Simon Vouet - Pieta 1625: 2015

" I l S a c r i f i c i o "©

Simon Vouet: Il Sacrificio (1625-1626

I. Prolog, The lost altarpiece found

Dear Reader, I have decided to let you in on a thesis* I've put together over the past eleven years, concearning a painting I discovered in a private art collection in the USA in 2010.

*(© = copyright protected under Dutch and international law.)

The painting I will discuss here, will prove to be the only remaining modello for the lower half of a large Pietà altarpiece (7 m high, 3 m wide), painted by the great French painter Simon Vouet (1590-1649) in 1625-1626, for the new Choir Chapel, in the new build St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

From recently taken high resolution photos, which I will tell more about in the October 2022 update (at the bottom of this blog), it appears that Vouet has signed Il Sacrificio on the front!!!

The signature was partially removed at a later date (18th-19th century) in order to pass the painting as a Lodovico Carracci. See the image below, showing the rock on which the woman on the far right is kneeling.

Il Sacrificio (detail with remnants of signature VO...)

Discovered gold particles in the original paint - which must have fallen down during the guilding of the ceilings, when, at the same time, Vouet was creating his masterpiece - suggest, that the model was in fact conceived and used inside the famous Basilica, to create the (nowadays lost) altarpiece Vouet had been ordered to deliver!

Vouet's altarpiece was commissioned in 1624 by Pope Urban VIII himself. It was the first commission handed out, of all the altarpieces that would fill new St. Peter's chapels and altars.

The altarpiece Vouet was assigned to paint, was and is, considered the most important altarpiece commissioned for the famous new Basilica (the building designed by Michelangelo himself and built between 1506 and 1626, which replaced old St. Peter's Basilica).

However, due to political conflicts, Vouet was not allowed to finish his Pietà, after which he left Italy, gravely insulted and disappointed - never to return.

Vouet's return to France is widely considered the beginning of the French School. This remaining model for one of the most important altarpieces of it's time, that had caused Vouet to return home, must therefore be considered a key painting in Vouet's oeuvre. It changed 17th century French art history - in fact started the "Ecole Francaise".

The story you're about to read, tells of the finding of this painting - which I further will refer to as "Il Sacrificio" - and of the events that led to it's identification. Due to constant updates, the following text may change daily!

Unfortunately, I had some problems fixing the typography of my blog, resulting in different sizes of fonts used. I hope this will not discourage you from reading this blog.

Several leading experts on art history - among whom Chief Curator Aidan Weston-Lewis of the National Gallery of Scotland and former Chief Curator "du Patrimoine" Sylvain Laveissière of the Louvre Paris who's opinions I will discuss in the following text - have already suggested the authenticity and most of the 18th to 20th century provenance, of the painting discussed in this blog.

These confirmations are supported by eye-witness accounts and even an 1857 drawing of Il Sacrificio, by none other than Sir George Scharf (1820-1895) the first director of the National Portrait Gallery (1857-1890).

Scharf, who was charged with the composition and classification of the "ancient masters" section at the Manchester Art Treasures Exhibition of 1857, created a selected number of sketches - with annotations of the artworks that were presented - that are now assembled in the database of the National Portrait Gallery, London.

In paragraph XVIII you will find the accounts of Scharf, accompanied by images of the drawings Scharf made in situ, including one of Il Sacrificio!

Scharf's observations show - without a doubt - that Il Sacrificio is the same painting as the painting in the Bridgewater Gallery, referred to as "Lodovico Carracci, A Pietà - A study for an altarpiece".

In the written comments on this small painting, the NPG suggests the painting should be ascribed to "Circle Simon Vouet".

On the verso of the painting we found the vague remnands of "Simon Vouet", written in green chalk.

As you are reading this blog, leading French art historian Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée and his team of art history experts - Alain Merot, Barbara Brejon de Lavergnée and Veronique Meyer, have studied my findings and are now mapping the consequenses of these findings.

In 2020 I finished writing a concice provenance and literature list, at the request of Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée.

I was told ll Sacrificio and my findings will be published in their forthcoming catalogue raisonné on Simon Vouet.

How did it all begin?

In 2010, I was given the rare opportunity to study the painting in question - although part of a private collection - in detail and during that time and later on photographs, infrared reflectograms and several X-ray images were made of it.

Because of my interest in the history of art, I decided to try to discover when and by whom the small painting had been painted centuries ago. In the following I'll inform you of my findings.

I did extensive research into the provenance of the painting using transcripts of 17th century Vatican documents, as well as 18th, 19th, and 20th century catalogues of auctioneers and private collectors.

Last but not least I consulted modern research tools like the databases of several renowned museums and the "Getty Provenance Index Database".

I also received much appreciated information from auction house Christie's Amsterdam.

I especially want to mention experts Mrs. Clementine Sinclair-Kerr and Mr. Wite van Haersma Buma of Christie's who were ever so kind and patient, when confronted with my many questions on the subject.

Christie's Italian expert, in Milan, first identified the composition as a Simon Vouet, based on a known 1639 engraving by Pierre Daret de Cazeneuve (1604-1678).

It was published in the exhibition catalogue "Simon Vouet, Grand Palais 1990-1991", written by J. Thuillier, D. Laval and B. Brejon de Lavergnée. This information, for which I'm very grateful started my "Vouet research".

I have since found compelling evidence, to suggest, that the painting I'm discussing (oil on hemp canvas, day size ca. H 45 x W 34,5 cm) - which has been relined and shows several signs of conscientious restauration - was infact painted by Simon Vouet in 1625.

According to experts in the field, the "cheaper material" used (roughly woven hemp) as canvas for Il Sacrificio, is coherent with the period in which the picture was painted.

The specific use of this cheaper fabric also suggests - according to art restoration expert Francesca Schneider (Belgium) - that Il Sacrificio served as a modello.

Interestingly, some of the remaining models for the upper part of Vouet's papal altarpiece are - according to Schleier - also painted on this "Neapolitan canvas" made out of hemp.

This also is the case with Vouet's selfportrait of 1626-1627, of exactly the same size as Il Sacrificio, currently in the Musee des Beaux Arts, Lyon, an image of which is depicted in the following text.

Jacques Thuillier in 1990-1991 suggested, that this selfportrait could very well be a sketch, due to it's execution and the material used (roughly woven hemp),

*J. Thuillier, D. Laval, B Brejon de Lavergnée: Simon Vouet 1990-1991, p. 227-228 citing Georgette Dargent.

I have established, that Il Sacrificio represented a modello, possibly even a "disegno" (a drawn prove of contract) for Vouet's mayor commission for St. Peters Basilica, Rome.

Jacob van Swanenburgh: A papal procession at the Piazza
St. Pietro, 1628
Statens Museum for Kunst, Kopenhagen

Il Sacrificio must also have been used in situ (at the site) as a modello (a model), after which Vouet created his full scale masterpiece in the famous Basilica.

Small particles of gold that have landed in the still wet paint of Il Sacrificio proof, that it must have been there when the Choir Chapel was guilded - which took place at the same time Vouet was conceiving, and painting, Il Sacrificio, the oilsketch for his masterpiece.

Based on preserved antique documents, drawings of eyewitnesses and the traces of gold – I will show, that Il Sacrificio was the model/disegno for the lower part of the altarpiece for the Cappella del Coro Nuovo (i.e the New Choir Chapel) within St. Peter's Basilica.

The altarpiece for the Choir Chapel was considered the most important altarpiece of St. Peter's. In front of it, the Pope and his Cardinals would daily attend mass, since the Choir Chapel was the main chapel to be used by the church prelates on a daily bases.

Vouet's Il Sacrificio was the first altarpiece Pope Urban VIII commissioned for new St. Peter's in 1624! It was therefore the most prestigious altarpiece of it's time!

Until recently, art historians have argued that Vouet never actually started painting his own Pietà. Well, I beg to differ!

Citing actual 17th century Vatican documents* - I will proof, that Vouet did more than only design a painted Pietà (which he revered to as Il Sacrificio, and of which our painting is the remaining model).

*Oskar Pollak, "Die Kunsttätigkeit unter Urban VIII" (Volume II) "Die Peterskirche Rome", posthumously published by Dagobert Frey, Wien und Brün 1931.

I will show, that Vouet had in fact started to realize his great masterpiece in stuco, using Il Sacrificio as a model at the scene, when his already changed commission was abruptly altered again.

The change in commission, which led to partially abandoning Il Sacrificio as a model - turning it into a backdrop for an other artpiece - was prompted by the unexpected notification of relocation of Michelangelo's famous marble Pietà statue.

At the time, Vouet had already commenced painting his own Pietà/Sacrificio painting, but was now ordered to alter his commission again and restrict himself to painting a backdrop for Michelangelo's marble statue!

Because of this, Vouet was left with only a painted modello/disegno instead of having been allowed to finish his own large scale masterpiece.

Thus, painfully insulted and gravely disappointment, Vouet decided to leave Italy at the end of 1627 to join his King, Louis XIII, as his artteacher and courtpainter. Vouet's return to France in 1627-1628 has long been and still is, commonly considered the birth of the modern French School.

Evidence shows, that Il Sacrificio must have returned to France with its maker. Forensic evidence comes in the form of elongated white lines visible in the IRS infrared photos, which I will discuss later in this blog.

These are most likely folds / lines that were created when the painting was rolled up and transported across the Alps to France.

In October 2020 I found evidence* that, in 1649, the estate of Simon Vouet still contained a large modello for the top part of St. Peter's altarpiece (the Glory).

This modello was also rolled up and found without a stretcher!

*In Simon Vouet (les années italliennes 1613/1627), published 2008 by MBA Nantes and MBAA Besancon, p. 148, quoting Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée, l’Inventaire après-décès de Simon Vouet, in T. Kleindienst éd., Le Livre et l’Art, Paris 2000, p. 266, no 202.

It is most likely, that the models for Vouet's most important Roman commission – still without varnish – were rolled up by the painter and taken back to France. This would have been the safest way to transport the fragile canvases.

I will show that Il Sacrificio, in 1631-1632, was used as a modello for an altarpiece commissioned by Louis XIII's Chief Inspector of Finance, Antoine Coiffier de Ruzé d'Effiat, Marquis d'Effiat et de Longjumeau (1581-1632), for the church in his hometown of Chilly, in what is now known as Chilly-Mazarin, France.

The mentioned altarpiece to this day decorates the altar of the "Eglise de St. Etienne" of Chilly-Mazarin. In the following you will also find a photograph of this altarpiece, taken in situ by the author of this blog.

Some years later, in 1639, Vouet ordered Pierre Daret, a well known painter/engraver, to publish an engraving (of roughly the same size) based on the small painting.

After Vouet died, Il Sacrificio must have ended up in the Dorigny family - a family of artists- who also dealt in art. The Dorigny's were related to the Vouet's.

Engraver/Painter Michel Dorigny (1616-1665) - who worked with/for Simon Vouet in France during the 1640's - married Vouet's daughter Jeanne-Angelique (1630 -?) in 1648.

The couple had three children, of whom Louis Dorigny (1654-1742), who would later be known as Ludovico Dorigny, became a well known / famous painter in the Veneto region of Italy in the late 17th century, then the Repubblica Veneta (i.e. Repubblica Venezia).

Ludovico spent many years as a painter in Venice, and in later life settled in Verona, where he died en was burried in 1742. I aim to proof, that Ludovico owned Il Sacrificio after he had left for Italy in 1671.

I found proof of the usage of Il Sacrificio as a model for the decorations of a famous chapel in Verona, called the Cappella dei Notai, for which Ludovico Dorigny finished four large, wall filling, canvases in 1693-1697.

The paintings show events from the lives of St. Zeno and St. Daniël along with paintings depicting events from the Old Testament, namely the Innocence of Susanna and the Annunciation.

Two of the paintings show characters that seem to have been losely copied from Il Sacrificio. Below I've added two photographs which I personnaly took in Verona, May 2018.

You may notice, that not only the faces of the two women seem to have been "taken" from Il Sacrificio. Also their postures, the sepulcher Susanna is leaning against and last but not least the colors of their garments stem from Il Sacrificio. What I also found quite interesting is this:

In Il Sacrificio, the Mary Magdalene in pink and blue is holding a linen cloth, while caressing the Dead Christ, where as, in the Louis Dorigny painting she is transformed into the Virgin Mary in pink and blue, holding a linen cloth while caressing the newly born Christ.

Louis Dorigny: Verona, Cappella dei Notai (1693-1697)

Let's assume that I'm right and that Il Sacrificio accompagnied Louis Dorigny to Italy in 1671. Where would Il Sacrificio have gone from there?

At first, I thought, that Il Sacrificio could have left France around 1793-1798, possibly as one of the anonymous paintings that were part of the famous art collection, that was formed years before by Philippe II, Duc d'Orléans (1674-1723) - son of the younger brother of Louis XIV).

It turned out, this was not the case.

End of 2015, checking a footnote in Louise Rice's work on St. Peter's Basilica, I came across an article by arthistorian Dr. Erich Schleier in the Burlington Magazine, May 1967, called "A bozzetto by Vouet, not by Lanfranco".

In his article Dr. Schleier discussed the attribution of a model for the upperpart of an altarpiece to Simon Vouet, which had formerly been attributed to Giovanni Lanfranco.

I found, that this bozzetto - showing a Cross rising to heaven, accompanied by Angels carrying the Instruments of the Passion, towards a receiving God the Father - could very well be connected to Il Sacrificio, since the bozzetto Dr. Schleier discussed, was designed as a model for the upper part of Vouet's Roman altarpiece.

Il Sacrificio - showing the dead Christ, his grieving mother Mary in Sacrifice, in the distance Calvary with only two crosses - was clearly designed as the model for the lower part of the same altarpiece.

The two combined spell the commission Vouet described in his letter to the Vatican Congregation of May 1627.

It turned out that Dr. Schleier's bozzetto still existed - it was on view during the Vouet exposition of Nantes-Besancon, 2009 - and that it still resided in Great Britain.

I had read, that the Worsley's had owned the bozzetto, when Dr. Schleier in 1967 published his article. According to Louise Rice, this "Hovingham bozzetto", as Schleier called it, is now part of a private collection in London.

Simon Vouet: Model for the upperpart of the

Vatican altarpiece 1625-1626 (Hovingham bozzetto)

Therefore, I decided to contact the current representatives of the Worsley family at their residence, Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North Yorkshire.

In reponse, on February 9th, 2016, I got some very important information from Sir William Worsley, 6th Baronet of Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, Yorkshire.

Sir William himself, informed me, that the "Hovingham bozzetto" arrived in Britain as one of two models for altarpieces.

He quoted a never published autograph catalogue of pictures written by his ancestor Sir Thomas Worsley (1710-1778). It (the Hovingham bozzetto) was described in the catalogue of that date as: "...one of the two sketches for altars brought from Naples by Sir William Hamilton..".

According to Sir William, the cited catalogue still belongs to the Worsley's of Hovingham Hall. His Lordship stated, that the Hovingham sketch must have ended up in the Worsley collection before 1778, since it was acquired by Sir Thomas himself.

There are obvious connections between the Hovingham bozzetto and Il Sacrificio, based on:

1. their cohesive theme,

2. their (most certain) joint arrival in Britain,

3. their related owners (and last but not least)

4. both compositions were conceived by the same artist.

5. Besides al the formentioned connections I found a very special piece of evidence linking both paintings:

In the infrared images of Il Sacrificio (taken with an Osiris IRR camera at RKD, The Hague) in the top left corner, we can distinguish a pentimento.

It showns a colomn which is being carried to heaven. In the final version of Il Sacrificio this colomn is gone.

However, in the finished Hovingham modello, also on the left side, the same colomn reappears!

After comparing all the evidence, including finding traces of gold leaf in the old paint, I will conclude that both paintings are the original models for two joint parts of one and the same altarpiece.

I will show, that Sir William Hamilton, at the time British Envoy to the Kingdom of Naples, somewhere before 1778 returned to Britain with both models - the Hovingham bozzetto and Il Sacrificio.

Based on overwhelming evidence, I will show, that Il Sacrificio must be the second sketch Sir William Hamilton brought from Naples, that it got separated from the Hovingham bozzetto and that it finally ended up in the famous Bridgewater Gallery.

The Bridgewater Collection of Pictures - a.k.a. the Bridgewater Galler, after "Bridgewater House", St James's, London, where the famous collection resided - is commonly considered one of the most important, if not, the most important private art collection ever assembled!

Il Sacrificio was added to the Bridgewater Collection before 1830, by the heir of this infamous art collection, Lord Francis Leveson-Gower (1800-1857).

I will demonstrate - based on archival evidence found in the Getty Provenance Index Database - how Il Sacrificio finally must have left the collection of Sir William Hamilton, and how it ended up in the collection of Sir Francis Levenson-Gower.

What is known for a fact however is, that Il Sacrificio surfaced in Britain around 1830.

This conclusion is based on a comparison of the original 19th-20th century auction label on the verso of Il Sacrificio, with the Catalogue of the Bridgewater Collection of Pictures. Both title and attribution, of the painting are identical!

In 1830 the painting - titled "A Pietà - A study for an altarpiece" was for the first time mentioned as the nr. 22* in the catalogue of pictures belonging to Sir Francis Leveson Gower, the 1st Earl of Ellesmere.

According to the catalogue, at the time the painting was ascribed to Lodovico Caracci (1555-1619).

*Catalogue of the Pictures belonging to Lord Francis Leveson-Gower at Bridgewater House, for John Smith and Son (by permission) London 1830, p. 8.

Because of an asterisk * next to the catalogue description of the nr. 22 painting, we know, that - according to an explanatory sentence on the first page of the catalogue - the picture had been added to the famous collection of pictures, by Sir Francis Leveson Gower (1800-1857) himself.

Sir Francis Leveson Gower would be created Sir Francis Egerton, 1st Earl of Ellesmere, in 1846.

Thanks to the previously mentioned collection catalogue, we know that, in 1830, Francis's name was already affixed to the Bridgewater Collection; i.e. before the death of his father, George Granville Leveson Gower, in 1833.

This means that young Francis, at the age of three, had been bequeathed the Bridgewater Collection directly from it's founder, Sir Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater (1736-1803), at the death of the latter, in 1803.

The Bridgewater Collection was in fact a continuation of the Italian part of the picture collection of Philippe II, Duc d'Orléans (1640-1701), younger brother of King Louis XIV of France. This fast art collection was known as the Orléans Collection, before it merged with the private collections of the Duke of Bridgewater.

The Orléans Collection had been bought and brought to Britain during the French Revolution, where it was divided and partially sold in 1798. The best pieces were kept by the syndicate of three buyers: the Duke of Bridgewater, the Earl Gower and the Earl of Carlisle.

The pictures chosen by the 3rd Duke of Bridgewater would come to be known as the Bridgewater Collection of Pictures.

At the time of it's introduction into the Bridgewater Gallery around 1830, the anonymous Il Sacrificio was wrongfully attributed to Lodovico Carracci - one of the most sought after painters at the start of the early 19th century*.

During the great Art Treasures of Great Britain Exhibition of Manchester, 1857, Il Sacrificio was hanging next to the famous "Three Maries", by Annibale Carracci!

*Il Sacrificio shows a remarkable ressemblance to other Pietà/Entombment paintings by Lodovico and Annibale Carracci, so the false attribution was (at that time) understandable.

Because I wanted to find out how a French painting had ended up in an English/American collection (according to the label on the verso of the painting) I studied dozens of ancient collection and auction catalogues.

Luckely I found that the auction-/collection label on the back of Il Sacrificio carries a unique description of author and subject, which turned out to be identical to that in the catalogue of the Bridgewater Collection!

This made me start reading literature on the history of the Bridgewater Collection.

As it turned out, our small Pietà picture was mentioned and praised in the works by G.F. Waagen* and A. Jameson**

*G.F. Waagen, Kunst und Künstler in England und Paris, 1837 (translated Treasures of Art in Great Britain, 1854)

** A. Brownell-Jameson, Companion to the most celebrated private galleries of art in London, 1844

I found, that Il Sacrificio was still part of the Bridgewater and Ellesmere Collection in 1913, according to a clear reference to Il Sacrificio in a book by Casimir Stryienski, named "Galerie du Régent, Philippe, Duc d'Orléans", in which Stryienski discusses the genesis and the final division of the collection of the Duc d'Orléans.

Stryienski mentions a painting (which apparently did not belong to the Galerie du Régent) -"Une Descente de Croix, de Ludovico Carracci"- as part of the collection of the Earl of Ellesmere, owner of the Bridgewater Gallery.

Early 2016 I contacted the National Galleries of Scotland on the pedigree of Il Sacrificio. In reply, I soon received written confirmation from it's Chief Curator Mr. Aidan Weston-Lewis.

Basing himself on images of Il Sacrificio and an accurate and similar description of the painting (including dimensions) in a Christie's Auction Catalogue of October 18, 1946 - Mr. Weston-Lewis stated, that:

"....(Il Sacrificio) ... has clearly been part of the Bridgewater and Ellesmere Collection of Pictures...It left the Bridgewater and Ellesmere Collection on October 18, 1946..."

I learned, that our painting left the Bridgewater and Ellesmere Collection of Pictures, when it was sold at Christie's, London, on behalf of Sir John Egerton (1915-2000), 5th Earl of Ellesmere (styled 6th Duke of Sutherland in 1963) as one of ca. 180 paintings that were sold from the Bridgewater Collection.

On the importance of the Bridgewater Collection even today, see extensive tutorials on the site of the National Gallery in London and the following article in the Independent of April 2, 1995:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-masters-that-may-vanish-from-view-art-market-1613985.html

As an autograph Lodovico Carracci - Il Sacrificio was bought by a buyer called Seton for 37 pounds and 5 shillings. Other paintings, by Correggio, Veronese, etc. were sold for similar prices. Some sold for more, many sold for less!

Despite inquiries at Christie's Archives, I have no idea who this person Seton was, nor how Il Sacrificio finally ended up in America. I'm also still trying to find out who put the chalk monogram/ lotnumber GD 76 on the verso of the painting and when this was done.

So far, I have received no useful information.

When, at some point, after 1946, the attribution to Lodovico Carracci was probably no longer maintainable - or the provenance history was lost altogether - the painting ended up on the American artmarket as an anonymous 17th century painting.

Finally, Il Sacrificio ended up in the private collection where it was spotted by the writer of this blog.

Since then, research was done and X-ray and infrared images were made. These images were added to this blog.

Recently traces of gold were identified - imbedded in the original paint - which could confirm, that Il Sacrificio indeed spend time inside St. Peter's Basilica of the Vatican, during the construction of the Choir Chapel, when its walls and ceiling were gilded.

At the bottom of this blog I will further elaborate on this point. Let's now return to the beginning!

II. Vouet in Rome, 1613-1627

Simon Vouet, a promising young French painter arrived in Rome late 1613-early 1614.

During his stay in Italy, which would last until 1627, Vouet also spent longer periods in Venice, Bologna, Genua, Parma and Naples.

Simon Vouet: Selfportrait, 1626-1627, M.B.A Lyon.
Same size and painted on roughly woven hemp

The young painter soon joined the renowned Accademia di San Luca (the local guild of artists) and started climbing up the ladder of succes.

In the following years,Vouet became well known and probably well liked amongst his colleagues, which let to his election to become "Princeps" (Head/Chairman) of the Accademia in October of 1624 - thereby becoming the first foreigner ever to receive such honor.

As member of the French art community - granted with a royal "bourse" or scolarship - Vouet encountered a very influencial French churchprelat, artlover/-collector, Francesco Maria Bourbon Del Monte Santa Maria (1549-1627)*.

*Cardinal del Monte was the first registered owner of the famous Roman Portland Vase.

Ottavio Leoni: Cardinal Del Monte (1616)

In the 1590's Cardinal Del Monte had been the patron and personal protector of the great physicist, astronomer and philosopher Galileo Galilei (1564-1642).

Afterward he actively protected and supported Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610) a.k.a. Caravaggio.

Cardinal Del Monte, who loved the work of this great artist, commissioned Caravaggio several times to produce paintings for his private art collection.

When Vouet's star had risen during his stay in Rome (starting in 1614), he too was taken under the patronal wings of Cardinal Francisco Del Monte.

Del Monte also (had) patroned artists like Andrea Sacchi, Antiveduto Grammatica and Gerrit van Honthorst*, and at the time was one of the members of the "Congregazione Della Reverenda Fabbrica di San Pietro".

Emblem: Congregazione della Reverenda Fabricca
di San Pietro

The "Reverenda Fabbrica " was, and is, the churchbody in charge of the creation and restauration of the Vatican churches and buildings and other Vatican properties, such as artworks.

*L. Zirpolo: Historical Dictionary of Baroque Art and Architecture, p. 189.

Cardinal Del Monte was highly influential, both in the art world and in the religious world. In the 1621 conclave Del Monte was a contender to the papal throne, but his pro-French sympathies prompted Spain to use it's veto*

*Quote from Lilian H. Zirpolo: Historical Dictionary of Baroque Art and Architecture, p. 189, on the influential role of Cardinal Francesco Maria del Monte within the Vatican.

III. Working for the Vatican

Vouet was soon introduced at the Papal Court by his influential protectors, amongst which the Barberini family, Cassiano dal Pozzo, Vincenzo Giustiniani and Paolo Orsini.

In 1623, Vouet got the chance to paint a life portrait of the Pope, Maffeo Barberini (1568-1644) known as Urban VIII (1623-1644) of which only an engraving by Charles Mellan remains.

This important assignment meant, Vouet had "a foot in the door" and in 1624 Vouet was invited to go to work in St. Peter's.

Soon, Vouet was to join other famous painters like Guido Reni, Pietro da Cortona, Nicolas Poussin and sculptors/ architects Gianlorenzo Bernini and Carlo Maderno in realizing a new church, with new paintings and new artworks.

New St. Peters, was to reflect the "New Age" - according to the wishes of the in 1623 elected Pope Urban VIII, who continued the renewal of St. Peters Basilica.

M.M. da Caravaggio:Maffeo Barberini
before his papacy as Pope Urban VIII (1598)

The realisation of New St. Peter's had started in 1546 under Pope Paul III, who had contracted Michelangelo Buonaroti (1475-1564) himself as the main architect.

In 1625, almost 80 years after it's building started, many of St. Peter's ancient artworks, like Michelangelo's Pietà statue, were considered to be outdated.These artworks were not discarded, but they would - if the new Pope got his way - no longer be the centre of attention.

The subject of the painting for which Vouet received commission from the Pope himself, so it seems, early 1624 was described as a "St. Peter healing with his shadow", which would decorate the altar of the New Choir Chapel (below circled in red).

St. Peters Basilica (floorplan)

Vouet quickly went to work and presented his large scale models to the contractors on March 14, 1624.

However, after he had spent many months preparing lifesize models - which were all aproved by the Reverenda Fabbrica - the first commission was canceled and Vouet was given an other assignment.

Simon Vouet (after?) : St. Peter healing with his
shadow,1624 (Uffuzi Museum, Florence)

Vouet, who did not want to loose his most important contract, decided to go with the flow.

He did ask however - somewhere between April and September 1625 - to be given the opportunity to paint the "St. Peter healing" for an other altar or Chapel in the grand Basilica. A formal answer from the Fabbrica to Vouet's plea was never received/documented.

In paragraphs to come, I will discuss why a misinterpretation of Vouet's letters of May 1627 to the Vatican - more precisely the translation of "incontro" - led some to believe, that Vouet before leaving for France in 1627, had started painting a second altarpiece in the chapel chapel, opposite of the new Choir Chapel.*

*See for example L. Rice, The Altars and Altarpieces of New St. Peter's, p. 218, p. 220 (Vouet's letter) and note 21, where Rice refers to the altarpiece for the Chapel of the Trinity.

There is no evidence what so ever, that suggests that any painter received commission to decorate the altar of this Chapel of the Trinity, before the commission was handed out in May of 1627.

