbour who produced a Roman period frame; and equally the whole team from the Labarbe auction house and Cabinet Turquin, who, in one way or another contributed to finalising this project : Ludovic Barbe, Jean-Bernard Bley, Agathe Cabau, Véronique Castagné, Me Camille Chabroux, Clothilde Delemar, Marie-Agnès Denis, Sandrine Favarel, Josie Ferrere, Valérie Gavard, Giulia Giustiniani, Adriane Grünberg, Julien Labarbe, Brigitte BougardLekieffre, who wrote the beautiful iconographic text for the catalogue, Chloé Letiévant, Jérôme Montcouquiol, Christine Petit, Candida da Silva, Laure Soules, Daniel Teixeira and Valérie Vieux. Thanks go to our interns, James Astley Birtwistle, Foulques de La Grandière, Marcos Eliades, Camila Pedraza, Sophie Tiercelin, and George Wills, who were the « petites mains » to this extraordinary undertaking. Thanks go to Mayor Jean-Luc Moudence and to the services of the Mayor’s office in Toulouse to have made the Halle aux Grains available for the auction, as well as to the Crédit Municipal from Toulouse for their collaboration.

We would like to express our profound gratitude to all those who made this upcoming sale possible with their work, energy and commitment. Above all, our thanks go to the owners of this incredible painting who, in spite of the difficulties, never lost faith in us. Our gratitude goes also to the authors of this book, supporters right from the start, and without whom this long adventure would have been more arduous: Nicola Spinosa, former director of the Museo di Capodimonte in Naples who was the first to take a stand in favour of our Judith; Keith Christiansen, Chairman of European Paintings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, who never had any doubts; Rossella Vodret, former director of the Palazzo Barberini in Rome and Claudio Falcucci, technical engineer, whose scientific analyses open the field of possibilities for art history; Jean-Pierre Cuzin, former director of paintings at the Louvre, whose expertise as much as his kindness was so precious for us; Laurence Baron-Callegari, restorer, who knew how to bring Judith back to life and show her at her best.

We wish to thank: Henri Julien for putting us in touch with the Table Ronde; Nolwen Lauzanne and Lucie Baudin; our translator, Angela Randall, who had quite a few long nights translating from French to English; Pascale Letiévant for the final translation from English to French; the agencies of Bronx and Artcento who were of great assistance. And finally, and perhaps we should have started with this, we are forever grateful to our family and loved ones who have put up with us during this fascinating adventure. Marc Labarbe and Eric Turquin

We would like to thank the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan and particularly the director James Bradburne who, already in 2016, enabled our painting to be exhibited for three months in the most important museum of the city of Caravaggio, and Marco Galateri di Genola. We would also like to thank Stéphane Mathelin-Moreaux and the Neuflize OBC bank for believing in this project from the very beginning and for their support over these last five years; Me Philippe Gaultier for drawing up the terms and conditions for the sale; the PR agency of Art et Communication and specifically

152

Acknowledgements 153

Conditions of sale

MARC LABARBE SARL in accordance with the applicable legal provisions and regulations and the present general conditions. REGISTERING TO BID Any person who wishes to bid at this auction must register at least 15 days before the sale at the following address: contact@marclabarbe.com in order to complete a registration form with all appropriate documents and information (proof of identity etc.). Participation is subject to the presentation of a bank guarantee, payable on first demand, and validly subscribed with a banking establishment, established in French territory, for the purpose and under the conditions stipulated in the registration form. If the registration process is incomplete, MARC LABARBE SARL reserves the right to refuse that personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation.

PUBLIC AUCTION ON THURSDAY, 27 JUNE 2019, at 6PM AT LA HALLE AU GRAIN (Place Dominique Martin Dupuy, 31000 Toulouse, FRANCE)

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS The paintingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sale by public auction is subject to the present General Conditions of Sale and to any rule deemed to be part of it, in particular those contained within the registration form. Prospective bidders are invited to read them carefully. MARC LABARBE SARL, the auctioneer, its staff and the expert, ERIC TURQUIN EXPERTISE SAS, are available to provide any clarification. The present General Conditions of Sale can be found in French and in English on the website www.thetoulousecaravaggio.com. The indications given in the present conditions and, more generally, any mention communicated before the sale, are subject to change up until the auction. They may be amended by way of notices posted in the saleroom and announced by the auctioneer before the start of the auction. Any such modifications will be included in the official sale record signed by the auctioneer. MARC LABARBE SARL is an operator of voluntary auction sales, registered under number 2002-272. It offers the corresponding ethical and organisational guaranties and in this capacity acts as agent for the seller. Consequently, the sale is concluded directly between the seller and the buyer, and MARC LABARBE SARL is not part of this contract. It shall be the sole responsibility of the prospective bidder, as of the bidder or successful buyer, to provide all the necessary information requested by

156

PRESENTATION OF THE PAINTING AND PRE-SALE EXHIBITION Any information about the painting that is provided is done so based on existing knowledge with regards to the information provided by the seller and the state of the art, science and technology at the date at which that information is communicated. The painting has been appraised by ERIC TURQUIN EXPERTISE SAS, experts in Old Master paintings. With regard to the age of the work, bidders must accept that there is some degree of uncertainty for a work that is several centuries old. A detailed condition report on the state of the painting is available upon request from MARC LABARBE SARL and from the expert, ERIC TURQUIN EXPERTISE SAS. An exhibition of the painting will be held prior to the auction on the days listed in front of the catalogue and prospective bidders will be able to examine the painting personally, view, inspect and evaluate it themselves. It is their responsibility to examine it properly, if needs be with the assistance of an expert or restorer of their choice. Every bidder is deemed to have examined the painting. Dimensions are for reference only. The painting is sold as is at the moment of the auction, with its possible defects and imperfections. Complaints regarding wear, minor accidents, usual restorations and conservation measures, will not be taken into consideration. Estimates are subject to change until the start of the auction. BIDDING PROCESS Any person shall be eligible to bid on the painting by adhering to the present conditions of sale and subject only to justification of solvency as part of the registration requirements. The sale is conducted in euros. The auctioneer manages the sale and conducts the auction, he advances the bidding at levels he considers appropriate. He may withdraw the painting at the auction in the interest of the seller. In the case of two simultaneous bids, the auctioneer will give priority to the bid taken from the saleroom. Failing that, the auctioneer will resume the auction in order to decide between the bidders. Neither MARC LABARBE SARL nor its auctioneer can be held responsible for any potential technical incidents, which might affect the auction process.

Conditions of sale 157

Bids can be placed in different ways and all necessarily require prior registration. Bids can be placed in the saleroom. They can also be placed by telephone. Finally, they can be placed through a written bid form.

for the successful buyer by making its declaration to the auctioneer immediately after the striking of the auctioneer’s hammer. In order to be effective, the State must confirm its intention to pre-empt the painting within 15 days.

Bidding in the sale room In order to be allowed to bid in the saleroom, you must ask for a personal numbered paddle upon registration.