First it was handed to favorite Guido Reni on May 14, 1627*, who would later refuse to execute this altarpiece because of a financial dispute.

*Pollak, Die Kunsttätigkeit unter Urban VIII, Band II, die Peterskirche in Rom, p. 81, Vatican Reg 94.

Afterwards, when Guido had refused to fulfill his commission, the assignment was handed to Vouet's main competitor of the time, Pietro da Cortona (1596-1669) on February 4, 1628*

*Pollak, idem, p. 87, Vatican Reg 98.

Vouet may have been somewhat upset but he accepted his new commission, which was to represent "un altra historia per accompagnare la Pietà de Michelangelo" *.

*Pollak, idem, p. 231, Vat Reg. 728.

IV. Vouet versus Michelangelo

At the time everybody assumed, that the famous - yet old - marble statue of the Pietà by Michelangelo would remain outside the New Choir Chapel.

There had been some discussion between the Congregation of the Fabbrica and the Chapter of St. Peters, about the relocation of the marble statue, that had once decorated the altar of the old Choir Chapel. Unlike the Chapter, the Congregation - de facto Vouet's contractor - argued against placing the famous marble Pietà inside the new Choir Chapel.

This was because the Congregation had planned - in accordance with the wishes of the Chapter, that the Chapel would also hold the roomfilling bronze tomb of Sixtus IV, sculpted by Antonio del Pollaiuolo (1429-1498) around 1493.

The large tomb - measuring 302 cm long, by 166 cm wide and approx. 150 cm in hight - would be placed (and was in fact placed) in the centre of the chapel.*

*Pollak, idem, p. 252, Reg. 802-803.

Antonio del Pollaiuolo, Tomb of Sixtus IV (ca. 1493)

This would leave little room for a statue on the altar, combined with large choir stalls and two organs on either side of the altar.

Hence, it is my suggestion, that the Reverenda Fabbrica was not in favour of placing Michelangelo's statue in the same chapel -due to lack of space.

It was decided, that the Pope would be asked - by Cardinal Del Monte himself - for a final decision on the matter.

Rice quotes both the objections of the Congregation and the relevant agreement to have the Pope himself decide on the matter.*

*L. Rice: The Altars and Altarpieces of New St. Peter's. Outfitting the Basilica, 1621-1666, p. 66, note 18.

However, since the final decision of the Pope on the matter is not known - let alone the date on which it might have been announced - everybody (most certainly Vouet!) was led to believe, that the marble Pietà would be placed outside of the Chapel.

Cause of this miscommunication may have been the fact, that Pope Urban VIII, had declared the year 1625 (like this year 2015) a holy year or "Jubilee".

According to Louise Rice, in her extensive and descriptive compendium on the altarpieces of St. Peter's Basilica, many thousands of pilgrims visited St. Peter's to worship at it's new altars.

In May of 1625 alone, over 5.000 Masses (!) were held in the Basilica, that was still under construction*.

* L. Rice: idem, p. 70.

It is a fact - Rice states - that during that specific period, many artists were severely hindered by the fact that communication between the Churchleaders and their executives, broke down. Commissions were altered or canceled without due notice, or without adequate payment.*

* L. Rice: idem, p. 71.

It is my firm believe, that Vouet - who was let to believe by his contractor, the Reverenda Fabbrica, that he had to paint an independent altarpiece comparable with the Pietà by Michelangelo - started painting his own Pietà, i.e. Il Sacrificio.

Quoting Vouet himself *, he started designing and executing:

"...Il Sacrificio, qual Dio Padre riceve di Cristo suo figlio, offertoli della Beate Vergine, con I Misterii della Passione, e con S. Francesco i S. Antonio de Padova..."

* Quote from Pollak, idem, p. 233,Vat. Reg. 734.

The subject shows the moment, when the Holy Virgin overcome by grief, offers her deceased son Jezus Christ to the Holy Father.

One could argue, that this moment of Sacrifice - for which there is no biblical description - follows after Mary has wept over her son (Pietà); moments after he has been taken down from the cross (Descent from the cross), but befor he is layed to rest in his tomb (Entombment).

From the start, Vouet invested all his time and money, trying to please his contractors. But, according to his written complaints most of the time he did not know, who to turn to for instructions!

Rice quotes a second (almost identical) letter of complaint Vouet send to his contractors, around May 10, 1627, in which he clearly states, that Vouet, at times, just didn't know what to do, or whom to turn to (Rice, p. 219-220).

Lightning struck hard, when in September of 1625, Vouet was suddenly informed, that - against all prior agreements - the marble statue of Michelangelo was to be placed upon the altar of the new Choir Chapel, like it had once decorated the altar of the Cappella del Coro Vecchio (the old Choir Chapel).

Michelangelo: Pietà, St. Peter's Basilica Rome, 1498-1499

According to the formentioned letters of complaint, Vouet send to the Reverenda Fabbrica and to the Pope (see Pollak and Rice for extensive quotations), the famous painter was deeply grieved and/or insulted, when (late september of 1625) he was told, that his Sacrificio was to be altered once again.

It was to become - even more degrading - a backdrop (!!) for the statue of Michelangelo. Ergo: the artist Vouet had to donate his labour, merely to glorify some other artist's artwork.

This new change of commission meant, that Vouet had to erase (or quickly finish) the larger part of his own Sacrificio - which would have been the defining painting of his career.

Thus leaving the top half of the painting, showing a “Glory” with God the Father, receiving the Cross and the (other) Instruments of the Passion, as nothing but wallpaper to decorate the statue of Michelangelo, which was placed in front of it!

Furthermore, Vouet had to repaint the two Saints, because the contractors wanted them to be depicted as Franciscan monks and no longer as Benedictine monks.

It has been suggested, that the two Saints would now represent two family members of the Pope, Antonio and Francesco Barberini.

The painting at the top of this blog is one of the three remaining modelli for the altarpiece Vouet proudly started in 1625, but that he was ordered to abandon - like the "St. Peter" of 1624 - in favour of the famous marble statue.

The modelli, or disegni, for the upper part of the altarpiece also still exist to this day (one oil sketch and several more detailed and more finished models). These modelli were part of the famous Vouet exhibition (Vouet, The Italian Period 1613-1627) of Nantes / Besancon in 2009.

Deeply grieved, in 1627 - after trying to get some compensation for the way he had been treated by his contractor - Vouet left for France.

According to French art history, Vouet's return to France in 1627 gave birth to the famous French School, bringing forth such painters like, Le Brun, Rigaud, David, Corot, Monet, Cezanne, Gauguin, and many others.

How exciting it is, to realise, that the painting that started me writing this blog triggered this birth of l'Ecole Française.

In 2013 I received a very friendly and encouraging reply by Sylvain Laveissière, who was at the time "Conservateur général au département des Peintures, musée du Louvre".

Mr. Laveissière stated that the painting I'm blogging about (tranlated quote) ".... could very well be a reprise by, or after, Vouet after one of his famous works, more likely than being a copy after the print by Daret."

This message lighted the spark, that made me continue my research, to uncover the author of "Il Sacrificio"!

V. "Il Sacrificio", a copy after a Daret print?

Autumn of 2010 - knowing nothing of Italian/French 17th century painting - I visited Christie's Auctioneers in Amsterdam. Hoping they could tell me something more about the small painting I was researching.

It was established, that the painting dates back to the 17th century, probably Northern Italy (Venice).

In the mean time, I had been studying a lot of images of paintings of mostly Italian painters befor I turned to Christie's, trying to find out, who was the author of the Sacrificio.

The reason for my "Italian search" was, that someone, a long time ago, in pencil had written the name Carracci on the verso of the painting. The verso also carried an ancient auction label that ascribes the painting to Lodovico Carracci (1555-1619).

When I later meticulously examined close-up photos that were made in 2010 (befor I had ever heard of the painter Simon Vouet) from the verso of the painting, I found clear traces of the name "Simon Vouet", written in green pastel.

After having consulted their specialist in Milan, Italy, I received word from specialist Clementine Sinclair (Kerr) at Christie's.

In her/their opinion, Il Sacrificio was probably based on – or connected to – a print by Pierre Daret de Cazeneuve (1604-1678), dating to 1639, after a painting by French painter Simon Vouet (1590-1649).

I was told, that I could find an illustration showing the Daret print, in Jacques Thuillier's exhibition catalogue and biography, titled "Simon Vouet" of the Grand Palais Exhibition on Simon Vouet of 1990-1991 .

I found, that this extensive catalogue - containing contributions by Jacques Thuillier, Barbara Brejon de Lavergneé (drawings) and Denis Lavalle (tapestries) - gave a well documented and nicely illustrated view over the life and works of Simon Vouet.

I eventually found the image of the Daret print on p.128 and I studied the remarks accompanying this print. Below I have added an image of the Daret print.

As it turned out, Thuillier suggested that the Daret print most likely represents a lost altarpiece by Simon Vouet, which must have been painted around 1639 and that supposedly disappeared afterward.

Pierre Daret (after Simon Vouet), Descente de la Croix, 1639

I retrieved an enlargement of the print in the digital collection of the British Museum, and discovered that there were some stunning similarities but also some conspicuous differences, between the painting and the print.

Of the similarities, the first I want to draw attention to is the similar size of print and painting. The painting measures 45 cm H x 35 cm W and the print measures 45 cm H x 32 cm W.

They are roughly the same size, which would suggest a "one on one" copy.

Apart from the horizon, both painting and print indeed look like copies of each other.

Furthermore, there is great similarity in the postures of the women and of the Christ figure, the drapery of their clothes, the clouds in the sky, the branches on the trees that cover the rock hanging over the tomb, etc.

Last but not least: in both the painting and in the print*, there are only two crosses on Calvary, in the background of the image! This detail later became of great importance to my thesis.

*When one closely observes the Daret print, there are traces of a third cross on the far left of the image), carefully removed but leaving traces of the base of the cross! This is clearly a correction based on the original painting and I will shortly discuss the importance of this detail.

I also found some eye-catching differences between the painting and the print. For instance:

1. In the painting of Il Sacrificio, there are no visible Passion Instruments (nails, crown of Thorns, a lance with spunge, the ointment vessel of Mary Magdalene) - unlike in most other Pietà paintings. In the Daret print however, we can distinguish a crown of Thorns placed on the edge of the Tomb.

2. An other interesting discovery seems, that Il Sacrificio depicts one apostle and one woman next to the tomb. In the Daret print however, the woman has been transformed into a male and supposedly now depicts the apostle Thomas.

3. Furthermore, the crosses in Il Sacrificio, are simple in shape and of normal size, where as the crosses in the Daret print look like bent oversized antennas, with a ladder against one of them.

4. An other detail which will be of some importance - when we compare Il Sacrificio and the Daret print, to the 1631 altarpiece with the same (mirrored) image in Chilly-Mazarin - has to do with the dress and robe worn by Mary Magdalene.

In Il Sacrificio the blue shoulderstrap is broad (or an overlap of the shoulderstrap of the dress and the undergarment) and the lose sleeve is connected to it. In the Daret print, the shoulder strap is small, leaving a bare shoulder visible.

In the Chilly-Mazarin painting there is no small shoulder strap, but the dress resembles the one in Il Sacrificio.

Below the details A , B , C .

A. (Il Sacrificio)

B. (Daret print)

C. (Chilly-Mazarin altarpiece)

A similar dress like the one in Il Sacrificio, is depicted in a painting by fellow franco-roman artist Nicolas Regnier of the same period, of which I have added an image below.

Nicolas Regnier: Le Camouflet, Rome, ca. 1622-1625

Last but not least, it is obvious, that Il Sacrificio also appears more Caravesque than the print, since the lighting in the painting can be described as chiaroscuro, where as the print seems to show a daylight scene.

VI. Depiction of the cross(-es) in Pietà images

There are many representations of the Pietà, which is a biblical image in which the Virgin Mary - often accompagnied by Mary Magdalen and other mourners - is depicted weeping over the body of her deceased son Jezus Christ.

A Pietà is sometimes revered to as a "Descent from the Cross", a "Lamentation" or a "Deploration".

Studying dozens of Pietà images and paintings related to the Passion of Christ, I found that in almost every one of them either one or three crosses are depicted on Calvary.There are only a view of these images, that show two crosses on Calvary.

In most of the paintings that have two crosses on Calvary, the third cross can be seen floating in the sky (with other instruments of the Passion), as it is carried to Heaven. Sometimes the cross is painted, sometimes the cross is part of the frame.

Below you find two Passion related images, one by Cornelis Schut (1597-1655) the other by Joseph Anton Feuchtmayer (1695-1770). Both images show the presents of a third cross, were only two are depicted on Calvary.

Cornelis Schut : Assumption, Rome, ca. 1625

In the painting by Schut, the third cross is visible behind the ascending Christ. In the work by Feuchtmayer the third cross is visible as part of the frame.

Joseph Feuchtmayer: Pietà, ca. 1700

VII. Il Sacrificio, A Papal commission

For a while I had no explanation for the absence of the third cross in both painting and print.

At first the signifigance of this detail escaped me, but it started to make sence, when I read Jacques Thuillier's commentary on Vouet's commission for St. Peter's Basilica in 1624-1626.*

*J. Thuillier, B. Brejon de Lavergnee, D. Lavalle: Simon Vouet, Exhibition au Grand Palais, 1990-1991.

In Thuillier's I found a reference to the works of Oskar Pollak (1883-1915) on the religious art under Urban VIII *, of which you will find several quotes and references in this blog.

* O. Pollak: Die Kunsttätigkeit unter Urban VIII, Die Peterskirche in Rome, 1915.

According to Thuillier's interpretation* of Vatican Documents sited by Pollak, Vouet in 1625 had received commission to paint a backdrop for the Pietà of Michelangelo after loosing his commission for "St. Peter healing with his shadow".

*Thuillier, Brejon, Laval 1990-1991, p. 102-104.

Thuillier supported his statement by giving a brief and translated description of the contents of the commission, but quoting only a part of the order handed to Vouet. According to him, the backdrop was to represent (transl.) "a glory showing the exalting instruments of the Passion, combined with Michelangelo's famous marble statue".

In French, Thuillier wrote: (quote) "...Autour du Sacrifice du Christ offert par la Vierge - soit la Pietà de marbre si fameuse - Vouet évoque la Croix et les Instruments de la Passion portés par les Anges, avec dans le bas Saint Francois d'Assise et Saint Antoine de Padoue...".

On page 103 of the Grand Palais exhibition catalogue, Thuillier included a black and white image of the remaining modello for the upper part of Vouet's never finished altarpiece for St. Peter's.

It shows a receiving God, with the angels carrying the Cross and the Instruments of the Passion to Heaven.

In the introduction I included an image of the remaining modello (oil on canvas ca. 61 x 53 cm), discussed by Thuillier and which was part of the Vouet Exhibition of Nantes-Besancon in 2009.

This oilsketch - at the time belonging to the Worsley family of Hovingham Hall (Yorkshire, GB) - was first mentioned by Erich Schleier as a bozetto by Simon Vouet in his 1967 article in the Burlington Magazine.*

*E. Schleier: A Bozzetto by Vouet, not by Lanfranco Burlington Magazine (CIX) of 1967, p. 272-276.

When I had read Thuillier's comments on Vouet's commission for St. Peter's Basilica, and saw the formentioned modello/disegno for the upper part of Vouet's painting, I realised, that the composition shown in the "Sacrificio" (copied by Daret), could very well have been the modello/disegno for the lower part of Vouet's altarpiece.

First of all: both modello's combined reflect the main composition for St. Peter's Basilica, as Vouet described his composition in his letters to the Vatican of May,1627.

His commission, in his own words, was to represent a Glory and below a Sacrifice, showing God the Father receiving his son Jesus Christ offered by the Holy Virgin, and the Instruments of the Passion).

Secondly, Erich Schleier confirmed that the "Hovingham bozetto" was indeed, like Denis Mahon and Benedict Nicholson had stated, by Simon Vouet and not by Giovanni Lanfranco (1582-1647).

A follow-up article by Schleier in the Burlington Magazine of 1971, on surviving models in London and Besancon, which are based on the Hovingham bozetto, confirms that there is also a physical resemblance between these models and Il Sacrificio.

Schleier mentioned, that the remaining modelli for Vouet's altarpiece were painted on Neopolitan Canvas (hemp), which was covered with a red-brown underlayer.

Well, Il Sacrificio is also painted on the same roughly woven hemp canvas (see X-Ray image in paragraph XIII), which was described to me by expert Francesca Schneider, as a type of cheaper canvas, which would have been used for modello's and not for the final artworks themselves.

Furthermore, it seems Il Sacrificio is partially applied over a light red-brown underpaint, which shines through, where the toplayer of paint has worn out!

Here you have some of the many objective pieces of evidence supporting the theory, that Il Sacrificio was in fact painted by Simon Vouet, as part of his model for St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

VIII. Zirpolo: the commission quoted in full

After reading Thuillier, but before I knew of Schleier and his findings, my curiosity was awoken. Could it be, that Il Sacrificio really had something to do with Vouet's commission for St. Peter's Basilica?

I started searching the web for a full quote of Vouet's commission, when I came across a book by Lilian H. Zirpolo* on the influence of the Sacchetti Family on the art and artists of early 17th century Rome.

Fortunately, in her book Zirpolo quoted in full, what Vouet had been ordered to paint.

* L. Zirpolo: Ave Papa, Ave Papabile: The Sacchetti Family, their art patronage, and political aspirations, 2005, p.73.

Somewhere prior to September of 1625, Vouet was told that the Congregation della Reverenda Fabbrica had changed it's mind.

It was decided, that Vouet now had to paint "...un altra historia per accompagnare la Pietà de Michelangelo..." - instead of his primary commission, which was"St. Peter healing with his shadow".

Without further explanation or substantiation, Zirpolo - just like Thuillier - argues that Vouet from the start, had been told that this altered commission, meant painting a backdrop for the marble Pietà.

Zirpolo also refers to the same text of Oskar Pollak, giving the correct location of the quotes in the work of Pollak.

Doing so, Zirpolo quotes, how Vouet himself described his painting: "...Il Sacrificio, qual Dio Padre riceve di Cristo suo figlio, offertoli della Beate Vergine, con I Misterii della Passione, e con S. Francesco i S. Antonio de Padova...".

Although until recently, there was no substantial evidence to show what Vouet's complete altarpiece - or the model for it - looked like.

I was very much surprised, that Zirpolo never suggested that Vouet must have painted a Pietà himself! The painting I'm discussing in this blog and it's copy by Daret, seem to suggest otherwise!

IX. Pollak on Vouet: the Vatican documents

With appreciated help from the University Library of the University of Amsterdam (UvA), I tracked down and read an original and rare 1931 edition of Pollak's extensive study "Die Kunsttätigkeit unter Urban VIII (Band II), Die Peterskirche in Rom", I mentioned before.

I then - for the first time - read the full text of Pollak's study of the Vatican documents, pertaining a.o. to the commission for the New Choir Chapel, that was handed to Simon Vouet by the Reverenda Fabbrica, early 1624.

Transcripts in Italian and Latin, commented on in German, showed that Vouet had not ones, but twice, been misled by his contractor - meaning he could not finish his "St. Peter", and his "Sacrificio".

At first Vouet had received commission to paint a "St. Peter healing", in correspondence with plans to dedicate the Choir Chapel to this saint.

After some time however (probably early 1625), it was decided that the Choir Chapel was to be dedicated to the "Pietatis Dominicae" (the piety of Sunday) and to Sixtus IV.*

*L. Rice: idem, p 66-67.

It would - just like befor, the Old Choir Chapel - house the bronze tomb of Sixtus IV, along with an ancient altar containing the relics of St. John Chrysostomos and of Pope Julius II*.

*Pope Julius II commissioned Michelangelo to decorate the Sistine Chapel (named after Sixtus IV) in 1508 and started the building of the present Basilica (New St. Peter's) in 1505.

To be clear: the chapel was never - as some suggest - to be dedicated to the crucifixion, nor to the cross itself! A different chapel in the Basilica was dedicated to the empty cross.

It even showed a large antique wooden cross.

Because of the change in dedication of the Choir Chapel, the Fabbrica or possibly the Chapter, which resided on spiritual matters, felt it would be improper to portray St. Peter.

The new assignment meant that Vouet had to change the subject of his altarpiece. He now had to produce "an other story to accompany the Pietà by Michelangelo".

Historians have since - based on this description - wrongfully assumed, that Vouet knew from the start, that he had to paint a backdrop for the famous statue!

I beg to differ, because there is no evidence to suggest that at the time it was allready decided, that the famous marble statue was to be placed inside the Choir Chapel!

We must consider that Vouet's contractor - the Reverenda Fabbrica - had made clear, that there was no room for the famous Pietà inside the Chapel, since this had been the formal response when the Chapter of the Vatican uttered the wish to place the Pietà on the altar of the new Choir Chapel.

The Chapter however, wanted the Pietà placed inside the Chapel, instead of outside, for reasons of publicity, safety and to follow tradition, which linked the Pietà - at least according to the Chapter itself - via it's donor Sixtus IV, to the Chapter and it's special place of worship.

Finally, the Fabbrica agreed, that the Pope himself would have to rule on the matter.

Pollak states, that the subsequent relocation of the Pietà to the Choir Chapel in 1626-1627, proves that the Pope must have decided in favour of the Chapter.

However, a papal decision has never been found, so we will never know, if and when the Pope may have decided in favour of the Chapter.

If we analyze in which terms Vouet describes the altarpiece he produced - befor he had to hastenly finish it in September 1625 - we can but conclude, that Vouet must have had the impression, that the statue by Michelangelo would be placed in the nave of the church.

This meant, that Vouet would himself have to come up with a related painting to decorate the altar of the Choir Chapel.

The fact that a cabinetsize, completed, disegno by Vouet has now resurfaced - in my opinion - proves, that Vouet from the start set out to paint his own masterpiece, and not the backdrop for somebody elses.

Why else would he have gone to all the trouble of making such a detailed model/models?

As I said previously, Vouet must have been in absolute shock when he was told - around September 1625 - that his second commission was also cancelled, or adjusted, to become a backdrop/wallpaper for the Pietà statue.

Luckely, the modello's or disegno's Vouet created for his masterpiece seem to have survived through the centuries, which gives us a rare opportunity to reconstruct history.

X. St. Francis: The third surviving model

In my opinion, an other surviving model for a part of Vouet's lost altarpiece has recently surfaced.

The painting I'm refering to, has not yet been identified as being part of the models for Vouet's Roman altarpiece.

However, it has been exhibited during the Vouet exhibition of Nantes/Besancon in 2009, as one of Vouet's Roman works. I'm sure that a positive identification will shortly.

Thuillier already noted a clear similarity between this image and Vouet's remaining model for St. Peter's (the Glory), when he discussed a print made after this painting, by Claude Mellan, around 1626.*

*Thuillier, Brejon, Laval, 1990-1991, p. 105.

It's a design (oil on canvas, 42 x 32 cm) for one of the saints - St. Francis of Paola - that would have been depicted flanking the scene of the Sacrificio, and the Glory depicted above it.

This fits the description Vouet gave of the assignment he had secondly been handed: "Il Sacrificio, qual Dio Padre..., con S. Francisco et S. Antonio di Padova..".*

* See Pollak 1931, p. 233, although it is not sure whether Vouet had to paint S. Francis of Paola, or S. Francis of Assisi. Thuillier (1990-1991) stated Vouet had to paint St. Francis of Assisi. However, the print Claude Mellan made of the painting below seems to suggest it was S. Francis of Paola, who was depicted by Vouet, due to the word "CHARITAS", held by the two putti in the middle of the painting.

Simon Vouet: St Francois de Paule, Rome,
ca. 1626

The St Francis is one of at least six paintings made by Vouet during his Italian period, that is painted on this type of roughly woven hemp canvas and measures circa 45 X 35 cm.

When we closely observe this model for St. Francis and the other two (possible) models for the altarpiece by Vouet, we can not but conclude, that there are some striking and undeniable similarities in coloring, gestures, background, sizes, period of creation, etc.

These similarities seem to connect the models, giving a full view of what Vouet was planning to create.

XI. What use was made of the models?

The model(s) Vouet had painstakingly devised for the Glory with God the father and Angels carrying the Instruments of the Passion shown above * and for the lower part, Il Sacrificio, would have ended up in the bin, if Vouet had not been so attached to them.

*At present part of a private collection in London, formerly Hovingham Hall, Yorkshire, UK.

Vouet is likely to have used the model for the Glory for the finished altarpiece, according to a sketch which was kept at the Art Library in Berlin.

Schleier used a reproduction of this ink drawing in his 1975 article Vouet's destroyed St. Peter altarpiece: further evidence in the Burlington Magazine. This image, of which I've added a repro below, shows the burial of Maria Sobieska in 1735.

In the background, the designer drew an obscured picture of the Vouet altarpiece, before it was destroyed, with in front of it Michelangelo's Pietà statue.

The top part of the drawn altarpiece resembles the remaining modello's for the upper part of Vouet's altarpiece, as you will see in the detailed image below, which was taken from Schleier's article.

The lower part - Il Sacrificio - would have become useless, since a Pietà painting behind a Pietà statue would have made no sense.

On the other hand, it is possible that Vouet completed (most of) his Il Sacrificio, which would then have been obscured by the marble Pietà statue.

The same thing happened to the painting of The Holy Trinity (1628-1632) by Pietro da Cortona, for the Chapel of the Trinity.

A few years after Cortona had finished his beautiful altarpiece somebody decided that a large bronze Tabernacle (1674) by Gianlorenzo Bernini was to be placed on the altar in front of it, thus obscuring a large part of the painting.

The Maria Sobieska funeral drawing seems to prove this was also the case with Vouet's altarpiece.

We know for a fact, that architect Carlo Maderno (1556-1629) received orders from the General Assemblee of Congregations to move the marble Pietà to the new Choir Chapel no earlier than on April 1, 1626 - this was months after Vouet had been ordered to paint his "altra historia" (see Pollak, p. 236).

The first advanced payments to sculptor Francesco Castelli (1599-1667) a.k.a Boromini - for making a marble pedistal for the Pietà statue - were made no earlier than May 28, 1626.

Final payments for measurements, design and build of the marble pedestal for Michelangelo's Pietà, were made around November 27, 1626 * - months after Vouet's commission had been altered and finished.

This means the Pietà statue must have been placed in front of Vouet's altarpiece, long after Vouet had ended his Vatican commission.

* O. Pollak, p. 237, Vat. Reg. 747-752.

A confirming eyewitness account quoted by Rice states, that Giovanni Battista Mola * in 1663, saw a Pietà by Michelangelo and one by Vouet!

* L. Rice p. 220, source 2 G.B. Mola, "Architectura, scultura et pittura fatte in Roma", 1663

Vouet expert Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée , and his team of art historians, who are currently writing a Catalogue Raisonné on Simon Vouet, have become very much involved in my studies regarding Il Sacrificio.

Mr. Brejon recently pointed me toward an important eye-witness account by Vouet’s friend Ferrante Carlo (1578-1641)* dated 1627.

Carlo, who saw Vouet at work described Vouet's second (changed) commission (and its intention) as follows: (quote)“...quando Dio Padre riceve quel sacrificio del figlio offertoli dalla Madre......”

* L. Rice, p. 220: a quote from F. Carlo’s biography on Simon Vouet, Ecole de Médecine de Montpellier, H419, f. 24, cited in Solinas,1992, p. 143.

Before Ferrante Carlo gave his description of Il Sacrificio, he made clear that Vouet had twice been misled. Here's the Italian text from 1627:

"..li fu comessa la tavola di San Pietro nel choro d’ordine Santissimi delli Priori della fabrica con promessa d’un altra. Prima hebbe il pensiero del’ombra e quando si pose la Pietà li fecero fare il pensiero ch’è in opera. Descrittione dell’opera, et intendimenti…"*

*Quoted from L. Rice, p. 220

First Vouet's assignment for "St Peter healing" was withdrawn, promising Vouet an other assigment, and secondly Vouet had to change his Il Sacrificio, because of the planned relocation of Michelangelo's Pietà: changes Vouet had to think up, while he had already started painting Il Sacrificio!