PAYMENT Upon conclusion of the auction, the successful buyer shall be liable for all sums due: the total purchase price is the hammer price to which is added the buyer’s premium of 20% (excluding VAT) of the hammer price, and any other applicable taxes, duties or rights. The full amounts due by the successful buyer must be paid immediately after the conclusion of the auction. The billing address is the one communicated by the successful buyer when registering to bid. Neither the name of the registered person nor its address can be amended after the conclusion of the auction. The successful buyer is expected to pay in euros and the payment may be made by bank transfer, bank cheque or cheque. A cash payment is not possible in the present case as it is only possible to pay in cash up to 1 000 € (except if the successful buyer can justify that he is not a French tax resident and that he is not acting for the purposes of a professional activity, in which case, he can pay cash up to 15 000 euros). MARC LABARBE SARL is a member of the Central Registry for auctioneers for the prevention of outstanding invoices where a default in payment can be registered. The debtor can access, modify or oppose this if there is a legitimate reason to do so by contacting the SYMEV (15 rue Freycinet 75016 Paris). The VAT that is applicable on the day of the auction is to be levied on the margin: it is applied to the buyer’s premium. To date in France, the applicable VAT is 20%. The VAT is by right added to the amount of the said commission and will not appear on the receipt issued in the name of the successful buyer. The VAT can be reclaimed under the following conditions: If the successful buyer is a professional from another Member State of the Union and has an Intercommunity VAT registration number, it is his or her responsibility to justify this matriculation and give any other relevant supporting documents regarding the transport to another Member State, to MARC LABARBE SARL within the month (1) following the sale, in accordance with applicable administrative and tax rules. If the successful buyer is not a resident of the European Union, the VAT levied on the margin will be reimbursed by sending MARC LABARBE SARL the export document duly stamped by customs on both recto and verso, proving that the exportation of the painting actually occurred within two months of the auction.

Telephone bidding Should you wish to bid by telephone, a telephone line can be organised with MARC LABARBE SARL, within the limit of the number of telephone lines available. MARC LABARBE SARL its agents or representatives cannot be held liable for errors or omissions of any kind in the handling of telephone orders, including the non-execution of such orders. For security reasons telephone conversations may be recorded and stored by the MARC LABARBE Company for the sole purposes of the sale. Bidding through an agent It is possible to bid through a duly authorized agent. Any person is deemed responsible for his or her bids. Those who register on behalf of a third party must provide MARC LABARBE SARL with an original written authorisation. Any person who places a bid and the third party who executes it on his or her behalf are considered jointly liable for the bid. In case of any dispute raised by the principal, the person who placed the bid may be alone held liable. Written bids Written bids can be placed ahead of time using the absentee bid form where you must indicate a maximum bid amount in both words and numbers. The auctioneer or a member of staff will execute the bid on your behalf, making every effort to purchase the item for as little as possible and never exceeding your limit. AUCTION The successful buyer is the person who makes the highest and last bid accepted by the auctioneer. When the auctioneer brings down the hammer, the successful buyer becomes the owner of the painting and consequently becomes liable for the purchaser’s obligations. The official sale report signed by the auctioneer is an irrevocably admissible proof of the auction and of all its components. Once sold, the painting is at the full risk and responsibility of the successful buyer. The successful buyer is in charge of insuring its acquisition, and MARC LABARBE SARL cannot be held liable for any damage it may suffer, and this as of the fall of the hammer. PRE-EMPTION The French state is entitled to use a right of pre-emption on works of art, which are put up for sale at public auction. In that case, the State shall be substituted

158 Conditions of sale

DELIVERY OF THE PAINTING It is the responsibility of the successful buyer to pay for and take possession of the painting without undue delay after the conclusion of the auction. The effective delivery of the painting to the successful buyer can only intervene after full and clear payment of all amounts due by him, notably the hammer price to which is added the buyer’s premium and any taxes, duties or rights. Bidders should note that the painting can only be delivered after definitive

Conditions of sale 159

and irrevocable collection of the sums due under the applicable conditions, collection which can take up to a few days to a few weeks. Only the successful buyer is responsible for the chosen payment method, which determines the date of delivery. MARC LABARBE SARL retains the right to store the painting in any secured place of its choice, at the successful buyer’s expense and risk. The successful buyer shall be automatically liable to MARC LABARBE SARL for storage and insurance costs that arise after the conclusion of the auction. The painting will be delivered to the successful buyer, or to the agent mandated by him by special written proxy for that purpose, at the location designated by MARC LABARBE SARL. Collection of the painting shall take place at the cost and risk of the successful buyer.

GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION By simply registering, any bidder expressly agrees to the present general conditions and recognizes that French law shall be exclusively applicable. If it is not amicably settled, any dispute regarding the interpretation, validity or execution of the auction of the painting shall be referred to the courts of Toulouse, France. If any of the provisions of the present general conditions should be held to be null and void the remaining provisions will remain valid and applicable, by virtue of the principle of severability. In case of any discrepancies between the French version and a version translated into another language, the French version, which is the legal one, prevails. All actions of public liability against MARC LABARBE SARL and the expert, ERIC TURQUIN EXPERTISE SAS, shall be limited in time to within five years from the conclusion of the auction.

FORCED EXECUTION – CANCELLATION – REITERATION DES ENCHERES In the event of the successful buyer’s failure to pay, MARC LABARBE SARL will send him a formal notice. In the event of a failure to pay after the sending of the formal notice: The seller will have the option to put the painting up for sale by reiteration d’enchère. This means that in this case the painting will be put up for sale in a new auction. If the hammer price obtained from this new auction is lower than the hammer price obtained at the first auction, the defaulting first successful buyer will be automatically liable for the difference between the initial hammer price and the subsequent hammer price, including any difference regarding the buyer’s premium and the applicable VAT, increased from any costs arising from the reiteration of the auction; If the seller does not opt for the resale of the painting within the three months following the date of the auction sale, MARC LABARBE SARL will have the right, without prejudice to the seller’s rights, to give notice to the defaulting buyer of the cancellation of the sale (the sale will then be cancelled by rights and the defaulting buyer will be liable for compensatory damages), or to proceed to the forced enforcement of the same and of the payment of the hammer price, increased by any fee, commission and tax at his expense. In any event, MARC LABARBE SARL will acquire the total amount of the deposit given at the time of registration for the sale. CUSTOMS FORMALITIES The exportation of any goods outside French national territory as well as the importation into any other given country may be subject to customs authorization. It is the buyer’s responsibility to obtain any necessary licence and/or certificate of export, as well as any required documents. Bidders are reminded that the painting must be paid for immediately after the sale. The fact that any required authorization is denied or that its obtention is delayed may in no way justify either the cancellation of the sale nor any delay in the payment of the total amount due. The certificate of export for the painting has been issued by the competent service of the French Ministry of Culture. This document will be handed over to the buyer together with the painting.

160 Conditions of sale

Conditions of sale 161

Credits and copyrights

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), Judith and Holofernes, © Cabinet Turquin, photo © All rights reserved: book cover, inside; pp. 6-7; pp. 10-11; p. 12; p. 15; p. 17; p. 18; p. 21; pp. 22-23; leaflet recto and verso; p. 36 fig. 7; p. 37 fig. 8; p. 38, fig. 11, fig. 12; p. 39, fig. 14; p. 42, fig. 18, fig. 19; p. 43, fig. 20; p. 44, fig. 21; p. 45: fig. 22; p. 47, fig. 25; p. 49, fig. 28; p. 51, fig. 30; p. 53, fig. 33; p. 67; pp. 68-69; p. 70; pp. 92-93; p. 94; pp. 100-01; pp. 108-09; p. 110; pp. 11415; pp. 116-117, fig. 2; p. 120; pp. 126-27; p. 128; p. 130, fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3; p. 132; fig. 1; p. 135; p. 136; p. 139; p. 140; p. 143; p. 145; pp. 150-51; pp. 154-55; p. 163. Ottavio Leoni (1578-1630), Portrait of Caravaggio, 1621, Biblioteca Marucelliana, Florence © Fine Art Images/ Archivi Alinari, Firenze, photo © Fine Art Images: p. 8. Excerpt of the letter from Frans Pourbus to Duke of Mantua, 1607 © Archives de Mantoue, E.XXV: p. 32, fig. 1.