Other eyewitnesses, like Bralion in 1655-1659 and Buonanni in 1696 *, witnessed more than two persons in the lower part of Vouet's altarpiece - suggesting that Vouet had indeed painted more than just a glory with two adoring Saints!

* L. Rice p. 220, sources 1 and 5.

It is therefore possible, that Vouet - just like Cortona - finished his Sacrificio, but that it was later partially obscured by the marble statue of the Pietà!

Below I will discuss some eye catching details, which can be found in the Sobieska drawing and which suggest, that Vouet painted much more of his own composition, than experts have assumed in recent years.

What ever the case, the small disegno for the lower part of the altarpiece must have meant a lot to Vouet, since he never sold it, but kept it. Evidence of this, can be found in the existence of the Chilly-Mazarin altarpiece of 1631 and the 1639 print by Daret.

The late publication date of the disegno - by means of print - could be explained by the fact, that Vouet, at first, did not want to remember or publish his quarrels with the Vatican.

Besides, the complete painting we are talking about, was probably never fully realised. So, having it engraved as one of his Italian masterpieces, might have felt misleading.

But then, in october of 1638, Vouet's first wife - Virginia da Vezzo - suddenly died during childbirth. Vouet had met her in 1623-1624 and married her in 1626.

It's my firm believe, that Virginia modelled as the Mary Magdalene caressing Christ's hand, in the Sacrificio of 1625. The death of his first love in 1638, may very well have been the reason for Vouet, to order Daret to deliver the 1639 engraving of Il Sacrificio.

XII. Breach of contract by the Vatican

Prior to studying Pollak and Rice, I didn't have hard evidence, that the Daret print and "Il Sacrificio" were related to the famed Vatican commission, although everything - from color (of the right period) to composition as mentioned in Thuillier's exhibition catalogue of the Grand Palais, 1990-1991 - points in this direction.

The studying of Vatican documents cited in Pollak and Rice however, reveal some interesting new part of information, that strengthen my beliefs.

For instance, Pollak (p. 233) quotes a letter of complaint by Vouet, which the painter sent to his contractors around May 10, 1627. Rice quotes a similar letter, Vouet had sent to his contractors in the same period.

These letters show us, the anger and frustration Vouet felt, after he had twice been misled by his Vatican contractors.

After an earlier forced change of subject - Vouet was given an assignment to paint his own Pietà/Sacrificio, instead of the "St. Peter" he had already started - in the end, after hard work and large expenses, he had to put up with a minor and insulting commission.

In his letter Vouet points out, that "considering his reputation, he should be payed more than the others", because his contractors had twice misled him, into painting (models for) two paintings, both of which, he was not allowed to paint according to his own conceptions!

Furthermore, Vouet argued that his contractors ignored, that he had great difficulty painting in stuco and on location*, where his colleagues were allowed to paint on canvas in their own studios.

*Painting on location meant using small portable modellos, such as the "Sacrificio", the "Glory"and the "St. Francis" discussed in this essay.

It comes as no surprise that Daret in 1639 could and would have made a real size print of Il Sacrificio, based on their corresponding format.

Next, Vouet argued that he had had to repaint both Saints, because their habits had to be altered from "Zoccolanti" (Franciscan monks) into "Cappuccino" (Capuchin monks).

On top of this all, Vouet in his letter of complaint mentioned, with discontent, that his "St. Peter", had been given to l'Azuro (in a second letter identified as Pietro da Cortona).

Last but not least, Vouet reminded his contractors, that he had had to pay, one of the primers for the stuco, out of his own pocket.

Some art historians, like Louise Rice, have suggested that the second primer had been used by Vouet for a second painting he had started painting in St. Peter's, in a chapel opposite the Choir Chapel.

This assumption of a secondary painting is based on the following line in Vouet's letter of complaint of May 10, 1627: "...Quinto, perchè hà dato l'imprimitura ad un altra tavola incontro alla sopradetta del Coro Nuovo, à sue spese." *

*Quote from O. Pollak, p. 233, Vatican Regest 734.

It is the translation of the word "incontro" that may lead to the assumption of two separate paintings. But, this assumption is based on a wrong translation.

For instance: on page 84 (Vatican Regest 94) Pollak quotes the commission of an altarpiece that is to be painted by "Albano Bolognese" (Francesco Albano 1578-1660).

It reads: "..La Cappella in contro al Choro.." Correctly translated this means, that the Albano altarpiece was meant for the chapel "against/connected to" the Choir Chapel.

Incontro written as one word however, does not mean "against" or "opposite". Incontro in Italian means "meeting", "encounter", "match", "round" or "up to".

In our sentence however, "incontro" is followed by the words "..alla sopradetta.." Herein lies the answer to the riddle!

Incontro included in this sentence means, that Vouet had to pay for two layers of primer for an other painting "in order to (paint) the aforementioned (painting)" for the New Choir.

That's why Vouet had ordered two layers of primer, of which he paid one, out of his own pocket*.

*It takes at least half a year for a stuco primer (wet chalk) to dry, before it sticks to the wall well enough, so you can safely apply loads of paint on it, without risking the stuco falling down. If the stuco of Vouet's first attempt of painting Il Sacrificio was still wet, this could have meant, that the second layer of stuco did not connect to the wall, when Vouet altered his painting after September 1625. This may explain, why Vouet's altarpiece came down and was totally destroyed in the early 18th century, when it was removed to be reproduced in mosaic.

Vouet never painted two separate paintings, but he had to redo Il Sacrificio - like eyewitness Ferrante Carlo had stated - when he had already started it!

Ferrante Carlo i.e Ferdinando (Ferrante) Carli, was born in Parma on april 14, 1578, as son of Giovanni Gianfattori, who served the Farnese family.

A poet, artcollector/artdealer, contractor and intermediary, Ferrante kept a close relationship, especially with Lodovico Carracci and also with Llanfranco, Cavaliere Dal Pozzo and Simon Vouet. In his later life Ferrante Carli served as councelor to Scipione and Pier Maria Borghese, until his death in 1641.*

*On Ferdinando Carli see website of the Instituto Treccani (www.treccani,it), quoted "Martino Capucci - Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani - Volume 20 (1977)".

Ferrante Carlo favoured the Bolognese School of the Carracci and in my personal opinion - due to his connection to the Farnese family - must have been the go-between between Vouet and the Carracci family, when Vouet visited Parma and Bologna in 1621.

Visiting Parma, Vouet must have visited the "Depozitione con i santi Chiara, Francesco e Maria Maddalena" (1585) by Annibale Carracci, which had been commissioned by the Farnese family for the Chiesa dei Cappuccini, in Parma.

This altarpiece directly inspired the making of Il Sacrificio. I will discuss this in paragraph XVI.

Eyewitness Carlo clearly wasn't talking about the "St. Peter healing", when he said, that Vouet was interrupted, when he had already began painting his altarpiece. We know this, because Vouet's first commission had been altered, when Vouet had just about finished the large scale models for it.*

*O. Pollak, p.231, Regest 728

Vouet had not yet started the execution of that first altarpiece.

There is also no evidence of Vouet having been given a second assignment for an other chapel. Besides, it is save to say, that Vouet would have never started an other painting on an other location without proper orders, or payment.

We can now safely conclude, that Vouet had already started painting "Il Sacrificio", when at some point it was decided, to have Michelangelo's Pietà statue placed inside the new Choir Chapel.

It is thus more than likely, that Vouet painted much more than a simple background for the marble statue.

In Rice's thesis (p. 220) we find several eyewitness accounts, that suggest, that Vouet did not just paint two saints, addoring the Pietà statue, but that Vouet painted his own Pietà, at least painted more than just a backdrop for the Pietà by Michelangelo.

For instance most of the eye-witnesses claim to have seen more figures in Vouet's painting than St. Anthony and St. Francis, which suggest, that part of the painting was obscured by the marble statue.

As I explained earlier, the same thing happened, when Cortona's “Trinity" was obscured, when the Bernini tabernacle was later placed in front of it.

The difference is, that Vouet was faced with this insult of his artistic genious, in the midst of it's completion, while Pietro da Cortona (1596-1669) was already dead and buried, when around 1673 it was decided, to use Cortona's altarpiece as wallpaper for Bernini's kitschy and unsuited altar decoration.

Altar of the Trinity (Cortona 1628-1632, Bernini 1673-1675),
St. Peter's Basilica, Rome

XIII. Research and consulting

In the period prior to the discovery (of the importance) of Pollak and Rice, I approached Mr. Dominique Jacquot, Chief-curator of the Musée des Beaux-Arts Strasbourg in an attempt to find out more about the discussed painting.

At the time I had not yet made the Vatican connection, but simply tried to establish if the painting discussed, could be a painting by Vouet, a copy after Vouet, or a copy after the print by Daret.

In order to acquire as much usefull info for the expert(s) as possible, we soon realized the value of having standard photographs X-RAY images and infrared images made.

Below I have added some of the images I was allowed to have made in the period befor I wrote to Mr. Jacquot.

Sacrificio: Infrared image of the fainting Virgin Mary

Sacrificio: Infrared image of dead Christ leaning

Sacrificio:infrared image of Mary Magdalen attending Christ

Sacrificio: infrared image of Apostles in the back

Sacrificio: infrared image of main group

Besides small infrared images (due to lower resolution), I also found someone who provided me with an X-ray image of the Sacrificio. An image of which I added below.

As you can see, only the foreground of the composition has been detailed. The backgroud figures seem to have been painted freely, without a leadwhite oilsketch.

This suggest, just like the clearly altered and reworked undersketch, that this painting is an original and not a dry copy after a print.

Unfortunately, Mr. Jacquot disagreed with me on the originality of the work, despite having been shown the pictures above.

Sacrificio: X-Ray image with part of 18th century framework

Luckely, Mr. Sylvain Laveissière - at the time Chief-curator of patrimonial art of the Louvre - suggested (after seeing the same images and hearing the same arguments) that the Sacrificio could very well be (a reprise) by Vouet, rather than a copy after the print by Daret.

Although I discovered the following much later, I want to point you to a striking ressemblance I found between the Sacrificio and the Pietà (1620-1625) by Pietro da Cortona, probably Vouet's greatest rival during his Roman period.

If you look at the third infrared image from above, you will find the painter drew (with graphite ink) a torso of what seems to be a "putto" (little angel), between Mary Magdalene and Christ.

Now look down and study Pietro da Cortona's composition from the same period.

Pietà : Pietro da Cortona (1620-1625 )

Could it be Vouet erased the small figurine because it also appears in the painting by Da Cortona? What ever the case, it is obvious that these painters must have seen each others compositions!

XIV. Visiting Vouet in Situ

After finding out, that the image of the Sacrificio was related to Simon Vouet, I searched for, and found, various databases (governmental and museums) in France, which held information on the subject.

Noteworthy are, the internet databases of:

- Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine,

- Réunion des Musées Nationaux-Grand Palais,

- La Joconde.

During my studies of these sites, I found that there were some paintings which were clearly linked to the Sacrificio, but that are not mentioned in the standard works on Vouet. These paintings resided in churches in and around Paris and even in the attic of a townhall in the North of France.

I decided that a closer look would be necessary, by lack of illustrated documentation.

a. Visit to "Saint Pierre-ès-Liens", Les Riceys

In the Summer of 2011, armed with some profesional photographs of the Sacrificio, I first visited the Marie (townhall) of Les Riceys (Dep. Aube) and one of it's local churches, "Saint Pierre-ès-Liens".

In the database of the "Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine" I had found an image of a painting (see below), supposedly by Jacques de Létin (1597-1661) after Simon Vouet.

This "Déploration sur le Christ Mort" once decorated one of the chapels of the church of St. Pierre-ès-Liens, but had been moved, around 2003, to the attic of the townhall, waiting to be restored.

Déploration : Jacques de Létin (1st. half 17th century)
photo: Médiathèque de l'Architecture et du Patrimoine.

After visiting the beautiful old church - not finding the painting - a visit to the Mayor of Les Riceys also did'nt lead to seeing the painting, nor did it lead to new insights.

Unfortunately, the painting could not be found in the attic of the Townhall and the Mayor was not aware of the current whereabouts of the painting.

I wish I could have seen the painting from a short distance, so I could have compared it with photographs of the Sacrificio and the print by Pierre Daret.

The low horizon and the posture of the Magdalen seem to suggest, that Létin used the Sacrificio as his source, instead of the 1639 engraving.

b. Visit to the "Saint Etienne", Chilly-Mazarin

At the and of my summer holiday I stopped to visit the ancient church of "Saint Etienne" (11th-12th century) in Chilly-Mazarin (dep. Essonne).

It turns out, that the altarpiece in Chilly-Mazarin - of which I found a black and white image in the database of the Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine - is in fact a mirrored reprise of Il Sacrificio.

During my visit, I took some pictures in situ of the altarpiece (see below), that is ascribed to Simon Vouet himself (around 1639).

The dedication to Simon Vouet is not supported by Vouet experts and the date of realisation is questionable.

We know for a fact, that Vouet did work in Chilly in 1631-1632 (just before the death of his contractor, the Marquis d' Effiat et Longjumeau in 1632).

Vouet had been commissioned to decorate the Chateau of Chilly and it's Chapel. During his stay at Chilly, he was accompagnied by his chief assistant Francois Perrier (1594-1649.

It is my firm belief, that is was Francois Perrier, and not Simon Vouet, who painted the altarpiece of Chilly.

"Deploration" , Simon Vouet and /or Francois Perrier (1631 / 1639?)
Photo taken by author in situ

Although my studies have let me to believe, that this altarpiece was painted by Francois Perrier, it is obvious that he executed the altarpiece on the basis of a model provided by Vouet.

To my surprise, I found, that the two leading women in the altarpiece of Chilly-Mazarin are dressed in the same colors as the Sacrificio. Adding to the surprise, I realised that the image had been mirrored (left to right and right to left) but the colors remained in place.

I also observed that Mary Magdalene, just like in the Sacrificio, is faced toward the injured torso of Christ, and not toward his hand like you see in the Daret print.

I have since seen a lot of copies of the Sacrificio - every one of them clearly based on the Daret print - and none of them had the same colors as Il Sacrificio and the altarpiece in Chilly-Mazarin.

This resemblance in (venetian) colors - and the fact, that Vouet was commisionned to paint the chapel and the interior of the castle of Chilly-Mazarin before/in 1631 - strengthens the believe, that the painting discussed in this essay, is not your next copy after the Daret print, but is most likely the original thing!

Il Sacrificio was used by Vouet's assistant Francois Perrier, as a model for the altarpiece of the church. It is obvious, that Vouet was still influenced by what he had learned and seen in his Italian period, when he directed the painting of this altarpiece.

This further strengthens the believe, that the discussed Il Sacrificio is real and dates back to 1625-1626 and not to 1639 when the Daret print was published.

The reason for the creation of Chilly altarpiece is undoubtedly the restoration of the St. Etienne between 1626 and 1632, when a new bell tower was constructed - in 1632 fitted with one new bronze church bell.

There are no records that support the assumption, that Vouet returned tot Chilly in 1639 to paint the altarpiece above. Stylistic arguments also suggest, that this altarpiece is closer to the 1631 oeuvre of Vouet, than to his 1639 oeuvre.

In later times, the royal family of Monaco got connected with this ancient church, with it's baroque altarpiece - based on Il Sacrificio.

It was on July 15, 1777 that Honoré IV, Prince Héréditaire de Monaco (1758-1819) got married to Louise d'Aumont, duchesse de Mazarin, marquise de Chilly (1759-1826) in front of the altarpiece above.

Ever since this marriage, the Grimaldi family is also entitled to the titles of Duc de Mazarin and Marquis de Chilly.

To honor this historic bond, the current Prince of Monaco Albert I, recently donated a substantial amount of money to the restoration of the church, which was completed in 2018. One of the stained glass windows of the church carries the Grimaldi's family crest.

c. Visit to "Saint Nicolas-des-Champs", Paris

A visit I also would not have wanted to mis, was the visit I brought to the church of "Saint Nicolas-des-Champs", in the old centre of Paris (dep. Ile de France), in May of 2012.

At Saint Nicolas-des-Champs you can visit the only major altarpiece in the whole of France, that remained in place during the French Revolution, when many important church artifacts were either destroyed or robbed or confiscated by the revolutionaries.

This "Assomption de la Vierge" still hangs on it's original mounting at the original place.

Vouet delivered this masterpiece in 1629. It is the first known major commission Vouet fulfilled, after his return from Italy in the late summer of 1627.

The colors that Vouet used - less than two years after his return to France - are clearly "Venetian" (warm red and ocher), and the "chiaroscuro" (the distinct light/dark effect) reveals the still present influence of the Caravesque painters.

Not surprisingly, Il Sacrificio - a disegno for an altarpiece Vouet created less then four years earlier (1625) - also bears the same Italian signature.

Simon Vouet: "Assomption de la Vierge" (bottom section) 1629, Paris Photo taken "in situ" by the author

Besides the used colors, there are more similarities between the modelli for the altarpiece for St. Peter's Basilica in Rome (the Hovingham bozzetto and Il Sacrificio) and the one at the St. Nicolas-des-Champs in Paris.

One of them being the fact, that Vouet in both cases designed one artwork, divided into two registers. This meant, that the Roman altarpiece would show a "heavenly image" and an "earthly image", seperated by a band of clouds, or some other devision.

The altarpiece could have been painted on two separate canvases, like the one in Paris, but this is not necessary.

The top section of such a split painting is called a "lunette". Below you find a picture I took in situ of the lunette of Saint Nicolas-des-Champs.

Assomption de la Vierge, Simon Vouet 1629 (lunette)
Photo taken by author in situ

I found, that Vouet, in the 1630's also painted an other Assumption of the Virgin for the abbey of Pont-Aux-Dames, located East of Paris.

The image below shows the 1640 engraving Michel Dorigny made of this altarpiece.*

*The original painting is lost, according to Thuillier, Vouet 1990-1991, p. 130.

Michel Dorigny, after Simon Vouet: l'Assomption de la Vierge, 1640, Abbaye de Pont-Aux-Dames, detail 1.

Below I've added an image of the title of the engraving, placed at the bottom of the work, just like in the 1639 engraving of Il Sacrificio by Pierre Daret.

Michel Dorigny, after Simon Vouet: Assomption de la Vierge, 1640,
Abbaye de Pont-Aux-Dames, detail 2

Later in this blog, I will also discuss a Pietà with a Glory, which Annibale Carracci painted in Modena on one canvas, which can be identified as the direct model, after which Vouet created his own Pietà with a Glory (Il Sacrificio and Hovingham modello combined).

Looking at the altarpiece of Saint Nicolas-des-Champs, taking into consideration when it was produced, it seams more than likely, that Vouet would have created the three models I discussed earlier (Il Sacrificio, the Hovingham modello and the modello for a Saint) for a similar art piece.

I'm not saying that Vouet - like he did in Paris - has used, or would have used two separate paintings.

The preparatory sketch for the St. Nicolas-des-Champs altarpiece - nowadays in the department of drawings of the Louvre - also shows a two register composition in one image.

Simon Vouet: Assomption de la Vierge, before 1627
(prep. ink sketch)
Department of Drawings, Louvre Paris

This washed ink drawing was first recognized by former Louvre curator, art expert Pierre Rosenberg, as a Simon Vouet (although on the sheet it is signed Claude Mellan).

According to Barbara Brejon de Lavergnée *, this type of washed ink sketch - using sanguin and brown washing - is rare in the Vouet oeuvre and represents clearly a product of his Italian period, made in Italy before 1627-1628.

*Barbara Brejon de Lavergnée in: Thuilier, Brejon de Lavergnée, Lavalle, Vouet, Grandpalais 1990-1991, p. 366.

It is meant, not as a detailed sketch or modello for (part of) an altarpiece , but as a first (compositional) sketch for the whole altarpiece!

It is clear that Vouet visualized a two register altarpiece, combined in one image. When it was finally created in Paris in 1629, Vouet chose to paint to separate paintings suspended in a frame, resembling the facade of an antique roman church

It is thus possible, that Vouet for his St. Peter altarpiece also started out with a compositional two register sketch, followed by two to four separate portable modelli, which he than combined into one single painting, showing the Glory, Il Sacrificio and two Saints.

Eyewitness reports quoted by Rice seem to suggest, that Vouet made one final painting, in which both registers were combined.

Below I have added a picture I found on the internet, in which you can see what the complete altarpiece in Paris looks like at present.
Surprisingly, the main altarpiece is flanked by two adorning saints, just like the commission for St. Peter's.

Assomption de la Vierge, Simon Vouet 1629.
Photo on www.asaintnicolas.com

The decorative framework for the altarpiece, was designed and sculpted by the famous sculptor Jacques Sarazin (1588/90-1660), an artist who had lived and studied in Rome in the same period as Vouet. Both artists knew each other well in Rome.

They became reacquainted, when they met up in Paris after they had both returned to France in 1627. Vouet and Sarazin worked together on several occasions. Sarazin would later be married to a niece of Vouet.

The framework of the altar represents the facade of a classical Roman church. This design spread from Italy to the rest of Europe during the Renaissance and Baroque era.

The flanking paintings of the two Saints were not produced by Vouet, but were done at a later date (1775) by Jean Baptiste Claude Robin (1734-1818). However, it's not unlikely that originally Vouet also provided the (original) Saints. These may have been removed, sold or destroyed.

I can't support this idea with evidence, but one must admit, that it is more than a coincidence, that Vouet used the same concept in 1625-1626 for his papal altarpiece.

Admittedly, in the final version of the St. Peter's altarpiece, the Saints were added to the canvas itself, although the remaining model suggests, that Vouet may have intended to paint the Saints on adjacent paintings.

XV. Il Sacrificio, what would it have looked like

We don't know, what the final altarpiece looked like, when Vouet finished it, early 1626.

Some eyewitnesses speak of more than three Saint's in the lower part of the painting. Most of them declare, that the top of the painting showed a Glory with the Mysteries of the Passion.

When the remaining models for the altarpiece are combined - for the sake of argument (one of) the remaining model(s) for the Saint's has been duplicated - we get a feel of, what Vouet had in mind when he first embarked on this great mission.

Below I have tried to give some impression of what the altarpiece would have looked like.

I'm not sure, if Vouet was planning to combine all the models into one painting, or that he planned to create an altarpiece like the one in Paris (St. Nicolas-des-Champs) devided over multiple canvases.

Judging from the lack of "earth" in the upper model, and the lack of "heaven" in the lower model, one could argue, that Vouet was planning an altarpiece with a separate "lunette" and two adjacent Saints.

When al the models are put together, it is obvious why there are only two crosses on Calvary, and why there are no Passion Instruments in the lower part of the combined model.

Il Sacrificio: Complete model created by author using
existing pictures from different sources.
Scale of images has slightly been altered.

I'm convinced, by the style in which the three remaining models have been painted, that these paintings once belonged together.

One must agree, that the image in total, is a mix of the Carracci and of Caravaggio; a combination of styles, Vouet would have used in the 1620's.

Besides the stylistic arguments, there are also actual similarities between the three paintings:

1. The angels in the lunette are almost similar (in style and gestures) to the angels in the model for the Saint;

2. The Saint in the modello of "the Saint" is dressed in the same habit as the bearded apostle near the tomb in the Sacrificio;

3. The Saint in the modello of "the Saint" makes the same gesture as the Virgin Mary in Il Sacrificio. All the fingers but one, spread out.

4. The larger angel, looking down on the Saint, in the modello for "the Saint" makes the same gesture with his hand, as the bearded apostle at the tomb in Il Sacrificio.

XVI. Source of inspiration

At some time in the last five years I realised, that Vouet, like other great painters, often would have found inspiration in the work of other painters and that it may be possible to find a painting that modelled for his Sacrificio.

Due to the connection with the ( false ) attribution to Lodovico Carracci on the verso of the painting, the internet was searched with the terms " Descent from the Cross + Carracci ".

During this search I came across a 1695 engraving of Noël Robert Cochin. See the image below. It shows a painting by Annibale Carracci (1560-1609) depicting a Deposition with the Ascent of the Cross. This painting is not widely known.

"Deposition con la Vergine, e i Santi Chiara, Francesco,
Maddalena e Giovanni"
N.R. Cochin, after A. Carracci, 1695

Given the Latin text under the engraving, it seems that Carracci painted this work in 'Mutina", translated "Modena".

Further research let to finding the mentioned painting in the Galleria Nazzionale di Parma.

It appears that Carracci painted this altarpiece for the Chiesa dei Cappuccini in Parma (i.e. 50 km from Modena and about 80 km from Bologna - all on route to Firence).

A quick comparison with Il Sacrificio leads to the conclusion, that Carracci 's altarpiece bears a striking resemblance, with at least two of the surviving (combined) models for Il Sacrificio.

A. Carracci: Depositione con la Vergine, e i Santi Chiara, Francesco,

Maddalena e Giovanni" ,Modena, 1585

Pietà (detail), A. Carracci , 1585 Gloire (detail), S. Vouet, 1625

Pietà (detail), A. Carracci , 1585

Sarificio (detail), S. Vouet, 1625

Above an image of the Carracci altarpiece is shown. When comparing the total image of the Carracci, with the combination of the upper and the lower part designs by Vouet I've shown earlier, I am convinced Vouet got his inspiration for his Roman altarpiece from the Modena Carracci painting.

The compositions of the angels is similar, the atmosphere is the same, the devision of the composition in two registers is the same.

And, what about the angels carrying the Passion Instruments - their pose and their color?

Vouet, or his students, made several large scale details, after Vouet had finished his preliminary disegno for the upper part of his Roman altarpiece (the Hovingham bozzetto), which I have shown earlier.

Above I've also added an enlarged detail of one of the remaining modello’s Vouet made for details for the upper part or "the Glory" of his altarpiece. Next to this detail, you'll see an image of the upper part of the Parma altarpiece by Annibale Carracci.

In order to facilitate a direct comparison of the lower parts of the two paintings, I have also added a detail of Il Sacrificio (left) and next to it, a detail of the Carracci Pietà (right).

I would say, the resemblance between the Carracci and the Vouet altarpieces is obvious. This strengthens the thesis that Il Sacrificio was conceived in Rome in 1625 and not in Paris in 1639!

However, a possible resemblance is in itself not enough to construde a real connexion! How can we be sure, that Vouet has in fact seen the Carracci painting befor he started his commission for the Vatican.

Well, evidence shows, that Vouet did travel to Modena and Parma on November 9th of 1621, to study the works of his great predecessors*

*Thuillier, Vouet 1990-1991, p.99 with a reference to a note of Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée, 1980, pp. 58-64.

We have to keep in mind, that a relative short time passed between Vouet’s visit to Parma (1621-1622) and Vouet’s commission for the Vatican (1624-1625).

We can safely assume that Vouet studied all relevant works of his predecessor Annibale Carracci, when he stayed in Modena and Parma, since this was the purpose of his stay! Therefore, we can be sure that Vouet must have seen the Carracci altarpiece in Parma.

Based on several similarities I mentioned earlier, the Carracci altarpiece must have modelled for the altarpiece of Il Sacrificio, which Vouet in 1625 devised for the Vatican - as described in Pollak (Pollak, p. 233).

This further strengthens the possibility, that the image portrayed in Il Sacrificio - aside from the question if it is the original painting or a copy - was (part of) a disegno for Vouet’s papel commission.This assumption underlines, oncemore, the art historical importance of the resurfaced painting, that is discussed in this blog.