Louis Finson (1580-1617), Self-portrait, BA464 © Ville de Marseille, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais/ Jean Bernard Marseille, musée des BeauxArts, Palais Longchamp, RMN: p. 35, fig. 4. Louis Finson (1580-1617), Judith and Holofernes, environ 1607 © Galleria d’Italia – Palazzo Zevallos Stigliano, collezioni Intesa Sanpaolo, Naples: p. 36, fig. 6; p. 38, fig. 9, fig. 10; p. 39, fig. 13 ; p. 45, fig. 23; p. 46, fig. 24. Louis Finson (1580-1617), Marie Magdalen in Ecstasy, copy of Mary Magdalen in Ectasy (from) Caravaggio (1571-1610) © Ville de Marseille, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais/Gérard Bonnet-Magellan: p. 40, fig. 15. Louis Finson (1580-1617), Samson and Delilah, Marseille, Musée des Beaux-Arts © Ville de Marseille, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais/Jean Schormans: p. 40, fig. 16.

Louis Finson (1580-1617), The Four Elements, Houston, Museum of Fine Art © Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation, Houston: p. 41, fig. 17.

163

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), Judith and Holofernes © Galleria Nazionale d’Arte, Palazzo Barberini, Rome, photo © All rights reserved: p. 50, fig. 29; p. 51, fig. 31; p. 52, fig. 32; p. 86, fig. 20. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), Salome receives the head of Saint John the Baptist © National Gallery, London, photo © All rights reserved: p. 58, fig. 34 ; p. 133, fig. 2. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), The Knight of Malta © Palazzo Pitti, Galerie Palatine, Florence, inv n°776, photo © All rights reserved: p. 59, fig. 35. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), Saint Francis in Meditation © Pinacoteca Civica, Cremona, photo © All rights reserved: p. 60, fig. 36. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (15711610), Martha and Mary Magdalene © Detroit, The Detroit Institute of Arts, photo © All rights reserved: p. 61, fig. 37. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), The Denial of Saint Peter © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, photo © All rights reserved: p. 62, fig. 38. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), The Crucifixion of Saint Andrew, 1606-1607 © Cleveland, Ohio, The Cleveland Museum of Art, Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Fund 1976.2, photo © All rights reserved: p. 63, fig. 39. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), The Taking of Christ ©Dublin, National Gallery, inv.14702, photo ©All rights reserved: p. 64, fig. 40. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), The Cardsharps © Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais/ image Kimbell Museum: p. 65, fig. 41. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (15711610), The Martyrdom of Saint Ursula © Galleria d’Italia – Palazzo Zevallos Stigliano, collection Intesa Sanpaolo, Naples, photo © All rights reserved: p. 66, fig. 42.

Holofernes’ Banquet, Cîteaux, circa 1100, BM Dijon, Ms 14, f.158 © BM Dijon-Cliché: IRHTCNRS: p. 74, fig. 4. Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574), Judith and Holofernes © Saint Louis Art Museum, Friends Fund and funds given in honor of Betty Greenfield Grossman, 2:1982: p. 75, fig. 5. Jacques Stella (1596-1657), Judith and the Head of Holofernes © Cabinet Turquin, photo © All rights reserved: p. 75, fig. 6. Salomon de Bray (1597-1664), Judith Offering the Head of Holofernes, © Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais/image du Prado: p. 77, fig. 7. Francesco Curradi (1570-1661), The Triumph of Judith © Toulouse, Musée des Augustins, © photo Daniel Martin: p. 77, fig. 8. Ambrogio Lorenzetti (vers 1290-1348), Allegory of Good Government, 1338-1348, détail © Archivi Alinari, Florence: p. 78, fig. 9. The Virgin Mary fighting Satan and the Death of Holofernes , Speculum salvationis Humanae, Latin 511, fol. 30v, Paris, © BnF: p. 78, fig. 10. Giorgione (1477-1510), Judith, 1504 Hermitage Museum, Saint-Petersburg © C. Alexei/ Iberfoto/Alinari Archives, Florence: p. 79, fig. 11. Copy after Ambrosius Benson, Judith, Musée de Grenoble – J.-L. Lacroix: p. 79, fig. 12. Lucas Cranach (1472-1553), Portrait of a lady dressed as Judith, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna © KHM-Museumsverband, Vienna: p. 80, fig. 13. Donato di Niccolo di Betto Bardi da Donatello (around 1386-1466), Judith and Holofernes, 1445-1460, Palazzo Vecchio, Florence © Archives Alinari, Florence, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais/Raffaello Bencini: p. 80, fig. 14.

Arphaxad prologue from the Book of Judith, Lyon ?, vers 1275-1300 © Bibliothèque Municipale de Lyon, ms 411, f.17-Cliché: IRHTCNRS: p. 72, fig. 1.

Sandro Botticelli (1444/1445-1510), The Discovery of the Head of Holofernes and The Return of Judith to Bethulia, 1472-1473, Galleria degli Uffizzi, Florence © Archives Alinari, Florence, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais/ Nicola Lorusso CSE - Alinari Archives, Florence: p. 81, fig. 15.

Holofernes and his Army riding to Bethulia, Spain, 1197 © Cliché: IRHT-CNRS, Bibliothèques d’Amiens Métropole, Manuscrit 0108, f.143v: p. 72, fig. 2.

Michel-Ange (1475-1564), Judith and her Servant, Zachariah, David and Goliath, Sistine Chapel, Vatican, Foto © Musei Vaticani: pp. 8283, fig. 16.

Judith led before Holofernes, Acre, around 1260-1270, BM Dijon, Ms 562, f.151v ©BM DijonCliché: IRHT-CNRS: p. 74, fig. 3.

164 Credits and copyrights

Harmensz van Rijn Rembrandt (1606-1669), Judith at the banquet of Holofernes © Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, Dist.RMN-GP/ image Prado: p. 85, fig. 18. Paolo Caliari da Veronese (1528-1588), Judith and Holofernes ©Musée des Beaux-Arts de Caen © Photo M. Seyve: p. 85, fig. 19. Artemisia Gentileschi (1593-vers 1654), Judith and Holofernes, 1625-1630, Naples, Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte © Archives Alinari, Florence, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais/Luciano Pedicini: p. 89, fig. 21. Artemisia Gentileschi (1593-vers 1654), Judith and Holofernes, Galleria degli Uffizzi, Florence: p. 90, fig. 22. Valentin de Boulogne (1591-1633), Judith and Holofernes, La Valette, National Museum of Fine Arts © 2019. SCALA, Florence: p. 90, fig. 23. Maître de l’Incrédulité de Saint Thomas (Jean Ducamps ?), active in Rome in the 17th century, Judith and Holofernes, © Foto Archivio dell’Arte - Luciano and Marco Pedicini fotografi, Courtesy: Porcini : p. 91, fig. 24.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), Portrait of Alof de Wignacourt © Musée du Louvre, Paris, photo © RMNGrand Palais (Musée du Louvre)/Mathieu Rabeau: p. 138, fig. 7. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), Portrait of Fillide Melandroni, previously in Berlin, destroyed during World War II © Fototeca Zeri: p. 141, fig. 8. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (15711610), Mary Magdalen Repentant, Palazzo Doria-Pamphilj, Rome © DeA Picture Library, licensed by Alinari Photographer: Pirozzi V. De Agostini Picture Library: p. 142, fig. 9. © All rights reserved: p. 15, fig. 1, fig. 2; p. 37, fig. 8. Marc Labarbe, the Cabinet Turquin and the publisher wish to thank the museums, galleries, archives and photographers for their kind permission to reproduce the works featured in this book. Marc Labarbe, the Cabinet Turquin and the publisher have taken all steps to contact the holders of rights to these works and, if any have been overlooked, will correct the omission at the earliest opportunity.