This painting – that is to say, the fact that Vouet was forced to end it’s completion – directly triggered Vouet’s departure from Italy and his return to France, and therefore triggered the start of the French School, which would later inspire world's greatest painters.

XVII. An unexpected journey

In the prologue to this blog, I already pointed out, that Il Sacrificio must have left Italy with Vouet, because we can proof it's presence in France from 1631 until at least 1639.

I showed, that Vouet was commissioned to decorate the chateau and chapel of the Marquis of Effiat around 1631, at which time Vouet had his assistant, Francois Perrier, execute an altarpiece based on Il Sacrificio. This altarpiece, as I pointed out, now decorates the altar of the church of St. Etienne in Chilly-Mazarin, nowadays a suburb of Paris.

In 1639, Vouet ordered Pierre Daret de Cazeneuve (1604-1678) to devise an engraving, based on Il Sacrificio.

It's noteworthy, that painting and engraving (without it's subtext), are roughly the same size (ca. 45 x 35 cm). Furthermore, I believe Pierre Daret executed a "one on one" copy, and not - as is to be expected when a painting is copied on metal and then printed - a mirror image.

We can deduce that the commissioner of the print wanted to show the public, the composition as it was intended. One might ask: why the difference in background, between print and engraving?

Well, it is likely that Daret - as he demonstrated in other copies of paintings by Vouet - was permitted a great deal of artistic freedom, when executing the background of the image.

Daret is known for the fact, that his engravings are very deficient in taste and correctness of drawing*, compared to the original works.

*Source Wikipedia on Pierre Daret.

In this particular case, Daret could have decided, the background Vouet had painted in Il Sacrificio was to dark, or to tiny, which would only obscure the print.

An other possibility is, that Daret made a technical mistake when executing the background, which he would have to cover up, redesigning the background. It could be, that Vouet ordered Daret to alter the background, because of a change in taste.

It's also possible that copyright issues played a role. Would it have been alowed to reproduce a painting the Vatican had commissioned and payed for, without papal concent?

Important is, that Daret retained the most important detail of all: the two crosses on Calvary.

Had Daret altered this detail, we would never have known of a connexion between the print and the painting, nor would we have ever established the connexion between the painting and the other parts of the Vatican commission!

Let's now return to our journey.....

As I said earlier, in 1627 Vouet returned to France, after a short stop in Venice. The preparatory paintings for St. Peter's Basilica must have been in his luggage, as he travelled back to Paris by horse and carriage.

During his stay in Venice, Vouet painted his last major Italian altarpiece, the Apotheosis of St. Theodore for the altar of La Scuola di San Teodoro in Venice.

Simon Vouet: Apothéose de St. Théodore (1627)
Gemäldegallerie Dresden

It doesn't take a great art scolar, to see the obvious similarities between the pose and garments of St. Theodore, and the Virgin in Il Sacrificio.

Again we have an earth and a heaven (filled with angels) combined - the heaven in the same glowing orange as seen in the Hovingham modello, separated from the earth by a strain of clouds. As we saw earlier, Vouet took this idea back to France, and used it there, more than once.

When Vouet finally arrived in Paris, king Louis XIII, granted Vouet the opportunity to stay and set up a studio in the Grande Galerie of the Palais du Louvre. Vouet was made "peintre du roi" (royal painter/court painter).

Because of the personal significance of Il Sacrificio, it almost certainly must have decorated the wall of Vouet's studio in the Grande Galerie.

This was long befor the Louvre Palace became the Louvre Museum, with it's famous "Grande Galerie" still in tact, where one can now visit - hanging on the same old walls - the paintings of Leonardo, Caravaggio, Veronese, Titian, Poussin, Le Brun, Valentin (de Boulogne), Vouet and other world famous painters.

It's kind of bizar to realize, that evidence of the painting being in the possession of the painter more than supports this theory.

XVIII. How did Il Sacrificio end up in Great-Britain?

Since I located the painting in an American private collection, I wondered how it made it's way there all the way from France.

I decided to "Google" the text written on the 19th/20th century auction label that is attached to the back of the painting. The label itself was identified by several experts as Anglo-Saxon, dating from the end of the 19th, early 20th century.

Below I've added an image of this small label (ca. 2,5 cm x 12 cm).

Exhibition/auction label (verso Il Sacrificio)

I more or less guessed, that the painting may not have gone to America directly, but that it may have first went to Great Britain.

As it turns out, many French and Italian works of art, made their way to Great Britain around 1790-1825, due to the explosive growth in private collections.

Browsing the sites of the great British museums, I found a reference to the first public art display in Great Britain - known as the Bridgewater Gallery - that exhibited numerous famous Italian, French and Dutch paintings of the 16th and 17th century.

I learned that a syndicate of three wealthy Englishmen, led by Sir Francis Egerton, the 3rd Duke of Bridgewater, in 1798 bought up the Italian and French paintings of the Orléans Collection and thus created the Bridgewater Collection of Pictures.

The Duke of Bridgewater, the Earl Gower and the Earl of Carlisle - all related by marriage - raised a sum large enough to buy the Orleans Collection. King George III and some of his relatives failed to do so earlier.

For a history of this artsale - probably the largest artsale ever - I rever to the comprehensive history pages of the site of the National Gallery in London.

Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater
(1736-1803)

The Bridgewater syndicate decided to auction of the paintings they did not want to keep for their private collections. They made a huge profit auctioning of these lesser paintings.

The paintings that the syndicate kept to itself, besides the ones that ended up in the privat residences of these Lords, were put on display from1806.

This collection was first known as the Stafford Gallery located at Cleveland House, London, and was later known as the Bridgewater Gallery, located at Bridgewater House, London.

The Bridgewater Gallery consisted of works by Leonardo Veronese, Titian, the Carracci, Reni, Llanfranco, Tintoretto, Guercino, Raffael,Velasquez, Valentin, Poussin, Lorraine, Reynolds, Van Mieris, Wouwerman, Van der Velde and many others.

The two most famous and precious works that were part of the Bridgewater Gallery, must be "Diana and Callisto" and "Diana and Actaeon", both by Titian.

For many years both paintings were part of the socalled Bridgewater loan, hanging in both the National Gallery of London and the National Galleries of Scotland.

In 2009 the Diana and Acteon (shown below) was sold to the joint National Galleries of London and Scotland for roughly 50 million pounds. Diana and Callisto left the Bridgewater Gallery to join the same new owners in 2012, also for 50 million pounds.

Titian: Diana and Acteon (1556-1559) N.G. London/Scotland

I learned that, besides the formentioned pendants by Titian, the works of the Carracci family - in particular the ones by Lodovico Carracci and his nephew Annibale Carracci - were among the most sought after paintings at the turn of the 18th century.

Through footnotes in other descriptive articles on the interweb I, in 2013, located my first copy of the Catalogue of the Bridgewater Collection of Pictures (1851).

I was greatly surprised and stunned when in 2013 I found an entry in this antique catalogue that listed the painting I'm discussing here! See for your self.

Scan of a detail of page 16 of the
Catalogue of the Bridgewater Collection of Pictures (1851)

I have since checked all sorts of books and databases (such as the Getty Provenance Index Database), but I did'nt find an other painting by Lodovico Carracci, that is referred to as "A Pietà: a study for an altarpiece."

After extensive research I'm convinced, that this combination of author and subject description is unique.

It is too far-fetched to assume, that someone deliberately used an unspecified entry from the Bridgewater Catalogue, as a way of falsifying the provenance of this painting.

The intended buyer would then, like the villain, have had to have knowledge of AND access to, a copy of the Bridgewater Catalogue. This is very unlikely.

Besides, it has already been established, that the painting is not a forgery and at the time (before the development of modern science) it could very well have been mistaken for a study by an Italian painter like Lodovico Carracci.

How lucky could a forger of provenances be, stumbling over a small French painting that luckely resembled a small "study" by a famous Italian painter - and finding a fitting description of such a "study" (with a similar size) in a once famous, but nowadays not so famous, art collection.

It is not very likely, that a forger would go this distance, for a painting that could easily be exposed by experts, if one were to contact the owners or trustees of the Bridgewater Collection.

In October of 2013, I mailed these findings to Mr. W. Van Haersma Buma, at the time working as Specialist Old Master Paintings at Christie's Amsterdam.

In his response Mr. Buma wrote:

" ...the resemblance between the label on the painting and the entry in the Bridgewater Catalogue is striking. It gives reason to presume, that the painting at one time was part of the Bridgewater Collection of Pictures." (translated)

You can imagine my exitement, when I received this mail.

I then tried to find references to the Pietà mentioned in the Bridgewater Catalogue, hoping to find some description of what it looked like, so I could compare them with Il Sacrificio.

Well, this was'nt easy, but luckely I retrieved some important works on art history, that were published in the period between 1800 and 1915.

In G.F. Waagen's "Treasures of Art in Great Britain" (in both the German version of 1834 and the English version of 1857) I found a reference to the "Pietà, a study for an altarpiece" by Lodovico Carracci (i.e. Il Sacrificio).

Waagen tells us (Treasures, Vol. II, lett. XIII, p. 34), that at Bridgewater House he saw a painting by L. Carracci, representing:

"A Pietà - a study for an altarpiece: combining with beautiful composing, fine drawing and striking effect, that refined feeling which this master often evinces".

An other art historian, Mrs. Anna Jameson, in her "Companion to the Most Celebrated Private Galleries of Art in London" (1844), wrote about a painting by Ludovico Carracci she had seen during her visit to Belgrave Square (the temporary location of the Bridgewater Gallery):

" 22. A Pietà. - A small study for an altarpiece, which combines with great beauty of arrangement and effect, and correct drawing, that refined feeling which Ludovico Carracci so often evinces. Purchased by Lord Francis Egerton."

In the prolog to her description of the Bridgewater Gallery on page 84, Mrs. Jameson elaborates on the importance of the only Pietà painting of Lodovico Carracci, she has seen in situ:

"....The great Pietà of Ludovico, is, I think, the grandest example in the world of that combination of various excellences which this painter and his scolars aimed at and achieved - fine drawing, fine colour, fine chiaroscuro, great solemnity of sentiment, with something a little to academic in attitude and effect...."

The quotes above confirm, that the Bridgewater Collection of Pictures housed a small, but highly important, painting by Lodovico Carracci, portraying "A Pietà: a study for an altarpiece".

Jameson is clearly not glorifying the "Descent from the Cross" which originated from the Orleans Gallery.

On page 89 of her commentary Jameson criticizes this and another painting by Ludovico in the Bridgewater Gallery, namely the Descent of the Cross (nr. 10) and the St. Catharine (nr. 11) as ”…lacking the evidence of individual caracter and being merely imitations of the signature style of other great artists like Titian and Veronese...”

We may therefore conclude, that Jameson was talking about the small Pietà study (for an altarpiece), which the Earl of Ellesmere had personally added to the Bridgewater Gallery, when she revered to “the great Pietà of Ludovico”.

The different quotes, by Waagen en Jameson and others tell us about color, effect, chiaroscuro and fine drawing of the painting they saw, but they don't disclose what the composition looked like.

Without a description one could still deny that Il Sacrificio itself - the painting this blog is all about - itself was part of the Bridgewater Collection.

Well, I then came across two publications, that provide more information about the composition of the Pietà in the Bridgewater Collection.

In 1847, a journalist of the "Art Union 1847" (see vol. IX, p. 49 etc.) visited the temporary accommodation of the Earl of Ellesmere and his paintings, situated at 18 Belgrave Square, London.

Since old Bridgewater House (formerly known as Cleveland House) had been demolished in 1843, the Egerton family had occupied a temporary villa on Belgrave Square, in order to have Bridgewater House rebuild on the same location.

When the Egerton's returned to Bridgewater House, the house on Belgrave Square was sold to the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy in 1866. The building then gave house to the Austrian-Hungarian Embassy and has been in the possession of the Austrian government ever since.

It currently (still) houses the Austrian Embassy.

18 Belgrave Square, London. Il Sacrificio was located
in the "inner front bedroom" from 1843 until 1850

At this fine location the journalist of the Art Union in 1847 was able to visit the complete "Bridgewater and Ellesmere Collection of Pictures", owned by Francis Egerton, the 1st Earl of Ellesmere.

According to the journalist, the collection - numbering over 300 paintings - was to large to describe in full.

Therefore, only the most important paintings were briefly described - others were only mentioned by author and title - going from room to room is the luxorious villa at Belgrave Square, nowadays popularly refered to as "Billionaires Square".

In the inner front bedroom next to a painting by Frans Hals and one of Gaspard Poussin, the journalist of Art Union saw a painting by L. Caracci, which he described as follows:

"The dead Christ and weeping Maries", called a Pietà; a small study for a larger picture - full of intense pathos and exquisitely diplayed feeling."

It is clear, the Art Union journalist was referring to our painting. Since it hung in a small bedroom and not in an important larger room or hallway, we may conclude, that this Pietà was, like our painting (Il Sacrifio) a small painting.

During my studies to reveal traces of Il Sacrificio in history, I finally came across writer/art critic Casimir Stryienski (1853-1912), who authored a fine catalogue raisonné on the birth and the dispursal of the famous Orleans Collection.

In his descriptive work "La Galerie du Régent, Philippe II, Duc d'Orléans "(1913), Stryienski discussed the whereabouts of the paintings that made up the former collection of the Duc d'Orléans.

On page 82, the author remarks, that the Earl of Ellesmere owns an other "Descente de Croix" (a..k.a Pietà) "...d'un coloris vénitien" (in venitian colors).

Stryienski is clearly not talking about the Descent of the Cross, that once belonged to the Duke of Modena, since the pieces that came from the collection of the Duke of Modena were - according to Stryienski (p. 14 ) not worth mentioning.

I must remark, that in the Bridgewater Catalogue there is a note stating, that paintings marked with an *, were added to the Bridgewater Collection by the Earl of Ellesmere himself.

Since Mrs. Jameson stated that Francis Egerton (who became the first Earl of Ellesmere) acquired the small Pietà, it is obvious, that Stryienski had this painting in mind, when he wrote down this comment.

It is a fact, that the Earls of Ellesmere now and then changed the content of the Bridgewater Collection.

The 1857 catalogue states, that some of the paintings have been added and later have been removed to the private residence of the Earl of Ellesmere. This information is confirmed by Sir George Scharf in his essay/ look back on the Manchester Art Treasures Exhibition of 1857.*

*Sir George Scharf: On the Manchester Art-Treasures Exhibition, 1857. Published 1858. Digitally published by the Historic Society of Lincolnshire and Cheshire.

Scharf lists all the works that were lent to this grand exhibition by the 1st Earl of Ellesmere, stating that these were only works that the Earl himself had acquired and that none of them were lent by the Bridgewater Gallery!

This could explain why Casimir Stryienski in 1913 suggests the Pietà is with the Earl of Ellesmere himself - and possibly not at Bridgewater House, unlike other paintings Stryienski mentions, which also belonged to the Earl of Ellesmere, but were according to Stryienski - kept at Bridgewater House.

Based on the various quotes above, it is obvious that the descriptions of eyewitnesses, pertaining to the size, the colors, the striking effect, along with the title and author of the painting, match the composition and style of Il Sacrificio.

On top of this, I came across the Catalogue of the Art Treasures of the United Kingdom: collected at Manchester in 1857*.

*see: https://archive.org

Manchester Art Treasures Exhibiton, Old Trafford, Manchester 1857

This exhibition - the largest public art exhibition ever (at the time) - exhibited works of art from the major private artcollectors in Britain, amongst which the Earl of Ellesmere and members of the Royal family.

Listed as number 316 (in the Old Master section) I found the following entry: "An Entombment", by L. Carracci, belonging to the Earl of Ellesmere."

Stricktly speaking, Il Sacrificio is not an "Entombment" - unlike the one obtained by the Earl of Carlisle from the Bridgewater deal, which is listed as number 328 in the Manchester Catalogue as having belonged to the Orleans Collection.

The Pietà painting in possesion of the Earl of Ellesmere, could however be described as a "Descent from the Cross" because of the fact, that the tomb is part of the composition (although Christ is positioned next to the tomb and not in or on the tomb).

A larger painting, with the same subject, by Ludovico Carracci, that formerly belonged to the Duke of Modena, the Orleans Collection and later to the Bridgewater Collection, is also described as a "Descent from the Cross" and not as an "Entombment".

This painting was one of the paintings, that originated from the paintings bought by the Bridgewater Syndicate and was chosen by George Levenson-Gower, 1st Duke of Sutherland, Marquis of Stafford, and was hence inherited by his son Francis, the 1st Earl of Ellesmere.

In the painting, which was painted on panel, there is no visible tomb, so we can rule out, that this painting would have been called an Entombment.

This painting would have been to large*, to valuable and to fragile to transport to Manchester as part of the Art Exhibition of 1857. If so, it's provenance and importance would certainly have been noted in the exhibition catalogue's and guides.

*According to Ottley & Tompkins, 1818, this painting oil on panel measured ca. H 7 feet 9,5 inches X W 5 feet 1,5 inch (ca. 237,4 cm X 156,2 cm)

Our Sacrificio, also known as a "Dead Christ" would not have been mistaken for the major altarpiece by Lodovico, but apparently it's identification let to some confusion when someone took notes of which owner entered which piece of art in the 1857 exhibition.

Having said this - and knowing that the Earl of Ellesmere did not possess other paintings by L. Carracci with this theme - it is safe to say, that either the "Modena Descent", or our "Pietà: A study for an altarpiece" (i.e. Il Sacrificio) was shown at Manchester in 1857.

Next, we have to keep in mind, that the Manchester Catalogue lists the relevant provenance of each painting. For instance: paintings that once belonged to the Orleans Collection are listed as such.

The official report on the exhibition states, that Dr. G.F. Waagen was personally charged by the organizing committee with selecting from the various privat collection catalogues, the works to be shown in Manchester.

Dr. Waagen, would with certainty have known and mentioned the important provenance, if the Modena Descent (a 7ft by 4 ft oil on panel painting)* had been selected for the 1857 spectacle.

*It was engraved as "Dead Christ with the Maries and St. Thomas" in the "Engravings of the Most noble Marquis of Stafford's (i.e. Ellesmere's father) Collection of Pictures in London", Vol II, Ottley & Tompkins 1818. See below.

However, it is unlikely that Dr. Waagen would have selected the Modena Descent, since this painting - according to Herr Doctor - left "einen unangenehmen Eindruck" i.e. "an unpleasant impression".*

*G.F. Waagen, 1834, Band II, p. 326.

The small Pietà study on the other hand - according to Dr. Waagen - gave "jene feinere empfindung" i.e. "the refined impression", welche dieser Meister öfter eigen ist" i.e. "which this Master is known for".

Lodovico Carracci: Dead Christ with the Maries and St. Thomas.
Bridgewater House, London. Destroyed in Blitz, May 11th, 1941

Strikingly, number 316 of the 1857 exhibition, in the department of the "Ancient Masters" - named the "Entombment" which according to the catalogue belongs to the Earl of Ellesmere - is not listed as having belonged to either the Duke of Modena, nor as having belonged to the Orleans Collection!

This would lead to the conclusion, that it was indeed the small Pietà painting, and not the one that once belonged to the Orleans Collection, that was shown at Manchester.

Since the small Pietà was considered a "study", it is not surprising that unlike most of the other paintings, this one lacks a handwritten commentary in the catalogue version held by the Getty Research Institute*

*https://archive.org.

The exhibition of 1857 was also visited by W. Bürger, who wrote an extensive review called Trésors d'Art exposés a Manchester... (Paris, 1857).*

*https://archive.org.

In his review, Bürger mentioned two Lodovico Carracci paintings by name: the Descente de la Croix (i.e. the Entombment according to the British Catalogue) from the Orléans Collection, bought by the Earl of Carlisle, and a Madonna and Child, bought by a Miss Burdett.

The other Entombment and Two Saints with an Angel, owned by the Earl of Ellesmere are only reffered to, as "deux autres".

This reinforces the idea, that at the time this Entombment was considered by some a study not worth mentioning, by others - like Anna Jameson - considered a masterpiece.

Others (I've checked several "handbooks" by artcritics on the 1857 exhibition) only mention an Entombment by Ludovico Carracci amongst the works in Manchester, while discussing other "more important" works by the artist.

"A Handbook to the Paintings by Ancient Masters in the Art Treasures Exhibition" from the Manchester Guardian, published in London by Bradbury and Evans in 1857, seems to confirm that no large works of Lodovico Carracci (like the Modena Decent) were present.

On page 43 the author discusses the importance of the Carracci family at the Exhibition, mentioning that "the two large altarpieces, by Annibale Carracci" would fit any mayor collection.

On page 42 the author states, that the works by Lodovico Carracci, can only be seen to complete advantage in Bologna, "where many of his pictures on a large scale are preserved".

"The Art Treasures Examiner", published at Alexander Ireland, Manchester 1857, states (p. 283) - after praising the Three Maries by Annibale Carracci - that the Entombment (316) by Lodovico Carracci ".....which belongs to the Earl of Ellesmere is a fine specimen, of the way Lodovico approached perfection in the painting of the human figure....".

The most compelling argument for the suggestion that the Earl of Ellesmere send the "Pietà - A study for an altarpiece" (Il Sacrificio) to Manchester, I mentioned before: Ellesmere only sent pictures he himself had added to the "Bridgewater and Ellesmere Gallery of Pictures".

Let's not forget, that the auctionlabel on the verso of the painting dates from 1946, so the artwork in 1857 would have been registered on site and was later properly identified in the auction catalogue.

With the appreciated help from Mr. Tony Lees, at the Department of Archives & Local History of the Manchester Central Library in february 2017 I received a copy of a manuscript dating back to 1857. See below.

List of entries of the Earl of Ellesmere at the Manchester
Art Teasures Exhibition of 1857

In this manuscript, an employee wrote down which artworks had been lent to the Manchester Art Exhibition of 1857 by (in this case) the Earl of Ellesmere, so that these works could be returned after the exhibition.

Many of these manuscripts, listing the many owners and their entries, from the 1857 Exhibition have survived.

Apparently this employee couldn't identify Il Sacrificio as a Carracci and instead wrote down "10. A Dead Christ by Guercino", when in fact the Earl of Ellesmere didn't own such a painting by Guercino at all.

The Dead Christ, can only have been the small "Pietà, a study for an altarpiece, by Lodovico Carracci", identified in the final Exhibition Catalogue as "nr. 316, The Entombment by Lodovico Carracci", as confirmed by Scharf in his essay on the Manchester Exhibition.

In January 2020 I found conclusive evidence that Il Sacrificio was sent to the Manchester Art Exhibition by the Earl Of Ellesmere.

Through the notes and a sketch by Sir George Scharf (1820-1895) artist and art historian - who in 1857 would become the first director of the National Portrait Gallery - I came into possession of an image of the painting, which adorned the wall of the famous Exhibition, as number 316 of the ancient masters.

William e. Kilburn: Sir George Scharf (circa 1857),
Daguerreotype, NPG London

Spread over a number of sketchbooks, Scharf - organizer and supervisor of the "ancient masters" section of the exhibition - in September of 1857, not only mapped, where the paintings in the exhibition catalog were hanging, but he also drew the most interesting ones.

Below I've added an image of the relevant pages from Scharf's Sketchbook 47, p 23-24 and a link to the database of the National Portrait Gallery.

Sir George Scharf'; SSB 47, p 23-24. Drawings on p. 24 dated 17-19 september 1857.

As you can see in the next image, the drawing is clearly identical to Il Sacrificio. Even the shadow that conceals the face of Christ from the viewer's eye is faithfully represented by Scharf. The text on p. 23 relates to Il Sacrificio.

Sir George Scharf: SSB 47, p. 24 (enhanced)

In the written commentary* on this painting, it is noted that this painting stems from the circle of Simon Vouet and that it represents a Lamentation, but was presented at the exhibition as an Entombment by Lodovico Carracci.

* Database National Portrait Gallery: Scharf Sketchbook 47, p. 24. Notes accompaning the drawing of nr. 316.

See: https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw282616/Scharf-Sketchbook-47-page-24

Scharf tells us, that the dimensions of nr. 316 measured by him) are ca. 40,64 cm x 34,29 cm.

If we take into account that Scharf may have measured in inches (and measured them quickly), then they are particularly well in agreement with the dimensions of Il Sacrifio (approx. H 45 cm x W 34,5 cm).

According to the National Portrait Gallery, this information comes from Scharf's personal notes on painting no. 316. It seems, we can but conclude, that our Il Sacrificio was the painting Scharf studied and commented in September 1857.

In addition to my earlier remarks on the role of the 1st Earl of Ellesmere at the Manchester Art Treasures Exhibition of 1857, I recently found the following essay written by Sir George Scharf in 1858.

It is called: "On the Manchester Art-Treasures Exhibition, 1857" and was published digitally by the Historic Society of Lincolnshire and Cheshire.*

* (see: https://www.hslc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/10-24-Scharf.pdf).

Scharf states clearly, that "Lord Ellesmere (President of the organizing committee) at once volunteered to contribute the following pictures.....”

George Scharf: "On the Manchester Art Treasures Exhibition,
1857" p. 275

"Number 3 on the list is Il Sacroficio, here The Entombment by Ludovico Caracci, although in the Bridgewater and Ellesmere Collection of Pictures titled nr. 22, Lodovico Carracci, A Pietà – A study for an Altarpiece"

Scharf continues: “This list does not include any of the pictures which belong to the celebrated Bridgewater Gallery. These had all been acquired by the Earl himself....".

Scharf states, that none of the major private art galleries contributed, including the Bridgewater Gallery, but had Ellesmere lived, he would certainly have lent some of the major works by Titian and Raphael a.o. (p. 275-276).

Of course there may still be skeptics who say that Scharf's image resembles Il Sacrificio, but that this does not prove that they are the same painting.

To silence all skeptics, I found that Scharf provides us with an important piece of written evidence based on his own perception.

On the blank page 23 of his sketchbook, Scharf quotes art historian Anna Jameson from her book Sacred and Legendary Art in describing the composition of the small Pieta, nr. 316, in comparison with an ancient painting by Sienese painter Ambrogio Lorenzetti (1290-1384).

Scharf mentioned the wrong page number, but I did find the quote on page 382. Below I have added the quote.

A. Jameson: "Sacred and legendary art",1857, p.382.

I have also added an image of the painting by Lorenzetti and I will subsequently explain its importance, in establishing the authenticity of Il Sacrificio.

Ambrogio Lorenzetti: Entombment (first half 14th century)
Pinacoteca Nazionale de Siena

In Lorenzetti's painting several women are depicted. Fortunately the painter has mentioned the names of the holy women in their halos.

According to Prof. Dr. Richard Stracke, who made a study of Christian Iconography* the halo of the red and ocre woman at the feet of Christ is difficult to read, but appears to read Magdalena.

*see: www.christianiconography.info/Wikimedia%20Commons/entombmentLorenzetti.html

A closer look reveals, that she - Mary Magdalene - is kissing the feet of Christ. Martha, the sister of Mary of Bethany, kisses the hands of Christ. The Blessed Virgin herself, supports the head of Christ.

Jameson has wrongly stated, that Mary Magdalene is the woman who - in the background - spreads her arms in despair.

Apparently Scharf adopted this incorrect assumption and applied it to Il Sacrificio.

It is possible that Scharf was misled by Vouet, because Vouet, in Il Sacrificio, swapped the usual colors of the Blessed Virgin and Mary Magdalene. He painted the Blessed Virgin in red with ocher and the Mary Magdalene in blue with pink.

Given the loose hair with which she once dried Christ's feet, this last woman cannot be Martha and must be Mary Magdalene. The woman spreading her arms, turning grey like death and fainting kan only be the Holy Virgin.

In the later painting, which Perrier painted for the church of Chilly Mazarin on the instructions of Vouet, the usual colors are back. Mary Magdalene in red and ocher and the holy virgin in blue and pink.

The fact that Scharf misinterpreted the Virgin, Mary Magdalene and Martha in Il Sacrificio proofs, that it must have been Il Sacrificio he was looking at, and not some other copy after Vouet or Daret.

Since we now know for a fact, that Il Sacrificio was shown at the Manchester Art Exhibition of 1857, it is safe to say that we are dealing with a small but important piece of art!

It was important enough to end up in the Bridgewater Gallery from 1830 until 1946, and it was specially selected to be shown at the Manchester Art Exhibition!

Helas, the Dead Christ and the Maries and St. Thomas, that once belonged to the Duc de Modena, no longer exists. This masterpiece was one of four paintings that went up in flames, when Bridgewater House was bombed on May 11th, 1941.

The Main Gallery of Bridgewater House, Cleveland Row,

London after the Bombardment of May 11th, 1941

Il Sacrificio and the other surviving paintings in the Bridgewater Gallery, were brought to safety around 1944-1945, to the family residence of the Egerton's, Mertoun House, St. Boswells, Scotland.

XIX. Il Sacrificio, part of the Dorigny art collection?

Il Sacrificio did at one time (from ca. 1830-1946) belong to the Bridgewater Collection of Pictures - which was recently confirmed by Aidan Weston-Lewis, Chief Curator of the National Galleries of Scotland (see extensively: paragraph XXV) - the next question would be: how did it get there?

Finding the answer to that question, would be my next task in establishing the authenticity of Il Sacrificio. To get there, I had to go back to the time Simon Vouet died.

When Vouet died in 1649 an inventory list was drafted, just like in 1639-1640 after the death of Virginia, his first wife. The 1639-1640 summary states, that in the studio of Vouet, there were ”many religious works, that seemed unfinished, and were therefore not separately listed.”

The models for St. Peter's Basilica could have been amongst these unfinished works.

We can asume, that Vouet's personal belongings would have been devided between his heirs, a.o. Radegonde Berenger and Vouet's children.

One of Vouet's daughters, Jeanne-Angelique, in 1648 married Michel Dorigny (1616-1665), a fellow artist (pupil) and friend of Vouet.

Perhaps there was a special link between Jeanne-Angelique and the Sacrificio - which shows her mother Virginia da Vezzo (the great love of her father) as Mary Magdalen in the painting that had modelled for the altarpiece that should have decorated St. Peter's itself.

The small disegno would have been painted one year befor Jeanne's father and mother married.

It is possible that Il Sacrificio finally ended up in the possesion of Jeanne-Angelique and her husband Michel Dorigny. Since Jeanne Angelique died befor her husband did, the painting would have remained in the Dorigny family.

More over, Simon Vouet may even have entrusted the painting to Michel Dorigny himself, since he too was a "die hard" artist. Dorigny would surely have appreciated the importance of this small disegno to his deceased father in law.

It's worth mentioning, that Dorigny, after the death of Vouet got permission to continue the use of "logement et atelier de Louvre", from the 22th of October 1649*

*see: Thuillier, Vouet 1990-1991, p. 143).

Perhaps the small disegno still stood/hung there, after Vouet's burial! I assume - I can't proof this - that both paintings (Il Sacrificio and the Hovingham modello) remained with the Dorigny family until around 1700.

Based on the information recently received from Sir William Worsley (see prolog), it is most likely, that the two models for the Roman altarpiece, were taken to Italy by one of Vouet's grandsons, Louis Dorigny.

Everything now points to a William Hamilton, as the next owner of at least two of Vouet's models. Hamilton must have brought the models to Great Britain, where he sold them separately. I will adress this important piece of information in some time.

XX. Il Sacrificio, part of the Orléans Collection?

At some point, I assumed, that Il Sacrificio was part of the famous Orleans Collection (as an unlisted secondary work of art).

I can no longer maintain, that Il Sacrificio was sold to the most important art collector of the 18th century, Prince du Sang, Philippe II, Duc d'Orléans.

It appears, that Il Sacrificio was brought to England, not by the Bridgewater Syndicate but by diplomat artdealer William Hamilton, around 1770.

However, the story of the Orléans Collection is worth mentioning, since Il Sacrificio also became part of the famous Bridgewater Gallery and thus became part of the same collection as the former Orléans Collection.

The Bridgewater Gallery was the de facto succesor of the Orléans Collection, which means that - either way - our small Il Sacrificio, at some time shared the room/the wall with Leonardo, Titian, Veronese, Reni, the Carracci, Rembrandt, Hals, Pousin, etc.

Philippe II, Duc d'Orléans (1674-1723)

The man who started the fast Orléans Collection, was (Prince du Sang) Philippe II, Duc d'Orléans (1674-1723), son of the younger brother of King Louis XIV.

Philippe II himself would later become Regent of France (1715-1723) on behalf of the child king Louis XV, after the death of Louis XIV in 1715. Hence he was called, Le Regent.

The art collection of Philippe II - which had in fact been started by his father Philippe, who was Louis XIV's younger brother - was called the Orléans Collection. It housed in the Palais Royal, a stones throw away from the Louvre Palace.

Many authors who have written about the Orléans Collection confirm, that Phillipe II bought - and on many occasions simply confiscated - (parts of) famous private collections.

Amongst the names of private collectors, who "donated" to the Orleans Collection, the Dorigny family is named, next to the heirs of Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin and collectors like the Dukes of Noailles, Gramont and Vendôme.

A fairly complete list of "donors" has been summed up by Casimir Stryienski in his 1913 descriptive catalogue "La Galerie du Régent, Philippe Duc d'Orléans".

In the original 1727 catalogue of the Orleans Collection by Saint-Gelais, the Sacrificio by Vouet is not mentioned. Stryienski also does not identify the Sacrificio as belonging to this famous collection.

However, it is a widely known, that the Orleans Collection consisted of well over 500 paintings, where as the catalogues only count some 490 paintings. The listed paintings were the paintings that were actually on display at the Galerie du Palais Royal.

It's noteworthy, that the author Louis-François Dubois de Saint Gelais in 1727 mentioned that, at least, two paintings by Lodovico Carracci came from the Dorigny Family: an "Ecce Homo" and a "Couronnement d'Epines".

Il Sacrificio was most likely brought from Naples by William Hamilton (I will discuss this option shortly).

If it should turn out, that this is not the case, than it is still possible, that the painting - as a Simon Vouet, or already "given to" Lodovico Carracci - was bought by the Duc de Orléans, but that it was (perhaps due to size or expression) not appreciated enough to display.

Almost 90 years after the founding of the Orleans Collection, the French Revolution of 1789 broke out.

The last heir to the Orleans Collection was Louis Philippe, Duc d'Orléans (1747-1793), a.k.a. Philippe Egalité (see image below).

Louis Philippe, Duc d'Orléans

Louis Philippe saw the dark clouds preceeding the Revolution.

In 1788, he therefore tried to negotiate a deal with James Christie (founder of Christie's Auctioneers) to sell the complete paintings collection to King George III and other members of the Royal Family.

An agreement was not reached, since the King and his syndicate could'nt put up the cash needed for this huge transaction.

Feeling the tight noose of the Revolution around his neck, Louis Philippe in 1792 sold the whole collection "en bloc" to a Belgian banker, Eduard Walckiers, who promptly sold the Orleans Collection to his nephew Francois Louis Jean-Joseph Laborde-De Méréville.

This rich French banker was planning to open a gallery on the Rue d'Artois in Paris, but because of the consequences of the French revolution, he decided for reasons of safety to secretly bring the collection to England. This was to be a temporary solution.

For five years the Italian and French part of the Orleans Collection were, without their original frames, stored in a London appartement.

However, since the collection was mortgaged and since no fellow Frenchman could now buy the collection, Laborde-De Méréville in 1798 brokered a deal with Jeremiah Harman (one of the directors of the Bank of England.

Harman in turn, in 1798, sold the collection to an agent, artdealer Michael Bryan, who acted on behalf of the Bridgewater syndicate.

Bryan had before bought paintings for the 5th Earl of Carlisle and probably also for Francis Egerton, the 3rd Duke of Bridgewater.

Thanks to the 3rd Duke of Bridgewater, who interceded for him, in 1801, Bryan got special permission from King George IV, to return to France, to buy more art from the moribund French nobels who tried to pay their way to England.

Louis Philippe didn't live to witness al this, since he lost his head on the scaffold on the 6th of November 1793.

As I said before, I'm no longer suggesting, that Il Sacrificio was part of the Orléans Collection.

Fact remains however, that 16 paintings that entered Great Briatian with the Orléans Collection could not be identified by Waagen, when he made an inventory of the Orléans paintings, that were sold on various occasions.

For his inventory Waagen used the original sales lists! Since these were handwritten, some of the paintings - "paintings of lesser importance" according to Haagen - could not be identified.

XXI. Il Sacrificio, acquired by Earl Gower?

An other possible explanation for the entrance of Il Sacrificio into the Bridgewater Collection could be, that the painting was bought by George Granville Leveson-Gower.

We know from the Bridgewater Catalogue, that the painting was added to this Collection by the Earl of Ellesmere, who was the second son of Leveson-Gower and heir to the Bridgewater Collection.

This would have been around 1830.

Bridgewater House, home to the Bridgewater Gallery,
14 Cleveland Row, St. James's London 1896

The 3rd Duke of Bridgewater had died in 1803, leaving his paintings collection at Bridgewater House to his nephew once removed, Francis Leveson-Gower (from 1846 known as the 1st Earl of Ellesmere).

The discussed painting - A Pietà: a study for an altarpiece by Lodovico Carracci - is first mentioned in 1830 as nr. 22 in a catalogue of the Pictures belonging to Lord Francis Leveson-Gower, at Bridgewater House (1830).

According to the * in front of the listed painting, this painting was added to the collection by Lord Francis Leveson-Gower.

G.F. Waagen first describes this painting in his German written standard work on Art and Artists in Great Britain of 1834, as having been added to the Bridgewater Collection by Francis Leveson-Gower.

George Granville Levenson-Gower
(1758-1833)

How and when would the painting have been found and brought to England?

At first I thought it was George Granville Leveson Gower (1758-1833), 1st Duke of Sutherland, invested Earl Gower from 1786-1803, who brought Il Sacrificio to England.

The Earl Gower was the father of Francis Leveson Gower (1800-1854), who would later be known as Francis Egerton, Earl of Ellesmere.

The Earl Gower - one of the three members of the Bridgewater Syndicate - was a wealthy diplomat ans politician, who owned vast estates in Staffordshire, Yorkshire and Shropshire.

The Earl's estate had accumulated due to inheritances, from - for example - his maternal uncle Lord Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater.

The Earl Gower - who was a patron of the arts, had lived in France, as English Ambassador to France, from 1790 to 1792.

Like his brother-in-law, Frederick Howard, 5th Earl of Carlisle (1748-1825) who was married to his younger sister - Gower too collected art and would certainly have known, who were the major artcollectors and artdealers in France, and where he could by the best art for a good price.

I wouldn't be surprised if the idea of acquiring the Orleans Collection originated from the Earl Gower.

The Earl of Carlisle, who had used Michael Bryan on several occasions as his agent, may have suggested to have Bryan go after the collection, after Gower and Carlisle would have talked the Duke of Bridgewater into putting up the cash.

It is possible, that Gower had previously bought art during his stay in France and had taken it home, when he had to leave France in 1792, because of the Revolution.

There is also the possibility, that Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater bought Il Sacrificio in the years before he acquired the Orleans Collection, from which he kept 94 paintings.

The painting (with about 300 other paintings, partly from the Duke's private collection) would have ended up in Earl Gower's collection at the death of the 3rd Duke of Bridgewater in 1803.

The art collection amassed by the Earl Gower was hence called the Stafford Gallery.

The paintings that had formed the collection of the Duke of Bridgewater, were - through the will of the late Duke of Bridgewater - inherited by Gower's second son, the Earl of Ellesmere, when he came of age.

Around 1830, the new heir housed his collection of pictures at Bridgewater House. It is possible, that Il Sacrificio at first wasn't part of the public gallery of Bridgewater House.

However, the Bridgewater Catalogue of 1830 proves, that the Earl of Ellesmere added the painting to the Bridgewater Collection.

The 1st Earl of Ellesmere (1800-1857),
heir tot the
Bridgewater Collection of Pictures

Shortly, I will discuss the most probable route Il Sacrificio took, before it ended up in the collection of the young Francis Leveson-Gower a.k.a Lord Francis Egerton form 1833.

Before doing so, I thought I'd underline the importance of this Francis Egerton, the 1st Earl of Ellesmere AND his heirs, to the world of public art display.

In 1856 he generously donated from his own art collection, the famous "Chandos Portrait" to the newly formed National Portrait Gallery in London.

The Chandos Portrait - the only known portrait of the famous playwright William Shakespeare to be painted from life - entered the collection of this British national museum as number NPG1.

Unknown artist: William Shakespeare,
Chandos Portrait (between 1564-1616)

In later years the heirs of the Earl of Ellesmere, sold and loaned a substantial amount of their art collection (amongst which works by Leonardo, Rembrandt, Titian, Raphael and many others) to the public British National Galleries.

Raphael Sanzio: The Bridgewater Madonna, 1507, part of
the Bridgewater Loan,
National Galleries of Scotland, Edinburgh.

Il Sacrifico was - for more than one hundred years - part of a very high quality art collection, consisting of paintings like the Chandos Portrait, Diana and Callisto and Diana and Actaeon by Titian, and Raphael's Bridgewater Madonna.

This all adds to the importance of the now known provenance of Il Sacrificio.

XXII. Worsley New Hall, The missing link

After having discussed two ways of it's entry into Britain, there is the third and most likely possibility - which I recently dicovered - that could explain how Il Sacrificio ended up in Great Britain.

Keep in mind, that before I wrote this blog, no one had ever linked together the paintings I'm discussing in this blog, meaning the "Hovingham bozzetto" and Il Sacrificio.

I am the first ever to argue, that the painting which Vouet made for the upper part of the Vatican altarpiece - the Hovingham bozzetto identified in 1967 - is connected to the painting which I believe depicts the lower part of the Vatican altarpiece - Il Sacrificio.

Well, recently I found some information, that could make this link undeniable! It concearns events that occured in the little town of Worsley, near Manchester, UK.

I will try not to bore you with the detailed sequence of events, but this is what you should know.

It starts with the Worsley family.

Around 1066 the Workesley family was founded, by a warlord in the service of William the Conqueror, named Elias de Workesley.

The name "Workesley", over the years changed into "Worsley". The members of this noble family had estates in Lancashire, north of the city of Manchester.

In the old days the family seated at Worsley Hall in the township of Worsley, Lancashire, and lived there through the Middle Ages until the 16th Century.

In 1512 Sir James of Worsley got married to the heiress of Appuldurcombe House on the Isle of Wight. Their son Richard had no issue, hence this family line ended.

Meanwhile the Worsley family had branched of and one of it's branches occupied Hovingham Hall in Hovingham, Yorkshire, in the North-East of the British Isle, around 1563.

In the last quarter of the 16th century the Worsley family no longer resided at Worsley Hall, due to a lack of male heirs. The estates went from one family to an other.

Finally, at the beginning of the 17th century the Egerton family under Lord Chancellor Egerton - ancestor to Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater - came in to possession of the Worsley estate.

The Yorkshire branch of the Worsley family - living at Hovingham Hall - had retained ancient rights to the estate in Lancashire.

"The Worsleys of Hovingham Hall, in Yorkshire, who diverged from the parent stock, about the year 1307, still possess quit and chief rents, over the townships of Worsley, Bedford ....in Lancashire (see Burke's Commoners, vol iv.)”*

*See: , "A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England, Ireland, and Scotland": John Burke, Sir Bernard Burke, J. R. Smith, 1844, p 580.

Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater - founder of the famous Bridgewater Collection of Pictures - resided at Worsley Hall, after having spent a great part of his life in London.

Sir Francis left London society, after a broken engagement to London's jetset beauty, Elizabeth Gunning, Dowager Duchess of Hamilton (1733-1790).

The Duke's nephew and appointed heir, Francis Leveson Gower, finally - via his father, George Leveson Gower, 1st Duke of Sutherland - inherited the vast estates and the artcollection, which the Duke of Bridgewater had left, after his death in 1803.

The heir to the Bridgewater Gallery - who would name himself Francis Egerton, to honor his generous uncle - also left the city for the country life, after having spend the major part of his life in London (having inherited Bridgewater House).

He moved his residence from London to the country in 1846, where a new home was build, "Worsley New Hall".

As part of his acceptance of the inheritance his great-uncle Bridgewater had left him, he changed his name in honor of his great-uncle and was hence known as Francis Egerton, Earl of Ellesmere.

An other Worsley-Egerton connection I uncovered was this:

Frederick Howard, 5th Earl of Carlisle (1748-1825) - one of the three original buyers of the Bridgewater Collection - was closely related (infact his uncle) to the owner of Il Sacrificio, Francis Egerton, 1st Earl of Ellesmere.

This Carlisle however, who resided at Castle Howard in Yorkshire, turned out to be neighbor of the Worsley's of Hovingham Hall, who as we know, possessed the upper part (Glory) of Vouet's Roman altarpiece.

It is likely, that there were (close) contacts between the related Worsley and Egerton families. They may have inherated from each other, or may have presented each other with gifts or saw each other at social occasions.

They also may have known the same people or may have bought their art from the same art dealers, since both family's also occupied houses in the same part of London.

XXIII. Erich Schleier and the "Glory" by Vouet

What ever the case, I recently (again) came across an article by Erich Schleier in the Burlington Magazine of 1967: "A Bozetto By Vouet and not Llanfranco".

I had read this article before, since it deals with the authorship of what must have been the modello for the upper part (Glory) of Vouet's Vatican altarpiece.

Although I had tried to find the current location of this painting (now in a private collection in London) I had overlooked, where Schleier had seen this painting!

As it turns out, in a footnote Schleier mentions that he saw the painting at Hovingham Hall, Yorkshire.

When I subsequently directed my attention to Hovingham Hall, I found out there is a link between the residents of Hovingham Hall and the former residents of Worsley Hall.

Above I described this link.

This then lead to the following remarkable conclusion: Two paintings that are clearly connected, but of which no one knew they were connected, turn out to be connected through their owners - the Egertons at Worsley Hall and the Worsleys at Hovingham Hall.

Could this be a coincidence? I think not!

I was the first to suggest - long before I had ever heard of William Hamilton and of/from Sir William Worsley - that both parts of Vouet's study for his roman altarpiece, could very well have been brought to Britain together and got separated at some point in time (because of inheritance settlement or other reasons).

Long before I first heard of William Hamilton and his role in arthistory, I asked myself: who bought the Vouet models and brought them to Britain?

Could it be, that the young Earl of Ellesmere bought both the paintings on his visit to France, during his "Grand Tour" of 1839?

This was clearly not the case, since this possibility is contradicted by the fact that the painting of the small Pietà, according to Waagen in 1834, had at that time already been added to the Bridgewater Collection of Pictures!

This is confirmed by the listing of this painting the "Catalogue of the Pictures of Sir Francis Leveson-Gower at Bridgewater House" of 1830.

This suggests, that the small Pietà - meaning Il Sacrificio - like the "Glory" that ended up at Hovingham Hall, entered England before 1830.

This could mean, that the arrival of the Vouet paintings in Great Britain, may have been part of, or even preceded the arrival of, the Orleans Collection.

This question was answered by information I received directly from Sir William Worsley, of Hovingham Hall, in 2016.

According to the handwritten catalogue of the family art collection, written by Sir William's ancestor, Thomas Worsley (1710-1778), the model for the upper part of Vouet's altarpiece for St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, was "…one of the two sketches for altars, brought from Naples by Sir William Hamilton".

Considering the various links between the Worsley's and the Egerton's (Ellesmere), I am convinced, that Il Sacrificio (the model for the lower part of Vouet's altarpiece for St. Peter's Basilica in Rome) was the other one of the two "sketches"!

I hope, by now, you have accepted my thesis, that Il Sacrifio is in fact a 1625-1626 bozzetto or disegno, painted by French artist Simon Vouet.

Most of the keyfacts are proven by numerous pieces of evidence, which stem from different sources.

I consider it a fact, that Il Sacrificio was in commissioned by Pope Urban VIII himself and painted by Simon Vouet, together with the Hovingham bozzetto, around 1625, during Vouet's stay in Rome.

I also consider it a fact, that both sketches returned to France with Vouet, and that they were bought in Italy and brought to Britain at the end of the 18th Century, by William Hamilton.

Also a fact: Il Sacrificio was once part of the famous Bridgewater Collection of Pictures, for over a hundred years. But how did it finally end up in America?

XXIV. How did Il Sacrificio end up in America?

On the verso of Il Sacrificio there is a large chalk lot number. See image below.

Il Sacrificio, verso photograph 2010

The large stylistic lot number is a mystery to me.

I did however find names of possible sellers or collectors who may have sold the Sacrificio or may have bought it from the descendants of the Earl of Ellesmere. The letters could point to previous owners like the Dorigny's, the Dunstanville and Basset's or the Greville’s.

It is also possible, that the large GD 76 monogram is modern (20th century), but not necessarily of recent years.

With this in mind, I used the Getty Provenance Database and other sources of information, to try to find out if Il Sacrificio could have been sold in the first decades of the 20th century and who sold or bought it.

At first I thought it possible, that the heirs of the Bridgewater and Ellesmere Collection sold Il Sacrificio in the early years fo the twentieth century.

I found, that the Duveen family, international art dealers – who originating from Meppel, the Netherlands, but in the end of the 19th- early 20th century rooted in London and New York – kept close contacts with influential sellers, amongst whom the Egerton family (Earls of Ellesmere) and buyers like John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and Samuel H. Kress.

"GD" could very well stand for Gallery Duveen.

However, I've since learned, that Il Sacrificio didn't leave the famous Bridgewater and Ellesmere collection until October 18, 1946, when it was sold in auction to a buyer called "Seton".

This means, that Duveen didn't buy Il Sacrificio directly from Ellesmere. They could however acquired the painting from Seton after 1946.

In the next paragraph I will further elaborate on how Il Sacrificio left the Bridgewater Collection, after more than one hundred years and the proof to subsantiate this finding.

XXV. Il Sacrificio, The present day

Here I would have ended my blog, since I had nothing more to add.

That is, until I finally, on the 21st of October 2015, gathered enough courage to contact the National Galleries of Scotland - which acts as the guardian of the remaining Bridgewater Loan, and keeper of it's paper history. The Chief Curator turned out to be the kind and helpful Mr Aidan Weston-Lewis.

My goal was to find out, if someone could establish that Il Sacrificio (named A Pietà: a study...etc.) had in fact been part of the Bridgewater Collection, to rule out the possibility of a fake label.

Well, within a day I got a positive response from Mr Weston-Lewis, confirming that our painting is "clearly identical" with the one mentioned in the Christie's Auction Catalogue of the 18th of October 1946.

That the painting I'm researching in fact left the Bridgewater and Ellesmere Collection at that very date.

In 1945, towards the end of the Second World War, the heir of the Bridgewater Collection, Sir John Sutherland Egerton, 5th Earl of Ellesmere (1915-2000) - who had travelled to France with the British Expeditionary Force and was captured at St Valery in June 1940 - returned home.

The young Lord had spent four years in a prisoner of war camp.

Upon his return in 1944, he succeeded his father as Earl of Ellesmere, and settled at his estate of Mertoun House, St. Boswell's, Scotland.

In order to raise money for inheritance tax and to save and maintain the large family estate, Sir John was forced to sell the larger part of the world famous art collection - at bottom prices, due to a collapsed artmarket. Sir John also sold Bridgewater House.

The 1946 picture auction brought approximately thirteen thousand pounds, but according to experts, the sold paintings would have been worth at least thirteen million pounds today, based on recent estimates.

This last figure seems a very modest estimate, given the fact that the two Titian paintings which the National Gallery recently secured from the remaining Bridgewater Gallery cost just under one hundred million pounds!

A comparison of the painting with auction/collection label and the Christie's catalogue tells us, that first of all, the written text on the label and in the catalogue are now completely the same (the Christie's Catalogue only adding the size of the painting and a footnote).

Foremost, the visible size of the painting (inside of the frame) matches the size Christie's mentioned in the 1948 catalogue, considering that I earlier mentioned the size of the frameless Il Sacrificio (ca. 45 cm x 35 cm).

The measurements in the Christie's catalogue are (from inches to centimeters) 16,5 in x 13 in = 42 cm x 33 cm.

The fact that Il Sacrificio most likely was framed in 1946, may explain the difference in size of about 1 to 1,5 cm on each side.

For the first time we are able to show, that not only composition and color, but also the actual size of the Bridgewater Pietà is identical to Il Sacrificio - which completes the identification.

Below I've added a detail from the mentioned catalogue.

Christie's auction catalogue 18 Oct 1946 (detail)

I was more than thrilled, to - for the first time - have received actual confirmation, that our Sacrificio is in fact the small Pietà which is mentioned in the Bridgewater Catalogue.

Now that we also have the drawn image of Il Sacrificio* we can rest assured, that Il Sacrificio is the Ellesmere Pietà; a small painting of which Waagen, Stryienski and especially Anna Jameson, speak so affectionately in their eyewitness accounts, dating from 1837 to 1913.
*see: paragraph XVIII, Sir George Scharf 1857, Sketchbook 47, p. 24

Since the painting was sold to a buyer (collector or dealer) called "Seton", we can rule out the involvement of Duveen earlier in the century.

I still have no idea how the painting finally ended up with a well respected Miami artdealer, after leaving Britain. I also have to leave you with the unsatisfactory statement of not knowing, how and when precisely, Il Sacrificio ended up in the Bridgewater Gallery.

Mr Westom-Lewis suggested, that the Earl of Ellesmere himself bought the painting somewhere around 1833. This is more than likely, since the Earl of Ellesmere spent over 3.000 pounds on books and paintings in 1835 and 1836!

The Pietà must have been one of the earlier paintings Ellesmere himself would have bought, because G.F. Waagen already described it, when he visited the Bridgewater Collection on the 24th of June 1835.

This is according to his "twelfth letter" dated the 24th of June (1835), incorporated in his three volume standard work on "Kunstwerke und Künstler in England und Paris", published in 1837, describing a journey Waagen made from Hamburg to England and than to France in 1835.

Via the RKD (Art History Department of the Netherlands) I had asked for relevant copies of pages of the "Catalogue of the pictures belonging to Lord Francis Leveson Gower, at Bridgewater House, 1830". I hoped to establish that the painting was already in the personal collection of Francis Leveson Gower around 1830.

Well, on the 28th of October 2015 I received scans from the front page of the 1830 catalogue and of page nr. 8 of the catalogue.

Bridgewater Catalogue 1830, Title page

As I had hoped, the Pietà is listed as nr 22, just like Waagen wrote in 1835.

I therefore concluded, Ellesmere must have acquired Il Sacrificio before or around 1830.

Bridgewater Catalogue 1830, p. 8

The publisher of this catalogue was John Smith and Sons of New Bondstreet, London.

According to Julia Armstrong Totten*, John Smith and Sons played an important role in the maintainance of the collection of the Earl of Ellesmere, and his descendants.

*Julia Armstrong Totten, "A decade of change and Compromise: John Smith and the selling of Old Master Paintings in the 1830s", which featured as an article in the 2014 book called, "British Models of Art Collecting and the American response: Reflections Across the Pond" .

As it turns out, John Smith (1781-1855) was a rather important artdealer, who - with his sons - supplied important collectors like king George III, the Duke(s) of Wellington and the Rothschild's, with paintings they secured in Europa.

He also attended Sir Francis Leveson Gower a.k.a. Francis Egerton (the Earl of Ellesmere) and his brother George Leveson Gower (the 2nd Duke of Sutherland).

John Smith himself made numerous trips to Paris befor 1830 and eventually set up business there, aswell as in London, where his sons took care of affairs.