Filippo Vitale (1589/1590-1650), Judith and Holofernes, , private collection., Paris, courtesy Maurizio Nobile, CREDITO FOTOGRAFICO © STEFANO MARTELLI – STUDIO BLOW UP : p. 91, fig. 25. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), The Crowning with Thorns, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna © KHM- Museumsverband, Vienna: p. 116, fig. 3. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (15711610), Saint Catherine of Alexandria © Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid, photo © All rights reserved: p. 116, fig. 4. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (15711610), Salome with the head of John the Baptist © Palacio Real, Madrid: p. 133, fig. 3. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (15711610), The Seven Acts of Mercy, Pio Monte della Misericordia, Naples © 2019. Photo SCALA, Florence: p. 134, fig. 4; p. 144, fig. 10. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, SaintJohn’s Co-Cathedral, Valletta, Malte, photo © Archives Alinari, Florence, Dist.RMN-Grand Palais/Raffaello Bencini: p. 137, fig. 5. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (15711610), The Supper at Emmaus, Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan, photo© Archives Alinari, Florence, Dist.RMN-Grand Palais/Raffaello Bencini: p. 137, fig. 6.

Credits and copyrights 165

Illustration adjustments The percentage of reduction or enlargement of each image relative to the original painting. Cover: 40% reduction Back cover: 90% reduction Inside of the cover (front): 40% reduction Inside of the cover (back): 50% reduction pp. 6–7: 50% reduction pp. 10–11: 100% enlargement p. 12: 40% reduction p. 15: 95% reduction p. 17: 100% enlargement p. 18: 40% reduction p. 21: actual size pp. 22–23: 40% reduction pp. 26–27 (painting and stretcher): 85% reduction p. 38 (fig. 11–12): 50% reduction p. 39 (fig. 14): 50% reduction p. 42 (fig. 18): 60% reduction p. 43: 65% enlargement p. 44: 45% enlargement p. 47: 75% reduction p. 49: 40% reduction p. 51 (fig. 30): 30% reduction p. 53: 50% reduction

p. 67: 40% reduction pp. 68–69: 40% reduction p. 70: 60% reduction pp. 92–93: 40% reduction p. 94: 50% reduction pp. 100–01: 30% reduction pp. 108–09: 30% reduction p. 110: 400% enlargement p. 115: 85% reduction p. 117: 85% reduction p. 120: 700% enlargement pp. 126–27: 45% enlargement p. 130: 95% reduction p. 132: 60% reduction p. 135: 50% reduction p. 136: 40% reduction p. 139: 45% reduction p. 140: 110% enlargement p. 143: 65% enlargement p. 145: 40% reduction pp. 150–51: 150% enlargement pp. 154–55: 140% enlargement p. 162: 20% enlargement

Translation notes

• Judith and Holofernes: iconography: translated from the original French text which is to be considered the legal version. • The Judith from Toulouse: translated from the original Italian text which is to be considered the legal version. • Scientific analyses: translated from the original Italian text which is to be considered the legal version. • Conclusions of the scientific analyses: translated from the original Italian text which is to be considered the legal version. • The lightening of the varnish: translated from the original French text which is to be considered the legal version. • From Caravaggio to Caravaggio: image by image: translated from the original French text which is to be considered the legal version.

• Introduction, Marc Labarbe: translated from the original French text which is to be considered the legal version. • The painting of a lifetime, Eric Turquin: translated from the original French text which is to be considered the legal version. • Chronology of a rediscovery: translated from the original French text which is to be considered the legal version. • Catalogue: translated from the original French text which is to be considered the legal version. • Rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio, questions answered: translated from the original French text which is to be considered the legal version.

167

CATALOGUE Maître Marc Labarbe Hôtel des ventes Saint-Aubin 3, boulevard Michelet 31000 Toulouse 05 61 23 58 78 contact@marclabarbe.com www.thetoulousecaravaggio.com Cabinet Turquin 69 rue Sainte-Anne 75002 Paris 01 47 03 48 78 eric.turquin@turquin.fr Art direction and book cover by Artcento

This catalogue is distributed by LA TABLE RONDE

les Éditions de La Table Ronde 26, rue de Condé 75006 Paris 01 40 46 70 70 www.editionslatableronde.fr

This catalogue was produced by the Partnership department of Flammarion Henri Julien and Lucie Baudin partenariats@flammarion.fr Design Nolwen Lauzanne Proofreading Marc Feustel Production Corinne Trovarelli Colour Separation Arciel