With the owners of Bridgewater House (i.e. the Collection of the Earl of Ellesmere) Smith had a special bond. Not only did Smith and Sons keep the Collection in good condition, maintainance, fraiming etc.

It also acted as curator to the Bridgewater Gallery - preparing and printing the catalogue, regulating visits to the Collection and even rehanging/renumbering the collection around 1847, when Bridgewater House was reopened.

It is very likely that young Francis Levenson-Gower, in 1830 named Francis Egerton, bought his first paintings from, or at the advice of none other than John Smith.

The removal of the name Simon Vouet (in green chalk still vaguely visible on the verso (frame) of the painting, fits with the ideas Smith had on Simon Vouet, and the tarnished name of Vouet in the early 19th century.

According to Smith, in his Catalogue Raisonné of the most eminent works of Dutch, Flemish and French painters (1829) vol. 8, pages xxx, xxxviii and 136, "Vouet (was) one of the inferior artists who were leagued against Poussin".

The latter is considered most important, by Smith.

In all the volumes of Smith's catalogue raisonné on the painters of Europe, the name Simon Vouet is mentioned only 3 times(!!), and always in a negative sense!

It shouldn't come as a surprise if it should turn out, that Smith in England bought a Vouet and later sold it as a Lodovico Carracci to a young and inexperienced collector like Francis Egerton.

It is also possible, that Smith himself couldn't believe that the small Pietà (Il Sacrifico) was painted by someone like Vouet (whom he thought to be inferior) - more over because it resembled the work of the idealized Lodovico Carracci.

This would explain why nobody would ever know, that a Vouet had left France to become part of the Bridgewater Gallery as a Carracci.

XXVI. A Pietà by Simon Vouet at the Louvre?

On November 21, 2015, I found new information that affirms the thesis that Vouet may very well have designed a Pietà or Sacrificio with the Mysteries( instruments) of the Passion in 1625.

Vouet is certain to have later used it as a model for works he executed in the thirties and forties.

When studying the role Vouet played as a courtpainter after he had returned to France in 1627, I came across a book by Fernand Engerand: "Inventaire des tableaux du Roy, Redigé en 1709 et 1710, par Nicolas Bailly" (1899)

This catalogue raisonné of the french Royal Collection describes how the royal picture collection began with Francois I (1494-1547). It then totalled some 426 works, and how it subsequently grew in the centuries afterward to 2,376 paintings in 1710, under Louis XIV.

Amongst the paintings that were spotted by Bailly in 1710, there is an interesting painting which originaly ornamented a wall in the former chapel of the Louvre, which was then located in the highest tower of the Louvre, known as Le Pavillon d'Horloge.

We know for a fact, that Vouet - who had just returned to France (1627) from his stay in Italy - had been appointed Peintre du Roy (royal painter).

Next to other commissions, Vouet was charged with decorating the Chapel of the Palais Royal in 1630-1631 by Cardinal de Richelieu, who at the time inhabited the Palais Royal. Vouet devised an altarpiece and several ceiling decorations for Richelieu's chapel.

An other (royal) chapel for which Vouet apparently received a commission was the Chapel of the Louvre.

This chapel was created in the attic of the Pavillon d'Horloge at the Louvre Palace. It was commissioned during the regency of Anne of Austria (1601-1666), who governed France after the death of Louis XIII from 1643 to 1651.

The chapel itself no longer exists, and it's room is now part of the Louvre Museum.

Although the actual construction of the chapel took place from 1655 to 1659, it is possible, that Vouet - who died in 1649 - was commissioned during his life, to create artworks for this new chapel.

Fact is, that the construction of this royal chapel was ordered during the reign of Anne of Austria (her Regency), i.e. between 1643 and 1651.

According to Bailly, in the chapel - named Notre-Dame-de-la-Paix et Saint Louis - there was an interesting painting by Vouet, which Bailly described as: "Une Descente de Croix, au-dessus sont deux anges tenant une couronne d'épines" *

*F. Engerand: "Inventaire des tableaux.....1710, p. 300, no. 18 (See: archive.org)

Translated in English the painting depicted "A Descent from the Cross, with two Angels above, carrying a Crown of Thorns".

This painting, measuring about 162 cm x 75 cm, was transferred to the Musée de Dijon in 1803, by the State. I am not aware of it's present location.

The historian W.R. Crelly in 1962 questioned the existence of this painting, since no such painting by Vouet was known, according to Crelly.

I would say, considering the detailed information given by Bailly - describing both the composition and its size - Crelly's conclusion may very well be wrong.

As I have argued before, the description of the image mentioned by Bailly implies that Vouet at some time after his return to France painted A Pietà with a Glory and (some) of the Mysteries (instruments) of the Passion.

This is interesting, because this proves, that Vouet did execute a Pietà painting with the Mysteries, after he had returned from Italy, although nobody ever suggested this.

Furthermore, the fact that Vouet already thought up a Pietà with a Mystery in Rome in 1625, leads me to believe, that the 1640's painting in the Louvre Chapel most likely did exist!

It was probably a logical continuation of an image Vouet had already conceived and used in Rome and later (partially) used in Chilly-Mazarin. The 1639 print by Pierre Daret of course also proves the importance of the composition to Vouet himself.

The existence of a Louvre Pietà, gives reason to believe, that Pollak and others were indeed right, when they suggested that Vouet in 1625 did (probably for the first time) paint, or at least designed, the discussed Sacrificio/Pietà (with Mysteries of the Passion).

When rejected by the Pope - Vouet may have used the remaining model, or at least a similar composition, for the Louvre Chapel, just as he clearly did in the St. Étienne de Chilly-Mazarin in 1631.

The latter however (which I argued earlier) was - in my humble opinion - executed by Vouet's pupil/colleague Francois Perrier.

We know that the Pope had rejected Vouet's design for Il Sacrificio. What better way was there for Vouet to regain some respect, than to use this important designo, for the private chapel of Queen Anne of Austria, queen-widow of King Louis XIII, regent of France?

XXVII. Il Sacrificio, a copy or an original?

If the story of Vouet painting a Pietà for St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, turns out be true - off which I have no doubt - one could still argue, that the painting discussed in this essay is not an autograph by Vouet, but a contemporary copy.

I have shown above, there are compelling arguments that suggest, that the painting that undoubtetly - as a Lodovico Carracci - decorated the walls of Bridgewater House, Belgrave Square and finally Mertoun House, was in fact painted by Simon Vouet.

I have shown that the Daret print, and the Vatican documents prove the excistence of a painting depicting the image shown in Il Sacrificio.

Furthermore, I have (for the first time) connected the upper part and the lower part of the painting to one commission. The two paintings combined, give us the Vatican altarpiece as described by Vouet himself.

I have also established a relation between the former owners of the upper and lower part of the painting.

I pointed to the freak coincidence(?), that the upper part of the painting was once part of the Worsley family estate at Hovingham Hall (Yorkshire) and that the lower part of the painting belonged to Francis Egerton, 1st Earl of Ellesmere, the heir of Worsley Hall and estate in Worsley (Greater Manchester), which originally belonged to the Worsley family.

Next to the relation between the former owners of the "modelli", I have demonstrated, that the Chilly-Mazarin altarpiece, bears a striking resemblance to the small Sacrificio.

The postures and gestures of the main characters in the Chilly altarpiece (though mirrored) match the once in Il Sacrificio, and so do the colors of the garments of the main characters.

Knowing that Vouet and Perrier where active in Chilly-Mazarin in 1631, this also seems to support that the small disegno (Il Sacrificio) was used for the murals in St. Peters Basilica and for the altarpiece of Chilly-Mazarin.

Therefore, the image depicted in the Daret print of 1639, was in fact painted much earlier, so it comes as no surprise, that the colors and chiaroscuro in Il Sacrificio date back to the 1620's and thus show the still present infuence of the Carracci and of Caravaggio.

Keep in mind that the 1629 altarpiece of St. Nicolas-des-Champs in Paris also depicts the same Venetian colors and chiaroscuro, Vouet used for Il Sacrificio.

On top of that, the Paris altarpiece is designed as a composition in two registers with flanking Saints, just like Vouet had planned for St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Last but not least, the verso of Il Sacrificio shows an old faded handwritten green chalk attribution to Simon Vouet.

This "autograph" was possibly not created by Vouet himself, but nevertheless, at some time the painting was clearly attributed to him.

Having said all this, one could still argue, that the actual painting I'm discussing is a copy in the style of Vouet.

We therefore need compelling evidence, that the discussed painting is an original composition, which must then be by Vouet - according to the Daret print of 1639.

This means proving, that the artist who made Il Sacrificio, designed the final composition, instead of closely following the lines of someone else's labour.

In other words, if infrared photography shows there is an underlying sketch beneath the oilpainting, and if this underlying sketch shows traces of alterations or pentimenti (It.), this suggests that we are dealing with an original composition, instead of a dry copy.

We can also find proof of originality in the X-ray image, when we can show a "building up” of the composition instead of a dry copying of an other image.

Different layers of "lead white" paint, with which (parts of) a face, an arm, a hand or even garments are outlined, reveal the planning of lighter and darker sections in the painting, as a basis for the later colored layers of paint.

Also in the way the face of Mary Magdalen is shown, we can recognize an original build up sketch, and not a careful and direct reproduction.

A simple copyist would not go to all this trouble, when he could simply copy the last stage of a finished painting. In the seventeenth century (Il Sacrificio is that old) infrared and X-ray were not available to detect such forgery, so why bother.

Luckely, nowadays we have the infrared images, and the X-ray of the painting to shed a light on the evidence we are looking for.

XXVIII. Il Sacrificio, Pentimenti in the infrared

Below I have added a selection of (details) of infrared images of Il Sacrificio.

With each image I will point out, what part of the sketch was altered, in comparison to the finished oilpainting and could therefore be considered a "pentimento" (singular).

First of all I want to point to the apostles/the apostle and the woman in the background of the painting.

In the finished painting, the bearded apostle on the left (from our position), looks down and forward . He weares no cap.

In the infrared image shown below, this apostle looks up and to the left and weares, what looks like, a Phrygian cap. His right arm seems to have been sketched twice; once pointing up, once pointing down.

Il Sarificio: infrared image of apostles in the back

In the next image, which shows part of the legs of the seated Christ, you can clearly see traces of curved lines, outlining the future position and curve of Christ's legs.

A copyist would not need these rough curved lines, because a copyist uses a "grid", which devides the image that is to be copied, into squares of equal size, that make it possible to exactly locate and copy different parts of the original work.

Il Sacrificio; infrared image of Christ's legs

In the next image, which shows part of the legs of the seated Christ, you can clearly see traces of curved lines, outlining the future position and curve of Christ's legs.

Il Sacrificio: Mary Magdalen (detail)

A clear example of several pentimenti, is to be found in the comparison of the sketched Mary Magdalene to the painted one.

- The right sleeve of the robe of the sketched Mary Magdalene clearly depicts a "leaf motif", just like the robe of the ”Penitent Magdalene”*, Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (Caravaggio) painted in 1594.

M. M. da Caravaggio: Penitent Magdalene, 1594
Galleria Doria Pamphilj, Rome

This leaf motif can also be found in the painting of ”Mary Magdalene” * by Carlo Dolci in 1675.

*At present in the Galleria Palatina, Florence.

This symbol used by many artists, suggests the wordly background of Mary Magdalene.

- The Mary Magdalene in the sketch, furthermore has three strains of hair on the right side of her head (two in the final painting),

- And the painter clearly had trouble positioning the fingers of the hand holding Christ's hand - first pointing them upward, then stretching them forward.

- Of course, there is the sketched little torso between Mary Magdalen and Christ, which is no longer present in the final painting.

When I consulted Dr Margreet Wolters of the RKD in 2016 for making the Osiris IRR infrared photos, she confirmed to me in writing on April 5, 2016 that she also saw the torso I observed, according to her even with a head.

However, according to her, it could not be ruled out that this was a question of later retouches, which would become visible with a magnifying glass. Well, observation with UV light shows that there are no retouches, but that the torso sketch is part of the original paint layer! So this is undeniably a pentimento!

Il Sacrificio: Angel torso between Christ
and the Magdalen

An interesting detail you'll find below - possibly caused by "scoptoma" (the eye sees, what the brain wants it to see) - is a fist (starting from the elbow of Christ) holding a dagger pointed upward to the left.

Il Sacrificio: fist holding a dagger

This "fist with dagger" could very well be part of an earlier sketch, which would suggest that Vouet - or someone else - did some sketching on the canvas, before Vouet used it to create his Il Sacrificio.

For reason of comparison, I've included a painting by Caravaggio depicting the ”Sacrifice of Isaac” (1603), currently at the Ufizi Museum in Florence.

Caravaggio painted this work for Cardinal Maffeo Barberini (later Pope Urban VIII) in 1603.

Caravaggio: Sacrifice of Isaac (1603)

Vouet must have seen it, when he himself visited the Palazzo Barberini, when painting a portrait of Maffeo Barberini a.k.a. Pope Urban VIII in 1623 - the man who would later commission Il Sacrificio.

Below I added detailed images, which show the fist with dagger.

Sacrificio:detail elbow and chest Christ

Caravaggio: detail Sacrifice of Isaac 1603

The next two infrared images clearly show, that the artist of Il Sacrificio, was "searching" for postures and lighting, since both differ from the final painting.

It is obvious, that the painter is not copying an other painting, but he is creating something new.

Il Sacrificio: infrared image of the woman at the tomb

Il Sacrificio: infrared image of one of the Maries

To illustrate the high quality of the undersketch - in fact we are dealing with an underpainting - I've added an infrared image of the robe of the Virgin Mary below.

Il Sacrificio: infrared image of the Virgin Mary

As you can see, the painter skillfully depicted the various folds in the robe, using different layers of lighter and darker paints, thus hightening the sketch.

This way of creating a modello a la prima in oils, rather than first creating an underdrawing in charcole or chalks, was characteristic for Vouet's Italian period, of which little studies have remained. It also demonstrates his virtuosity as a great master.

During the 17th century, painters more and more abandoned charcoal and inks. They started using colored undersketches (made of colored chalks and paints) instead.

The undersketch in this painting was clearly done the "Vouet way" since it is (colored) paints, that reflect the light in the infrared images that were taken. The painter only used led-white paint for the foreground of his sketch, which is still visible in the X-ray photograph.

The materials used for the undersketch, and the lack of an underlaying study, add to the believe, that this painting was indeed produced in the early 17th century as an original.

There are absolutely no traces of copying!

I must emphasize, that the clear visibility of shadows and lighter areas in the cloth, are not caused by the use of lighting, when obtaining an infrared image.

The fluency of the oilsketch itself - lacking traces of usage of a grid or a "carton"- suggests, that we are dealing with an original sketch/composition by a very skilled draftsman.

Vouet happened to be known for his draftmanship, often composing his works at once, using a minimum of alterations.

XXIX. Il Sacrificio, Traces of notes and numbers

The infrared images that were made of Il Sacrificio so far, by no means show all there is to be seen, in the underdrawing of Il Sacrificio. Many more small detailed images are needed, to create a complete infrared image of the discussed painting.

However, what we have discovered so far, supports the thesis that Il Sacrificio was conceived, and painted, by Simon Vouet in the first quarter of the 17th century, as a disegno for a stuco altarpiece in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

We have already established, that Vouet would have needed small portable models, to take to and from his studio to the Basilica.

Vouet would then have wanted to make several calculations, since he would have to transfer his small modelli on to a huge stuco, measuring ca.W 420 cm x H 720 cm, according to Louise Rice*

*See Getty Provenance Index Datbases, list of payments to Roman artists between 1576-1711.

I have reason to believe, Vouet used the canvas of Il Sacrificio to make some of these calculations. Below I have added an infrared image of a detail of Il Sacrificio.

Il Sacrificio: infrared image of writings in underdrawing

In the topsection of the image you can distinguish various numbers and letters, that could have been used to establish the Golden Ratio (the perfect composition) for the model and the larger scale stucopainting.

The painter may have used the classical calculation for the Golden Ratio, or perhaps he used the, equally common Fibonacci Sequence, to decide what the altarpiece would look like based on the small models.

XXX. Pentimenti leading to Final Identification

It took me a long time to find a trace of evidence, which would, without a doubt, connect Simon Vouet to Il Sacrificio as it's autograph painter.

One of the key trails I followed, had to do with the clear pentimento of the "leaf motif" on the puffed sleeve of Mary Magdalene's robe.

I shortly mentioned this pentimento before, as one of the pentimenti in the Mary Magdalene figure. Below I've added a blow-up of a part of the infrared image of Mary Magdalene I have shown earlier.

Il Sacrificio: detail sleeve Mary Magdalene

The large triangulaire shape, formed by the upper part of the folded sleeve, is clearly visible from the left to the right. In the finished painting, this triangle is but a shadow part of the puffed sleeve.

In the underdrawing however, we can clearly distinguish black, leaf shaped ornaments, which are meant to visualize woven decorations in the fabric.

Studying paintings that were done by Vouet's fellow Italian (influenced) painters in the 1620's, revealed that the puffed sleeve and the leaf motif were part of the fashion of that era (recorded historically in paintings).

I have added images of just two of the many paintings I found, that underline the fact this fashion excisted.

Domenichino: A Sybil, early 1620's
(Wallace Collection, London)

H. Terbrugghen: Woman Playing a Lute, 1624-1626
(Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna)

I've also added a 1627 engraving of Mary Magdalene by Anna Maria Vaiani (1597-1654). She was a fellow artist of Vouet in 1620's Rome, who's important role in the birth of Il Sacrificio I will discuss below.

The sleeve of Magdalene's robe shows contemporary floral motifs, which in arthistory symbolizes the fact that she was a worldly woman.

Caravaggio, some years before, had also painted a Maddalena Penitente (1594-1596) – the one I discussed earlier – showing her as a woman of the world, wearing a contemporary dress.

Caravaggio clearly broke with tradition, depicting a biblical figure in a normal but classy dress.

This painting may have been studied by Vouet, when it hung in the Villa Doria Pamphilj in Rome..

Although I found images like the ones above, suggesting that Vouet could also have painted a similar robe, I recently came across a painting by Simon Vouet himself, painted ca. 1625(!), in which Vouet depicts a Saint in a puffed sleeve robe, ornamented with a leaf motif.

This Vouet painting - ”St. Catherine of Alexandria” - is at present part of the collection of the National Gallery of Bratislava, Slowakia. In the large image I've added to this blog, one can clearly distinguish the leaf motif in the right sleeve of the Saint.

Simon Vouet: St. Catharine of Alexandria, ca. 1625 (N.G. Bratislava)

It adds to the proof of originality of Il Sacrificio, that the leaf motif can only be seen in the underdrawing, and not in the final painting itself. It is therefore missing in the Daret print of 1639!

The creator Vouet, must have decided, that a "worldly dress" on Mary Magdalene would distract the viewer from the intense grief over the Dead Christ, which was to be the center of attention of the lower part of the altarpiece

It is even conceivable, that it was the contractor, the Congregazione della Reverenda Fabbrica, that ordered Vouet to remove this epitome of worldly luxury, considering it not fitting for a painting with such sacred, yet public, destination.

Luckely, today's science gives us the opportunity to find and look at alterations under the surface of the painting, like the overpainted leaf motif.

We are now able, to compare the underdrawing of Il Sacrificio to the Bratislava painting - painted in the same year in which Vouet had to deliver his important altarpiece for St. Peters's Basilica in Rome.

This makes it possible to establish four things for a fact:

1. Il Sacrificio was painted as an original painting, and not as a copy.

The clear and convincing pentimenti and the lack of traces of copying show, that the artist conceived something new and that he did not retrace the work of another artist;

2. Il Sacrificio must have been painted in or around 1625, considering the original depiction of the garments with decorations of the time and colors that are consistent with the style and era;

3. The painting must have been painted by Simon Vouet, since Il Sacrificio is an original conception and not a copy.

The print by Pierre Daret, the altarpiece of Chilly-Mazarin and the Bratislava painting - it's resemblances with the underdrawing of Il Sacrificio - prove the painting is an autograph Simon Vouet.

The originality/importance of the painting is underlined by the fact, that it was part of the Bridgewater Gallery for more than a hundred years;

4. Finally: the painting must have been painted as part of the 1625 commission for St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

We have already proven, that Il Sacrificio must have been painted around 1625, on the grounds mentioned before.

We have also established - studying Pollak - that Vouet had to paint a Sacrificio with the Mysteries of the Passion and Two Saints for the Vatican, and that he made several (surviving) models, which are clearly connected - both in style and in provenance.

We have further established, that one of these models must be Il Sacrificio, since it’s known composition was painted by Simon Vouet (see Daret’s print) and it’s composition clearly connects and completes, the other surviving models.

It is obvious, that the three small models are all part of the same commission, St. Peter’s altarpiece, because we know of only one commission handed to Vouet, which was to represent the Sacrifice, with Mysteries, etc. and for which Vouet would need small models, for working in situ: the mural for St. Peter's Basilica.

We must therefore conclude, that Il Sacrificio is the (only) surviving disegno for the lower part of the Vatican altarpiece!

XXXI. Il Sacrificio: Influenced by Galileo Galilei?

Comparing many images and their similarities, I started studying the possible identities of the "sitters" Vouet used in his Roman paintings of the early 1620's.

The importance of this study is the following: if we can establish who the sitters/models in Il Sacrifio were, then we can establish a credible timeframe in which Il Sacrificio was produced.

I found that the great scientist and thinker Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) - unintentionally - formed a link between the painter Simon Vouet and one of his "sitters" via his and Vouet's benefector Cardinal del Monte.

Untill recently I could only - with great certainty - suggest, that the person who modeled for Mary Magdalene in 1625, was in fact Vouet's future wife Virginia de Vezzo. Vouet had met her - a young promising pastel artist - about a year or two earlier.

He might have met Virginia near his home, but more likely she crossed his path as a fellow member of the Roman art society - possibly when she entered the Accademia di San Luca, or attended drawing/painting classes.

The two developed a relationship, and during that period Virginia modeled in various paintings by Vouet.

I'll leave it up to you, to explore all the paintings in which Vouet used the typical face of Virginia de Vezzo, sometimes painting her upfront, many times "en profil".

Being a member of the Accademia di San Luca, Virginia also made a career of her own.

In 1626 Claude Mellan - a friend to both Vouet and to Virginia de Vezzo - immortalized her in an engraving praising her skills as a paintress. An image of the Mellan print you find below.

Claude Mellan: Virginia de Vezzo (1626)

Virginia was one of only a view important femal artists in Rome during Urban VIII. These artists were nevertheless highly regarded.

The female artists would certainly have worked beside and with, their male colleagues. The artists would, on occasion even have stepped in as "sitter" in each others paintings.

Since I could identify one model (Virgina de Vezzo as the Magdalene), I wondered if I could identify an other model in the painting of Il Sacrificio.

My attention was drawn by the white female (angel) who is bending over the fainted Madonna, her breast half uncovered.

From the moment I first saw the painting, I figured the painter must have made some mistake in depicting her eyes, since the overall execution of the persons portrayed in the painting is fine.

This femal sitter however, looked like she had some serious eye problems! I've added a detail of the painting, so you'll understand.

Il Sacrificio: Detail of white lady/angel

Although the quality of the painting may not look impressive, keep in mind that this part of the painting measures roughly 7,5 cm x 7,5 cm. The faces are no larger than a small coin.

Nevertheless, one would expect a more convincing expression, like the face of the fainted Madonna.

Unless of course, the model Vouet used for the white lady, had eyes that looked somewhat bloated.

This meant, that I went looking for evidence, suggesting that the woman in the painting was depicted truthful. I consulted "Joconde, Portaille des collections des Musees du France" - the French website, that covers artcollections in the French Museums.

It houses an impressive collection of paintings and drawings by the worlds famed artists.

In the last five years I studied hundreds if not thousands of images of drawings by the Carracci, Vouet, Dorigny, Lesueur, Mignard, Perrier and many others, hoping to find sketched that might show some connection to Il Sacrificio.

I found several images that could have had something to do with the painting, like the one below, at present attributed to Annibale Carracci.

Annibale Carracci: Drawing of a woman (The Louvre, Paris)

Could she be by Vouet ? Could this be the Madonna in Il Sacrificio?

La Joconde also produced a drawing, which is listed as drawn by Pierre Charles Trémolières (1703-1739) but which with good reason, was attributes to Vouet, by Barbara Brejon de Lavergnée*.

*Thuillier, Vouet 1990-1991, p. 369).

According to a 1638 print by Michel Dorigny (son in law to Simon Vouet) this "lady with the jug" figured in the ceiling paintings Vouet made in Chilly-Mazarin in 1631.

Simon Vouet: Lady with a Jug, 1631 (The Louvre, Paris)

There is a clear similarity with our Mary Magdalene and the sketched woman holding a jug.

This could be considered further evidence of the fact, that our Il Sacrificio was used by Vouet as a model in Chilly for the ceiling paintings.

Clearly, Il Sacrificio was - without a doubt - used as a model for the Chilly altarpiece by Perrier!

In the fast collection of drawings by Simon Vouet himself, I finally came across, a drawing of a girl that seems to have modelled for the white lady in Il Sacrificio.

Her eyes are most interesting and so is her nose.

Simon Vouet: drawing of a woman (The Louvre, Paris)

Since Vouet was known for his draftmanship, it is highly unlikely that Vouet was incapable of drawing a correct set of eyes or a nose.

Furthermore, the white lady in Il Sacrificio, has the same swollen eyelids. That Vouet made the same mistake twice does not seem very likely.

So, if it wasn't a mistake, and if a girl with these features indeed modelled for Vouet in the 1620's, would she also appear in other paintings? I believe she did.

Below i've added the images (fullsize and detail) of Vouet's painting Le Temps Vaincu par l'Espoire, l'Amour et la Béauté (1627), painted when Vouet was still working in Rome.

Simon Vouet: Le Temps Vaincu par l'Espoire, l'Amour et
la Béauté (1627) Prado, Madrid

Simon Vouet: Le Temps Vaincu par.... (detail)

Could the nakes girl with the puffed eyes and the pronounced nose, depicted in Temps Vaincu, be the same girl as in the graphite drawing held by the Louvre and in Il Sacrificio?

The Prado Museum in Madrid in 2018 festively acquired a recently unknown small portrait by Simon Vouet, Retrato de Nina con Paloma (Portrait of a Girl with Pigeon).

In this picture - according to the Prado - the same sitter with the puffy eyes and pronounced nose appears, as is shown in the Temps Vaincu, which is also in the Prado collection. Below I've added an image of this "new" Vouet.

Simon Vouet: Retrato de Nina con Paloma
(1620-1622) Prado, Madrid

The same model I spoke of above, also seems to have been sitting for one of the characters in Vouet's "Diseuse de Bonne Aventure" of ca. 1620.

Below you'll find the image itself and a detail of the face of the mentioned sitter.

Simon Vouet: Diseuse de bonne Aventure, ca. 1620

Simon Vouet: Diseuse de bonne Aventure, ca. 1620 (detail)

Last but not least, I point to the 1625 painting of "l'Intellect, la Mémoire et la Volonté" a.k.a. "Les Facultés de l'Âme", that was commissioned by Marcello Sacchetti.

Below you'll find the image itself and a detail of the face of the mentioned sitter.

Simon Vouet: l'Intellect, la Mémoire et la Volonté , 1625,
Pinacoteca Capitolina, Rome(?)

Simon Vouet: l'Intellect, la Mémoire et la Volonté
(detail)

We can be reasonably certain, that the pretty black/dark brown haired girl in all three paintings (in the last one, she is the girl in the red robe) was Virginia de Vezzo.

The identity of the other girl, with the puffy eyes and the pronounced nose, remains a mistery; or not?

It is more than logical that Vouet met her (like he would have met Virginia), when Vouet started to gain importance in Rome and would have made a conciderable impression, on young Italian paintresses.

Both girls might have taken lessons from Vouet and started modelling for him at some time, to make some extra money.

Claude Mellan engraved the unknown girl in 1625, exactly after the formentioned painting by Vouet - depicing the same puffy eyes.

This tells us, that Vouet didn't make a mistake, and that the sitter had this particular look (like in Il Sacrificio).

Claude Mellan (after S. Vouet): Intellectus et Memoria (1626)
(detail)

In my opinion, the same model (as Mary Magdalene) appears, next to Virginia de Vezzo (as Martha), in the picture of “Marthe accuse sa soeur vain Marie Madeleine”(1621).

Below I've added an image of this painting, at present in the collection of the KHM in Vienna.

Marthe accuse sa soeur vain Marie Madeleine, ca. 1621 (KHM Vienna)

I've also traced a painting in which , I believe, the mistery girl appears solo. Below I've added an image of Vouet’s "St. Catharine" (1620).

Simon Vouet: St. Catharine, 1620's (NMWA Tokyo)

Who was this girl with the small puffed eyes and pronounced nose?

I decided to look for images of people, that could have been associated with Vouet, or with Virginia de Vezzo.

This led me to look over (again) the information I had, pertaining the Accademia di San Luca, around 1620-1625.

Also, thought came to mind, that Claude Mellan did some engravings around 1626 of notable Roman artists, amongst which Virginia de Vezzo.

I had already found Mellan's engraving of the portrait of Virginia de Vezzo, shown earlier in this paragraph.

I therefore searched the Joconde Database, and there I fortunately found, a similar portrait by Claude Mellan, depicting an other female artist, Anna Maria Vaiani (...- ca. 1655).

Claude Mellan: Anna Maria Vaiani (1626)
(The Louvre, Paris)

Without wanting to discredit this lovely Italian paintress and illustrator, I can not go around the fact, that her eyes seem unusually thickened and perhaps not completely straight.

Could this be the girl in Temps Vaincu, La Diseuse, Les Facultés de l'Âme, St. Catharine, Marthe et Madeleine, the drawing in the Louvre and Il Sacrificio's white lady?

Let's compare the face of St. Catharine, with a mirrored image of the face in the Mellan print. It appears, the Mellan girl is the same as the model Vouet used in the formentioned paintings.

Simon Vouet: St. Catharine C. Mellan: Anna Maria Vaiani

Without wanting to discredit this lovely Italian paintress and illustrator, I can not go around the fact, that her eyes seem unusually thickened and perhaps not completely straight.

Could this be the girl in Temps Vaincu, La Diseuse, Les Facultés de l'Âme, St. Catharine, Marthe et Madeleine, the drawing in the Louvre and Il Sacrificio's white lady?

Let's compare the face of St. Catharine, with a mirrored image of the face in the Mellan print. It appears, the Mellan girl is the same as the model Vouet used in the formentioned paintings.

XXXII. Anna Maria Vaiani

According to Lucia Tongiorgi Tomasi in Reading Early Modern Women * little is known about Anna Maria Vaiani.

*Published l. Routledge New York & London, p. 162-164).

Some sources claim Anna Maria Vaiani was born in 1597 and died in 1654. It is suggested, that she - apparently a somewhat jealous wife - died of poisoning. The suspect/perpetrator being her twenty four years younger husband, French painter Jacques Courtois (1621-1676), who had married her in 1647.

After Anna Maria had died, Courtois suddenly joined the Society of Jezus in Rome, to become a Jesuit priest*.

*On the life of Jacques Courtois and his marriage with A.M. Vaiani, see Italian Wikipedia on "Giacomo Cortese" i.e. Jacques Courtois.

Fact is, that Anna Maria Vaiani was born in Florence, to painter and engraver Allesandro Vaiani (…-…), who was patroned by prince Giovanni Carlo Doria (1576-1625) in Genua.* Doria owned fifteen of his paintings.

*Maria Barbara Guerrieri Borsoi: Novità su Alessandro e Anna Maria Vaiani, in “Bollettino Monumenti, Musei e Gallerie Pontificie”, XXVII (2009), pp. 241-264. The author in my opinion wrongfully suggests that Vaiani was patroned by admiral Giovanni Andrea Doria (1539-1606), who was admiral in the Genovese navy and who is not known for pratronizing the arts.

In 1621, during his stay in Genua, Vouet painted his famous portrait of Giovanni Carlo Doria, now in the Louvre.

Simon Vouet: Giovanni Carlo Doria (1621)
Louvre, Paris

From her father Anna Maria learned her craft. At some point her talent was spotted by the world famous Florentine astronomer, inventor, physisist and phylosopher Galileo Galilei (1564-1642).

According to several surviving letters of his hand, Galileo described Anna Maria as "una fanciulla di grandissimo talento" (a young lady of the greatest talent)*

*Quoted from Lucia Tongiorgi Tomasi in Reading Early Modern Women.

Evidence - in the form of letters - has been preserved, which shows that Galileo actively tried to introduce Anna Maria Vaiani into the Roman artsociety.

Ottavio Leoni: Gallileo Gallilei (1624)

Undoubtedly Galileo would have used excisting contacts, like the ones with his former benefactor Cardinal Francesco Maria Del Monte.

We have seen above, that French cardinal Del Monte, not only headed the Congregation of the Reverenda Fabbrica, but that he also formally supervised the Accademia di San Luca as it's "Patron".

It is not known when exactly Anna Maria Vaiani arrived in Rome, but according to the public information, Vaiani was active in Rome between 1623 and 1650.

It is a known fact, that Vaiani between 1630-1638 corresponded with Galileo Galilei.*

*Pietro Greco (19 April 2018). “Galileo Galilei, The Tuscan Artist”

She must then have been a women of intellect and importance!

Sources indicate, that Anna Maria became a member of the Accademia, at some point. Commissions from important clergy, like Francesco Barberi seem to imply her membership.

Amongst the major achievements of Anna Maria Vaiani are floral paintings she realized for Cardinal Francesco Barberini - nephew to Pope Urban VIII, and future Chairman of the Reverenda Fabbrica.

Anna Maria also created engraved famed illustrations for the ”De Florum Cultura” (1633) written by Giovanni Battista Ferrari and dedicated to Cardinal Francesco Barberini (who also funded it).

The Florum Cultura - a book on important plants and gardening - is considered the most important book published in Rome during the 17th Century.

The other illustrators of this worldfamous book /artwork were Guido Reni (1575-1642), Pietro da Cortona (1596-1669) and Andrea Sacchi (1599-1661).

Before Anna Maria secured her biggest commissions, she - just like most of the artists in Rome - had to scrape her living together.

It is more than likely, that she met her fellow female artist Virginia de Vezzo, who was about the same age and was also trying to get her career going.

It is obvious that Anna Maria - herself daughter of a Florentine painter - at the beginning of her career, would have taken jobs as assistant or "sitter", to pay her costs of living and education in Rome.

Through Virginia de Vezzo, or perhaps directly through Cardinal Del Monte, Anna Maria is likely to have been introduced to Simon Vouet.

I recently (3 september 2016) found evidence, that Vouet must have known Anna Maria Vaiani. Not only did she at some point join the Academia di St. Luca, of which Vouet had been Princeps, but Vouet knew Anna's brother, Sebastiano, who also worked - as an engraver - in Rome in 1625!

Sebastiano Vaiani (.. - ..) was, according to author Viviana Farina in her ”Remarques”* a not well known engraver, who was mostly known because of the fact, that his sister was the famous Anna Maria Vaiani.

*Viviana Farina, Remarques sur le voyage Genois de Simon Vouet* in Simon Vouet en Italie, Presses Univ. de Rennes, 2011, p. 96.

Sebastiano Vaiani engraved some images of the gallery of famous writers and poets Vouet had drawn and/or painted.

By chance I noticed this when I studied the image below, which is part of the article by Viviana Farina. It features a 1625 engraving by Sebastiano Vaiani, after a work on paper (drawing?) by Simon Vouet.

Sebastiano Vaiani (after Simon Vouet):
Cap. Giov. Andrea Rovetti, 1625

Vouet may have encountered the brother, after he had already met the sister, or it was the other way around. What ever the case, it is a fact that Vouet personally knew Anna's family in Rome, in the period in which Il Sacrificio was painted.

Since Vouet clearly used actual persons as his models, he may have asked Anna Maria - just like he asked her fellow artist Virginia de Vezzo - to sit for him.

We have to keep in mind, that Anna Maria Vaiani reached fame around 1633 - some 8 years after Il Sacrificio was painted - when the worldfamous De Florum Cultura was published.

It is obvious Vouet would have compensated sitters for their modelling services: a win-win situation for both sides! It is also possible, that Vouet offered some work to Sebastiano Vaiani, in return for the modelling by Anna Maria Vaiani.

When we look at the various paintings by Vouet and the engravings by Mellan, I maintain that everything indicates, that Virginia de Vezzo and Anna Maria Vaiani, both modelled in Vouet's paintings of the early 1620's.

The logical conclusion - based on their features - would be, that both women appear in Il Sacrificio; Virginia de Vezzo as the Magdalene and Anna Maria Vaiani as the white lady. This gives us a time reference.

Il Sacrificio must have been created around 1625! This date - combined with all other physical evidence - in my humble opinion proves, that Il Sacrificio is the surviving disegno for the main part of Vouet's important altarpiece in St. Peter's Basilica!

XXXIII. Il Sacrificio: Vouet's "hand" ?

I will now adress an issue, that has to do with establishing authenticity of a work of art based on it’s execution.

For starters: one way of proving authenticity, is to search for a fair amount of circumstantial evidence, to support an already formed assumption of authenticity.

In other words: you already think it is real, and then you start searching and adding evidence that will support youre theory. In the end, you may have collected enough corroborating evidence to let others conclude that youre theory is most likely correct.

Many artcritics/arthistorians believe, that circumstantial evidence is not nearly enough, to confirm authenticity of a piece of art.

They demand objective evidence, which confirms it was "the hand of the master" that produced the masterpiece.

The Italian artcritic Giovanni Morelli (1816-1891) stated, that the way to authenticate a painting, is to research it, like you would conduct a crimescene investigation.

The autograph of the artist can not be deduced solely based on the obvious: frequent use of the same color or composition.

A copyist would certainly go for, and would have no trouble repeating, these eyecatching features.

The originality of the work is confirmed or dismissed by comparing small inconspicuous details that would be overlooked, or would not be of interest to the copyist.

A striking example of a way to establish the authenticity of Il Sacrificio is by comparing the expression of the Magdalene, with the same section of the Daret print. By placing them both besides a detail of the expression of a figure from an other undisputed autograph Simon Vouet painting - "Les Quatre Saisons" (1644-1645) - which is part of the collection of the National Gallery of Ireland, we can really compare master and copyist.

Although the face of the Magdalene in Il Sacrificio is aboubt 2,5 cm in diameter, it is obvious that it's painter used exactly the same technique, when shaping the face by using multiple glazings of paint and and more particular, the eye and the shadows surrounding it.

Also, the shape of the eyelid and the profile of the face are a like, unlike the Daret print, where Daret tried to squeeze in a left eye, where no left eye was intended.

The Daret print proofs, that these features are hard to copy, or the were overlooked by the copyist. It is clear, that Daret did roughly copy the Sacrificio itself, but that he did not make an effort to copy Vouet's unique style.

An other detail I found, that links Il Sacrificio to a Vouet painting from the same period is found in the way Vouet set up the hairdo of the Magdalene.

First Vouet used a yellowish-brown underpaint, setting out the rough outline of the strands of hair. With a thicker paint of different colors, he than accentuated these strands of hair, thus creating a finished look.

Below I've added a detail from Il Sacrificio (1625) and of "La Madeleine" (ca. 1627) by Simon Vouet, also showing Virginia de Vezzo as Mary Magdalene.

To show you the similarities between the two, I've also added two fragments showing in detail the same build up of the hairdo. Pay attention to the color of the underlayer and the way it was applied.

Il Sacrificio (detail)

Simon Vouet: Virginia de Vezzo as Mary Magdalene
(ca. 1627)

Il Sacrificio (fragment)

Simon Vouet: Mary Magdalene (detail)

Since these defining features are found in Il Sacrificio, just like in other works by Vouet, it is save to say that Il Sacrificio is an autograph Simon Vouet and not a copy.

An other feature, that can be found in Vouet paintings, has to do with ears. Below I ave added three details showing a similar way of depicting the lower ear, largely hidden under the hairdo.

Notice the red, against the yellowish-pink of the facial skin and the way the ear is "tucked away" under the hairs.

Keep in mind that the face in the middle is a sketch, no larger the 2,5 cm in diameter.

Simon Vouet: details of faces (Virginia de Vezzo) compared.

XXXIV. Two models for the same altarpiece, Split Up

In the prolog I have recently added some crucial information I was kindly offered by his Lordship, Sir William Worsley, 6th Baronet, of Hovingham Hall.

This crucial information about the existence of two sketches (i.e. studies) for altars, that were brought from Naples by William Hamilton around 1770-1778, obviously gives reason to deduce the following.

First of all, the 1967 identification of the Hovingham bozzetto by Mahon and Nicolson* - identifying the upper part of the Roman altarpiece - proofs, that there also must have been a model for the lower part of the altarpiece, Simon Vouet devised in 1625.

*see: Erich Schleier, Burlington Magazine, 1967 mentioning only Denis Mahon pointing out that this modello must have been painted by Simon Vouet. According to Sir William Worsley (correspondence with author) both Denis Mahon and Benedict Nicolson identified the painting as a Vouet modello for St. Peter's Basilica.

Secondly, I think - knowing the lengthy Ellesmere provenance of Il Sacrificio - it is safe say, that both models must have been still together, when they entered Great Britain!

Logically, the models must have remained together after the death of Simon Vouet, after which - via his daughter Jeanne-Angelique and his son in law Michel Dorigny - they must have passed on to Vouet's grandson Louis Dorigny (1654-1742).

These paintings - roughly painted, small studies, for an altarpiece that did (no longer) exist - would not have been sold. Their huge importance to Simon Vouet himself, would have prevented his children from selling them.

We know, that Louis Dorigny, at an early age, like his grandfather, left France and spend most of his active life as a succesfull painter in Italy, both in Venice and Verona.

"Ludovico Dorigny" - as he would later call himself - arrived in Italy around 1670, spend most of his working career in Verona and died in Venice in 1742.

It is more than likely, that Ludovico would have taken both the models - in fact family heirlooms - with him to Italy and kept them until he died in 1742.

Then, some years later, in Italy both models would have been sold together to Sir William Hamilton (1730-1803), British ambassador to the King of Naples from 1764 until 1800, who brought them to Great Britain.

Sir William Worsley presented us with written evidence, which substantiates, that one of these Vouet models was with certainty acquired by Sir William Hamilton when he was still in Italy.

That it was subsequently brought to Great Britain, where it was sold to Sir Thomas Worsley, before 1778. Schleier named this sketch for the upper part for Vouet’s Roman altarpiece the ”Hovingham bozzetto”.

XXXV. William Hamilton and the arts

Sir William Hamilton wasn't just a diplomat and a passionate archaeologist and vulcanologist.

Hamilton was also a very wealthy collector and dealer in fine arts. Hamilton bought and sold many paintings sculptures and ancient artifacts to close friends and relatives.

It is a fact that Hamilton sent large quantities of artifacts to Britain, in various ships.

David Allen: Sir William Hamilton (1775),
NPG London

Amongst the finest treasures Hamilton acquired, was the famous Portland Vase (below), which had - coincidentally - once belonged to Cardinal Francesco Maria del Monte and had entered the collection of the Barberini family (via Pope Urban VIII, after the cardinal had died in 1627.

Portland Vase: Roman AD 1 - AD 25
(material cameo glass) British Museum

As I explained, it was Sir William Hamilton, who sold the upper part of Vouet's Vatican model (The Glory) to Sir Thomas Worsley of Hovingham Hall, between 1764 and 1778.

This timeframe is based on the fact, that the sale to Worsley would have taken place after 1764 - when William Hamilton first arrived and was stationed in Naples - but before 1778 - when Thomas Worsley died.

Although literature states, that Hamilton for the first time returned to Britain in 1771 for his first leave, my guess is, that Il Sacrificio, and the Hovingham modello could have entered Great Britain earlier.

This suggestion is based on the fact, that William Hamilton in 1769 presented King George III, with a painting entitled "Neapolitan Peasants at Leisure" by neapolitan painter Pietro Fabris (1740-1792).

Pietro Fabris: "Neapolitan Peasants at Leisure" (before 1769),
Royal Collection Trust

The written provenance* with the Fabris painting surprisinlgly states, that Thomas Worsley, on 28 May 1769, acted as an agent between William Hamilton and George III, in presenting the painting, on behalf of William Hamilton! This painting has since, belonged to the Royal Collection.

*see: Royal Collection Trust online, "Pietro Fabris: Neapolitan Peasants at Leisure".

Since it was Thomas Worsley, who de facto handed the Fabris painting to the King, it's possible, that Neapolitan Peasants - like other paintings William Hamilton had acquired in Italy - was first sent to Great Britain by Hamilton to his nephew Charles Frances Greville (1749-1809), who acted both as his business agent and client.*

*see: A. Morrison; The Collection of Autograph Letters and Documents, The Hamilton & Nelson papers, Volume I (1893), p. 26, 47, 48, etc.)

Greville could have then handed the painting to Sir Thomas Worsley, to be presented to the King. This would explain, why it was Worsley and not Hamilton, who presented the Fabris painting to George III?

Hamilton himself probably was still in Italy, acting as ambassador, studying volcano's and minerals and dealing in art. During his stay in Italy, he both visited Verona and Venice.

On October 12, 2019 I studied the letters that were sent between William Hamilton and his nephew Charles Greville to learn more about William Hamilton's buys ans sales.

The reason being, that - while studying the meaning of the chalk letters GD 76 on the verso of Il Sacrificio - I reexamined the sales catalogue of the Greville sale, in the Getty Provenance Index database.

I thus came across a wellknown painting of Annibale Carracci, called "Two Children teasing a Cat" (below), which was sold by William Hamilton to Charles Frances Greville*.

*see: A. Morrison; The Collection of Autograph Letters and Documents, The Hamilton & Nelson papers, Volume I (1893), p. 26)

At present this charming picture is part of the Metropolitan Museum of art (Fifth Avenue), in New York.

Annibale Carracci: Two children teasing a cat 1578-88)
MET, New York ©

It ended up in Christie's and Manson's Dispersal of the estate of the deceased Charles Frances Greville of March 31, 1810.*

*For ownership and auction details see "Provenance" to this painting on website of the MET, and the Sales Catalogue Files of the Getty Provenance Index Database.

I've recently contacted the MET, to verify if their Annibale Carracci carries a GD number on the back. If confirmed, this would proof that GD stands for "Greville Dispersal".

It is my intention, to, along this route, establish that the letters GD 76 on the verso of Il Sacrificio also stand for "Greville Dispersal" lotnumber 76.

This could very well be the case, since a Pietà by Lodovico Carracci, was sold as lot 70 at the same sale of Christie's and Manson.

I since found, that a precise total of 76 paintings were sold at this auction, along with 8 miniatures, 7 drawings and 10 statues.*

*see: website Brill Publishers: https://primarysources.brillonline.com/browse/art-sales-catalogues-online/7743-18100331-greville-hon-c-f-frs-fas A copy of the mentioned sales catalogue is with the RKDH in The Hague.

During the March 31, 1810 sale, some lots were added to the sale, so the original catalogue entry number 70 could have ended up as lot number 76. Or it could have been sold as the last painting of the sale and was therefore chalked GD 76.

If we could establish, that Il Sacrificio was part of the Greville sale, this would mean that we can than assume William Hamilton was the previous owner.

This would mean, we would have a direct link between Il Sacrificio and the Hovingham modello.

XXXVI. Gavin Hamilton, artist and artdealer

William Hamilton wasn't the only member of the ducal family of Hamilton (rooted in Lanarkshire, Scotland) who was in Italy, collecting and selling art to museums and friends and relatives.

Around 1744, a cousin of his, a young scottish painter named Gavin Hamilton (1723-1798) born in Lanarkshire, arrived in Italy. He was to become one of Britains greatest painters, but remained relatively unknown in Great Britain itself.

Ozias Humphrey: Gavin Hamilton ca. 1770

Gavin Hamilton started his career in Rome, probably in the studio of Agostino Masucci (1691-1758) who himself was a pupil of Carlo Maratta (1625-1713).

Masucci from 1736-1738 was, like Simon Vouet years before him, Princeps of the Accademia di San Luca in Rome.

From 1748 until 1750 Hamilton shared quarters in Rome with two other gentlemen.

They were, architect, archeologist and artist James "Athenian" Stuart (1713-1788) - one of the founding fathers of neoclassism - and writer and amateur architect Nicholas Revett (1721-1804).

During this two year period the three visited both Naples and Venice.

It's possible, that Gavin Hamilton acquired the Vouet models during his trip to Venice, and subsequently brought them to Rome, where they would later have been acquired by his cousin William Hamilton.

Although Gavin Hamilton temporarily returned to Britain in 1751, he was to leave Britain for good, settling in Rome, in 1756. He lived and worked in Rome, until his death in 1798.

I'm convinced that Gavin Hamilton during that period must have studied Il Sacrificio. He most likely owned it, because I believe he used it as a model for his most famous painting "Achilles lamenting the Death of Patroclus" (1760-1763) now in the National Galleries of Scotland.

Gavin Hamilton: Achilles Lamenting the Death of Patroclus,
1760-1763
National Galleries, Scotland

If you focus on the central group in Achilles Lamenting the Death of Patroclus - Lamentation meaning Pietà - you will see that there are some surprisings similarities between this painting and Il Sacrificio.

For instance, the woman who is bending over Patroclus, is without a doubt, inspired by the Mary Magdalene in Il Sacrificio. She has a similar posture, similar robes and a similar Vouet-style face.

The Patroclus figure is shown in the same dead white/grey as the Christ in Il Sacrificio.

Although Patroclus is now laying down and not sitting like the Christ in Il Sacrificio, the left hand and arm are clearly derived from Il Sacrificio.

Besides the main group, the Hamilton painting breaths the same atmosphere as Il Sacrificio, which is created using Venetian colors and the distant, low, blue and orange, horizon.

Below I've added details of both images, so you can judge for your self. Keep in mind that Il Sacrificio is a miniature sketch, compared to the Achilles lamenting Patroclus.

Il Sacrificio: detail

Achilles lamenting the dead Patroclus: detail

It is obvious, that the "Achilles" by Gavin Hamilton is not a copy of Il Sacrificio.

Nevertheless, it is remarkable how the left arm of the grieving woman seems te be derived from the right arm of Christ in Il Sacrificio.

Her face and eye are pointed in the same direction in both paintings, leaning over the deceased. Furthermore, the legs and hand of Patroclus, are more or less similar to Christs' in Il Sacrificio.

There are also striking similarities in the way the middle group in the Achilles and the one in Il Sacrificio are composed.

An other painting by Gavin Hamilton, "Hebe giving drink to the eagle of Jupiter" , here represented in a mirrored print (printed between 1727-1803) by the Veronese engraver Domenico Cunego (1724/25-1803), also features an image which seems to have been inspired by Il Sacrificio.

The way Hebe is portraited resembles the way Mary Magdalene in Il Sacrificio is shown - same face, hairdo, posture, gesture, drapery,etc.)

D. Cunego after G. Hamilton: Hebe giving drink to the Eagle of
Jupiter (ca.1727-1803) (Mirrored image)

It's not a big deal that painters share/borough each others ideas, yet in this case it helps to establish the timeline we are looking for, in determining a credible provenance pertaining Il Sacrificio.

Since the Vouet sketches finally ended up in the possession of William Hamilton, we can safely assume they were sold to him, by his relative Gavin Hamilton, around 1770.

It is a fact that Gavin Hamilton bought and sold paintings and other artifacts to several clients - amongst which his distant cousin William Hamilton, whom he once sold (documented) the famous "Warwick Vase" and several paintings.

In 1785 Gavin Hamilton bought Leonardo da Vinci’s famous Virgin of the Rocks (1495-1508) - the version that nowadays is displayed in the National Gallery of London.

Leonardo da Vinci: Virgin of the rocks (1483), NG London

The Hamilton's could have met in Venice or Rome, where Gavin Hamilton both has lived and worked, or William Hamilton acquired the paintings directly from the Dorigny family, on one of his trips to Venice around 1772.

According to surviving correspondence, curated by The Huntington Library *, William Hamilton was in Venice on November 23th, 1772 and had stopped in Verona (former residence of Ludovico Dorigny) on his way there.

*source: OAC i.e. Online Archive of California, the Hamilton-Greville Collection and A. Morrison; The Collection of Autograph Letters and Documents, The Hamilton & Nelson papers, Volume I (1893), p. 17.

As I said, we know all this, through the surviving letters Hamilton sent to his nephew and later heir, Charles Francis Greville (1749-1809), whose role I will discuss in paragraph XXXVIII.

The date of the mentioned letter, November 23th, 1772, preceeds the date the Worsley family according to Sir William Worsley, acquired the Hovingham bozzetto, as ”one of the two sketches for altars”.

This means, chronologically William Hamilton could have acquired Il Sacrificio and the Hovingham modello in northern Italy himself and then shipped them to Great Britain to Charles Frances Greville or travel with them on his leave from office in 1771 or 1777.

So, if these sketches for altars were not part of the collection of paintings Hamilton sent to Britain aroud 1769 - of which one was presented to King George III - they could have been brought to Britain earlier or later (during Hamilton's second leave in 1777).

In any case, the Hovingham bozzetto, with certainty, ended up in the Worsley family, before the death of Sir Thomas Worsley in 1778.

Besides the logic in dates, I have argued, that both models Vouet had left, by inheritance could have ended up in the possession of one of Vouet's grandsons, Ludovico (Louis) Dorigny.

Ludovico worked and lived most of his life in Verona and ended up in Venice, where he died in 1742. As I said, William Hamilton could have bought the paintings directly from the heirs of Louis Dorigny.

If William Hamilton himself didn't buy the paintings in Verona or Venice in 1772, it is still possible, that he bought them before or after, from his cousin Gavin Hamilton during a stay in Rome, where the latter happened to own a villa.

This villa by the way, played a dubious role in 1800 (shortly after the death of Gavin Hamilton in 1798), when a Roman altarpiece by Annibale Carracci, was secretly smuggled out of Rome.

A story which links William Hamilton to the Leveson-Gower family.

Annibale Carracci: St. Gregory at prayer , 1601-1602.
Formerly Bridgewater Collection.
Destroyed bombing of May 11th 1941

At the time (around 1800 AD), the Italian clergy desperately tried to prevent foreigners, like their French invaders and British liberators, taking off with Italy's religious heirlooms.

Without them knowing, Annibale Carracci's St. "Gregory at prayer" - originally painted for Cardinal Salviati and placed in St. Gregory's Church in Rome - had been secretly removed from its location.

A local had illegally sold the painting, to artists/art dealers Mrs. Alexander Day and Pietro Camuccini.

In order to fool the clerical authorities, the famous painting had been disguised as a second rate Guido Reni, having been painted over by Camuccini's younger brother Vincenzo (who would later become Inspector General of the Museums of the Pope and Princeps of the Accademia di San Luca) in water colour.

According to the Art Union of 1847* "…an Englishman of high rank, traveling to Rome from Sicily… (who's name is still unknown) took charge of the painting at the residence of Gavin Hamilton…”, securing it's departure from Italy by arranging the necessary export documents (based on fraudulous information).

*Art Union of 1847 (vol. IX p. 11)

Interestingly, William Hamilton ended his career as the British ambassador (1764-1800) to the Kingdom of Naples a.k.a. the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, departing from Palermo, Sicily in 1800.

Hamilton left Italy over land, accompanied by his wife Emma and none other than Lord Horatio Nelson (1758-1805), the famous British naval hero. Emma and Nelson would become lovers.

Lemuel F. Abbott: Admiral Horatio Nelson
(before 1798)

I'm convinced that it was William Hamilton who impressed the clerical authorities with his own title and with his illustrious travelling companion, Admiral Lord Nelson, so that they would part with this "Guido".

The high ranking Englishman (i.e. Hamilton) openly payed a substantial amount of goodwill to the overseeing Cardinal, and arranged the liberation of the false Guido Reni from Roman custody.

Once the painting had arrived in Britain and "..having remained some time under the care of the Traveller..." , Mrs. Day and Cammucini sold the painting to Admiral Lord Radstock.*

* See: Art Union of 1847 (vol. IX p. 12)

Admiral Lord Radstock, was born William Waldegrave, 1st Baron Radstock (1753-1825) and it turns out the mother of this Lord Radstock was Elizabeth Leveson-Gower (1723/24 -1784).

Lord Radstock sold the Annibale Carracci to his cousin (their parents were sister and brother), George Leveson-Gower, Duke of Sutherland around 1808.

The latter included the painting in the Bridgewater Gallery - that is to say, he bequeathed the painting to his second son Francis Leveson-Gower, Earl of Ellesmere, as part of the Bridgewater inheritance.

Catalogue of the Bridgewater and Ellesmere collections

of pictures at Bridgewater House, 1897, nr 76.

Returning now to our story of Il Sacrificio, we know for a fact, that William Hamilton brought two sketches from Naples, prior to 1778, because one of them entered the collection of Thomas Worsley (1710-1778) when he was still alive.

On the two sketches, I found an intriguing remark in one of the letters William Hamilton send to his nephew Greville dated March, 12, 1776.

Below I've added the letter reference and the relevant quote from A. Morrison's The Collection of Autograph Letters and Documents, The Hamilton & Nelson papers.

The Collection of Autograph Letters and Documents:
The Hamilton & Nelson papers, Volume I (1893), p 47 and 48

William Hamilton explicitly describes "..two sketches of Luca Jordano..” (Luca Giordano, 1634-1705)".

Let’s asume that Thomas Worsley bought a sketch which was later ascribed to Giovanni Lanfranco, while Il Sacrificio was later credited to Lodovico Carracci.

It is then certainly possible, that both paintings were bought as Giordano's and were "flipped" for a profit, giving them a more illustrious history, separating them physically and in name .

It is safe to assume, that William Hamilton could have bought the paintings in Verona or Venice in 1772 (possibly via Gavin Hamilton) or that he bought them during a visit to his relative in Rome.

If London society knew of the Hamilton's eye for art, it is more than likely, that Francis Egerton around 1829-1830 bought a Pietà by Lodovico Carracci, that had once belonged to the private collection of the famous collector William Hamilton.

Below I will explain how Il Sacrificio must have ended up in the Bridgewater Gallery, after having left Italy with William Hamilton some 60 years earlier.

XXXVII. Two sketches, acquainted owners?

I've demonstrated, that it is more than likely, that the Hamilton, the Worsley, the Egerton and the Leveson-Gower families - who mostly resided in London - knew each other.

Lord Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater (1736-1803), founder of the Bridgewater Gallery, for instance, had a serious love affair in London, with the widow Elizabeth Gunning, Dutchess of Hamilton (1733-1790). Elizabeth was the widow of James, 6th Duke of Hamilton (1724-1758).

This James Hamilton was a cousin once removed of the mentioned diplomat artdealer William Hamilton.William's father, was a brother of James' grandfather.

It is therefore possible, that the 3rd Duke of Bridgewater and Sir William Hamilton knew each other and may have had dealings with each other. In the following I will elaborate on the family connections between Hamilton, Greville and Leveson-Gower.

According to Anna Jameson (in her Companion to Artists of 1844), the Pietà by Lodovico Carracci - which we have now positively identified as the painting of Il Sacrificio discussed in this blog - was acquired by Lord Francis Egerton.

According to Aidan Weston-Lewis of the National Galleries of Scotland, Anna Jameson was clearly referring to Francis Levenson-Gower, who assumed the name Francis Egerton in 1833, having succeeded on the death of his father to the estates which the latter inherited from Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater.

What ever the case, we know for a fact, that the younger Francis Egerton, who was also known as the 1st Earl of Ellesmere added the painting to the Bridgewater Gallery, no later than 1830, when it is first mentioned as the nr. 22 in the collection catalogue of that year.

XXXVIII. Charles Greville, heir to William Hamilton

When (Februari 2016) I concentrated my research on the family names associated with the younger Francis Egerton, i.e. Francis Leveson-Gower (1800-1859), I logically also looked at the birthname of his wife Harriet Catherine Leveson-Gower (later: Egerton) (1803-1866)

Harriet was born Harriet Catherine Greville, daughter to Captain Charles Greville (1762-1832) and his wife Charlotte.

When I then connected the name William Hamilton to the sir name Greville, I soon found out, that there is an important connection between the two names.

According to the information available, William Hamilton died in 1803, without children to leave his fast riches to. Hamilton did however have a favorite nephew, called Charles Francis Greville (1749-1809). This Charles Greville was the second son of the 1st Earl of Warwick.

In 1783, on his third leave in Britain, William Hamilton appointed his nephew Charles to be his heir. This meant, that Charles - who was a distant cousin of Harriet Catherine Greville (Francis Leveson Gower's wife) - inherited estates in Wales and a navy shipyard in Liverpool from his rich uncle.

Charles also inherited the bulky art collection William Hamilton had amassed.

Knowing this, I again turned to the digitalized "paper trail", of the Getty Provenance Index Databases.

According to the sales files listed in the "Getty", in 1810 - i.e. one year after the death of Charles - Christie's London dispersed Greville's picture collection.

The auction was announced as "the dispersal of the goods of the late Charles Francis Greville".

It was known from the sales catalogue, that some of the paintings that were sold, originated from the collection of William Hamilton, having been inherited by Charles Greville. One painting instantly drew my attention. It was described as: "A Pietà, by Lodovico Carracci".

This painting was bought at auction by Francis Basset, 1st Baronet de Dunstanville and Basset (1757-1835), who himself had done the "Grand Tour" in 1778, as shown in a painting by Pompeo Batoni of that year.

Pompeo Batoni: Francis Basset, Baron De Dunstanvill
and Basset on his Grand Tour in Rome (1778)

According to the Getty Database, De Dunstanville himself sold the same Pietà by Lodovico Carracci, at auction at Christie's in 1829, to a buyer called Peacock.

The buyer Peacock is identified as (most likely) being Michael Peacock (1785-1843)*, who was a wellknown artist/art dealer /art restorer. From about 1817 he had his studio-office at 22 Marylebone St, Golden Square, London.

*A short biography on Michael Peacock can be found on the site of the NPG (National Portrait Gallery) under listed British picture restorers from 1600-1950.

XXXIX From Peacock to Francis Leveson Gower

By chance, I recently came across an article in The British and Foreign Review, or European Quarterly Journal.*

*The British and Foreign Review, or European Quarterly Journal, Vol. IX, no. XVII, 1839.

Here I found evidence, that Peacock and Leveson-Gower may have knows each other, through their common interest in buying art.

In this particular magazine, G. F. Waagen's "Art and Artists in England" is being discussed - in connection with the fact that many outstanding artworks that were brought form Europe in the 18th century were not preserved for the National Gallery, but have since disappeared abroad, or ended up in private collections such as the Bridgewater Gallery.

On one page (p. 15), both Lord Francis Egerton (before 1833 a.k.a. Francis Leveson-Gower) and the "highly respectable dealer Mr. Peacock " are mentioned, both having purchased two important paintings by Guido Reni, which are therefore no longer available tot the public.

Guido Reni: Assumption of the Virging, 1627, MET, NY

One of the paintings, Guido Reni’s "Assumption of the Virgin" (1627), in 1827 was acquired by Lord Francis Egerton* - in the article also refered to as the Earl of Ellesmere.

*There is no reference to this sale in the Getty Provenance Index Database, so date and location of acquisition are unknown.

This painting – presently known as the "Immaculate Conception" by Guido Reni – currently enriches the collection of the Met Museum in New York. It – like Il Sacrificio – left the Bridgewater Gallery on October 18th, 1946 as part of the Ellesmere Sale.

According to Waagen – cited in the article I mentioned – the other painting, "Europe carried off by the bull", from the so called Altamira Collection - named after the deceased Count Altamira at the sale of his collection in 1627 - had come into the possession of the “highly respected dealer” Peacock and hence became unattainable for the public museums.

Guido Reni: Rape of Europa (1627), NGC, Ottawa, CD

A short study learned, that from Guido Reni there are two (possibly three) works known, with the theme "Rape of Europa".

One of these - made for King Wladislav I of Poland in 1637-1639 - was part of the collection of Sir Denis Mahon.*

* (see: Discovering the Italian Baroque: The Denis Mahon Collection (1997), p. 136-137)

The other version (the one below), painted in 1637, was commissioned by the Duke of Guastalla*, which has been in the possession of the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa since 1991.

* (see: Discovering the Italian Baroque: The Denis Mahon Collection (1997), p. 136)

A cross-check with the Getty Provenance Index Database sales files, shows that the latter painting was bought by Michael Peacock on June 1, 1827 at Stanley's auction in London, as lotnumber 49 from the "Gallery of Count Altamira".

The Getty Database confirms, that this painting is now part of the collection of the National Gallery of Canada.

I then remembered, that the Catalogue of the Bridgewater and Ellesmere Collection of Pictures (1897) - like in earlier verions - in some cases mentions how certain paintings entered the Bridgewater/Ellesmere Collection.

So I re-read this catalogue, hoping to find some connecting element. I did find an interesting lead!

I came across a painting by Diego Velazquez (1599-1660) called "Portrait of a Natural Son of the Duke Olivares, carrying the Cross of St. James", which was listed as no. 32 in the 1897 Bridgewater/Ellesmere catalogue.

J. Carreno de Miranda:Son of the Duke of Olivares
(before 1650)
(image: W. Bourke and L.Cust,The Bridgewater
Gallery, 1903

According to the note accompanying this painting, Lord Francis Egerton acquired it from the "Collection of Count Altamira" - just like Peacock had acquired his Guido Reni from this notable old collection.

The following cross-check with the Getty Provenance Index Database shows, that this painting was also bought at Stanley's auction of June 1, 1827.

Getty suggests, that the "Velazquez" was bought by the Marquis of Stafford, i.e. at the time George Granville Leveson-Gower, the father of Francis Leveson-Gower.

It is possible, that the auctioneer only noted the family name "Leveson-Gower" as the buyer. It is also possible, that Francis' father paid for the painting Francis himself actually bought.

It is thus logical, that Getty mentions the painting was purchased by the father, while the painting was actually acquired by the son - according to the 1897 edition of the Bridgewater and Ellesmere catalogue.

This information is confirmed in the text accompanying the painting listed as nr. 40 in "The Bridgewater Gallery, 120 of the most noted paintings at Bridgewater House, reproduced in photogravure based on photographs".*

* Walter L. Bourke and Lionel Cust: "The Bridgewater Gallery, 120 of the most noted paintings at Bridgewater House, reproduced in photogravure based on photographs" (1903).

Bourke and Cust suggested, that this painting - which is no longer ascribed to Velazquez but to Juan Carreno de Miranda (1614-1685) - was bought by the 1st Earl of Ellesmere in 1828.

Helas, the given date should have been June 1st, 1827, according to relevant collection catalogs and the Getty Provenance Index.

Therefore - based on the written evidence in the Bridgewater Catalogue and the Getty Database – we can conclude the following. On June 1, 1827 Michael Peacock and Francis Leveson-Gower were at the same auction and both bought important pieces!

Since Peacock himself was a respected artdealer, it is logical that Francis Leveson-Gower and Michael Peacock knew each other. It is therefore more than possible that the first bought art from the latter. It could be directly, or through John Smith of Great Marlborough Road - curator to the Bridgewater Gallery.

Geographically Bridgewater House (14 Cleveland Row), and the art dealerships of Peacock (22 Marylebone Street) and Smith (137 New Bond Street) are all within walking distance.

Since Smith, artdealer, picture cleaner and picture framemaker, also acted as curator for the collection of the Bridgewater Gallery, he may have reframed certain pictures in the famous gallery.

Smith however did not restore or reline paintings. Michael Peacock on the other hand, did! It is obvious, that Smith would have used Peacock when he needed a restorer.

Based on the probable contacts between buyer, curator and restorer - around 1829-1830 - Francis Leveson-Gower more than likely bought the Pietà by Ludovico Carracci, from Michael Peacock.

The same Pietà, Peacock himself on May 8 1824 bought from Francis De Dunstanville and which - through Charles Greville - originated from the estate of William Hamilton.

Lets keep in mind, that the complete Getty Provenance Index – consisting of thousands and thousands of listed paintings - only lists a total of five other Pieta's by Lodovico Carracci. None of them are linked to either Greville or Hamilton.

Only one Pietà painting - at some point in time ascribed to Lodovico Carracci - came (proven) from the William Hamilton collection, and can therefore be the only candidate for the missing sketch, for an altar by Simon Vouet i.e. for "the Lost Altarpiece".

Of course I now have to show, that the Pietà that was acquired by Francis Leveson-Gower around 1829-1830, left the estate of Michael Peacock around the same time.

This I can not proof 100%, but I can say this however:Michael Peacock died around November 18, 1843 according to his biograpy on the site of the National Portrait Gallery (see above).

According to the advertisement in the "Athenaeum" of February 17. 1844, on the 28th and 29th of February of 1844, the estate of the deceased Michael Peacock of Marylebone Street - amongst which, his picture collection - was auctioned off by Foster & Sons, at nr. 54. Pall Mall, London.

Below you'll find images of the original title page (detail) and announcement of sale in The Athenaeum.

The Athenaeum, February 17, 1844, Titlepage (detail)

The Athenaeum, February 17, 1844,
Sale of the late Michael Peacock

According to the "salesfiles" in the Getty Provenance Index Database, from the Michael Peacock estate a total of 163 paintings were sold, of which 7 by the Carracci's, at the auction at Foster's.

None of these paintings was titled - or depicted - a Pietà by Lodovico Carracci. Ergo, Peacock must have parted from it before he died!

This means, that Peacock most likely sold the painting from his art dealership. He more than likely sold it to Francis Leveson-Gower, as it came from an important collection and was since related to the Greville name - a direct relative of Ellesmere's wife.

In short:

It is more than plausible, that one of the "two sketches for alters, William Hamilton brought from Naples", remained with William Hamilton until his death in 1803.

Knowing of the obvious connection between the upper part and the lower part of the Vouet altarpiece, logic dictates, that the sketch Hamilton kept, was in fact the lower part of Vouet's painting, showing the Pietà/Il Sacrificio.

After some time, this Pietà - probably to add value, now ascribed to Lodovico Carracci - ended up in the collection of Hamilton's heir, Charles Greville.

After the death of the latter, the painting must have been sold to De Dunstanville, who in turn sold it to Peacock in 1824.

Around 1829-1830, Peacock may have offered the painting to Francis Leveson-Gower, whom he had met at the "Altamira sale" of 1827. Peacock may have emphasized the fact, that the previous owner was a Greville, just like the wife of Francis Leveson-Gower.

Or Peacock may have merely argued, that this small sketch for an altar stemmed from the famous collection of William Hamilton.

So, finally, around 1830, the Pietà painting (in fact Il Sacrificio) ended up in the private collection of Francis Leveson-Gower, which a that time merged with the Bridgewater Collection of Pictures.

Apparantly Leveson-Gower was more than enough convinced of the importance of this small study for an altarpiece, to have it publicaly displayed in the famous Bridgewater Gallery.

It remained in the public collection until 1946, when it was sold to the unknown Seton. The painting emerged from anonymity in 2010, when it was spotted by "yours truly" in the collection of an American artdealer. The rest is history.

Below I have added a list, showing the (likely) chain of ownership of Il Sacrificio in the past 390 years.

Of course, it is fair to say, that the chain of ownership between Simon Vouet and Francis Leveson-Gower is based on assumptions, which are themselves based on facts (residence of persons involved, listings in catalogues, or registers of the time, etc).

I have no knowledge of the chain of ownership between Seton and Nierman. I'm told Nierman aqquired Il Sacrificio from a seller who found it an estate sale somewhere in the US.

I do however have sufficient evidence of Il Sacrificio having belonged to one of the most celebrated art collection ever to have excisted, for more than one hundred years!

Provenance list of Il Sacrificio: Probable and Certain

XL. Il Sacrificio, IRR-studies

On April 1, 2016, a high resolution Infra Red Reflectogram of Il Sacrificio, was made, at the offices of the RKD (Governmental Organisation for Arthistory) in The Hague, using an Opus Osiris IRR-camera.

The Osiris-scanned image (copyright RKD, The Hague) was subsequently upgraded to get a clear view at what turned out to be, a painted and not a drawn, sketch of the original composition.

Below I've added both a darker image and a lighter image of the Osiris IRR, both enhancing different layers of (lighter or darker pigments).

Opus Osiris IRR-image (corr. 1) copyright RKD, The Hague

Opus Osiris IRR-image (corr. 2) copyright RKD, The Hague

In the introduction I already noted that the long vertical white lines that light up through the infrared photo must have been created when the painted canvas was rolled up for transport.

We saw this also in another model (top piece) for the Roman altarpiece, according to the description by Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée of the estate of Simon Vouet from 1649.

Based on the IRR-images and the actual painting, I have also found several pentimenti and invenzioni that can be found in the infrared and in the final painting, but not in the Daret print.

I have also found several pentimenti and invenzioni that can be found in the infrared, but not in the final painting, and not in the Daret print.

A comparison of the underlying oil sketch (IRR image(s) with the painting surface (modello/disegno) and the Daret print leads to the following:

1. In the oil undersketch the right hand of the Virgin is not yet, or hardly, visible. It is however visible on the surface of the final painting, and in the print of Daret.

This suggests, that the oil undersketch is not a copy but a primary study;

2. At the bottom of the oil undersketch the shroud is not visible between the left part of Christ’s body and the left leg of the Virgin. In the final painting a shroud is seen, hanging between the leg and the left side of the upper body of Christ. This is also visible the picture of Daret.

This suggests, that the oilsketch is not a copy but an original study;

3. In the oil undersketch, on the left forearm of Christ shadow horizontal stripes (hatchings) are visible.

In the final painting, these stripes have disappeared, and the lower arm is painted narrower, because of the shadow that is applied.

In the Daret print Christ’s lower left arm is broad, but follows the shape of the final painting. However, unlike the oilsketch and the final painting, Daret shows a bulging triceps at the back of the arm, which is caused by a weird curve. This curve is missing on drawing and painting.

This suggests, that the oil undersketch and the paintings surface (the visible and final version) are not a copy of another artpiece, but both are original studies;

4. In the lower part of the oil undersketch, one can distinguish a sketch line, that outlined the original position of the left femur of Christ. It seems, that the position of the right leg of Christ has also been changed.

There is/are arched lines around the knee. In the painting we see the final version. The Daret print follows (unnatural though - see the weird arch in the left knee) the final painting.

5. In the oil undersketch, the white lady (between Christ and the Virgin), has two rather pointed breasts (both largely visible). In the final painting the left breast is nicely rounded. The inside of the right breast as well (pentimenti) .

In the Daret print only a small piece of left breast is visible. The rest is covered by a cloth. In the Chilly Mazarin painting both breasts are covered.

This too suggests, that the oil undersketch and the painting are not a copy of another artpiece, but are both an original study;

6. The apostle with the beard looks much stockier in the oilsketch, compared to the finished painting. In the latter he has a much thicker beard. Daret follows the final painting closely.

This suggests, that the oil undersketch is not a copy of another artpiece, but is an original study;

7. The apostle nearest to the tomb obviously is a woman, in both the oil undersketch and the final painting (see hairstyles and open neck and shoulders of the dress). In the Daret print this woman has become a man, with a “closed shoulders” garment.

This suggests, that the oil undersketch and the painting are not a copy of another artpiece, but are both an original study;

8. The position of the head of Mary Magdalene in the oilsketch and and the final painting, is alike. She looks at the torso of Christ.

In the Daret print she is focused on the hand of Christ. This suggests, that the oilsketch and the painting are not a copy of another artpiece, but are both an original study;

9. It is clearly visible, that the face of Mary Magdalene in the oil undersketch is not yet finished. One can see, that the face is “build up” and altered, and not simply copied.

Her face is clearly established through sketches and changes, but shows a typical Vouet face.

The face of Mary Magdalene in the Daret print is a bad copy of a Vouet face. This suggests, that the oilsketch and the painting are not a copy of another artpiece, but are both an original study;

10. The mouth of Mary Magdalene in the finished painting is the kind of mouth which Vouet frequently painted when he modelled Virginia da Vezzo – including the dimpled corners of the mouth.

The mouth in the Daret print is a failure, being too small and to much pouted. This suggests, that the oilsketch and the painting are not a copy of another artpiece, but are both an original study;

11. In the oilsketch and the final painting, the shoulder straps on the dress of Mary Magdalene are broad and attached to the sleeve of the gown. In the Daret print, the straps are narrow and there is bare skin visible on both sides.

12. The leaf-shaped left-pointing dark spot in the triangular shadow portion of the pink sleeve of Mary Magdalene is visible in the oilsketch, the final painting, but also in the Daret print. This leaf-shaped spot was originaly part of a larger leaf motif, which was later painted over.

It is thus not a retouching (which is confirmed when examined with ultra-violet light), but it is an over-painted dress ornamentation (compare dresses of Mary Magdalene in paintings by Caravaggio and Carlo Dolci).

This is clearly a pentimento which Daret could not have seen. Daret only saw the final version of the sleeve of the dress and copied it.

This suggests, that the oil undersketch is not a copy but an original study;

12. Near the rope around the waist of Mary Magdalene, there are no visible bulky folds in the cloth in the oilsketch and the final painting. The cord itself is slanted to the left.

In the Daret print however, around the cord there are five large folds visible, caused by the rope that runs upwards, not sideways to the left. This suggests, that the oilsketch and the final painting are no copies but that they are primary studies;

13. In the oil undersketch, and in the final painting only the right eye of Mary Magdalene is visible (en profil). The left eye is not shown; only in the Daret print.

This suggests, that the oilsketch and the final painting are no copies but that they are original studies, in accordance with the way Vouet painted some of his models en profil.

Worth mentioning is, that in the altarpiece of Chilly Mazarin (a mirror image of the same composition) Mary Magdalene’s right eye is not visible. She is painted like Vouet painted her in Il Sacrificio: en profil.

The painter left out the shoulderstrap in the Chilly Mazarin piece. The position of Mary Magadelene is the same, as in the oil undersketch and the final painting, with a focus on Christ’s torso.

In the altarpiece of Chilly Mazarin the second hand of the Virgin Mary (the hand next to the head of Christ) is not displayed, just like in oilsketch of our painting! It appears Vouet was not to happy with some of his original ideas.

14. In the oilsketch of the painting, the cloth which is placed on the tomb is rounded. In the final painting the cloth ends in a pleated point, like in the Daret print. The absence of these details in the oilsketch suggests, that we are not dealing with a copy of the Daret print.

15. In the oilsketch the sleeve of the pointing arm of the female apostle next tot the tomb has been extended. This is clearly a pentimento (a darker rectangle on the forearm visible).

The painting and the print only show the final sleeve length. In the oilsketch there are no folds visible on the sleeve. In the painting and print there are.

The absence of these details in the oilsketch suggests that we can not speak of a copy but that we are dealing with an original.

The alterations I have discussed above, suggest the following order in which oilsketch, finished modello/disegno, the Chilly Mazarin altarpiece and the Daret print have been produced:

1. Oilsketch (1625)

2. Finished modello/disegno (1625-1626)

3. Chilly Mazarin altarpiece (1631)

4. Daret print (1639)

XLI. Il Sacrificio, Traces of Gold

During the preparations for the making of Osiris IRR-images at the RKD in The Hague on April 1, 2016, Dr. M. Wolters and her assistant - observing the painting under a bright halogen lamp – discovered, what they thought were, small particles of a substance that looked like gold.

These particles were clearly located under the layer of varnish (not visible from the side) and seemed embedded in the surface of the paint itself. This observation came as somewhat of a shock!

Was this the work of a careless pictureframer? Had these traces been created recently, or during restaurations in the 18th or 19th century?

Or, did an anonymous guilder (around 1625-1626) spil some gold leaf, or drop his brush – thus leaving a small but visible trace of gold as a silent witness – on the (still wet or sticky) disegno/modello?

First of all, we had to rule out, that the gold had come of a new picture frame, constructed in 2012, which features a small, specially produced, guilded inner rim.

Luckely , in 2010, the owner had professional photographs made of Il Sacrifio. This blog starts with one of these pictures. As you can see, the "scratch" (now identified as gold flakes) is clearly visible.

The gold must therefore have landed on the painting before 2010 and not when the painting at a later date got a new frame.

Then of course, we had to adress the question, if the gold could have landed on the painting, during an earlier restauration, probably some hundred or two hundred years ago.

If so, one would expect, that the gold would be on top of the restaurations.

At the RKD we found clear evidence of painted craquelure, which is used to camouflage recently applied fresh paint. We then created digital images of this area of the painting, using a MACRO lens.

This gave us some clear close-ups which show, that not only some of the false craquelures are painted over the gold particles, but that the gold is also at some spots covered by the milky white and blue restauration paint.

In the unrestored part of the painting we can distinguish, that the gold has attached itself to the old painted surface.

In some areas the gold was devided by ancient cracks in the original paint layer, suggesting that the gold was already there, when the craquelure started. But if so, were did the gold come from?

Well, at the time when Vouet was there – designing and painting his large altarpiece in stuco – the interior of the new Choir Chapel, of which I've added an image below, was fully under construction.

Follow this link, and get a feel of the inside of the choir chapel:

http://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_pietro/vr_tour/Media/VR/St_Peter_Choir_Chapel/index.html

New Choir Chapel, St. Peter's Basilica (interior ca. 1624-1626)

During the crowded "Jubilee" of 1625-1626, two new organs were fitted, new choir stalls, carved ceilings, marble floors, guilded window frames and decorative columns were put in place, next to carved ceilings, the tomb of Sixtus IV, a bronze gate and finally a pedistal for Michelangelo's Pietà.

Many of the objects mentioned, were extensively guilded, and most of it was done on location, to prevent losing guilding when objects had to be installed.

New Choir Chapel, St. Peter's Basilica (ceiling detail)

Considering the unusual position of the gold particles on the present painting, it is more than likely, that somebody carrying a guilding brush, which would contain glue and gold particles, bumped into Vouet, when passing him by.

It is also possible, that some flakes of gold fell from the ceiling, as they were applied but did not stick, and hence, landed on Vouet's still unvarnished modello, as it lay or stood there.

Vouet himself may have tried to brush of the gold, rubbing it into the paint, perhaps due to the glue, which would have been used to fix the gold leaf to the walls or the ceiling.

Since the gold particles were later covered by varnish and some glazy paint due to smaller restaurations, they no longer glittered and were mistaken for a minor skratch or abrasion in the upper layer of varnish.

You can notice this “scratch” clearly – a 10 cm long stripe, slightly to the right above the right cross, going left – in the 2010 picture of Il Sacrificio, of which I've added a detail below.

Il Sacrifcio: detail showing traces of gold,
mistaken for a scratch in the surface

Below I've added some other digital photographs (made using a macro lens) of the traces of gold visible in Il Sacrificio.

The black vertical lines represent painted craquelure to hide restaurations to the painting. Some of the lines and the underlying new paint cover or run over the gold particles.

To the left (in the picture directly below), you can see a restored part of the painting (above the crosses). To the right (towards the rocky hill over the tomb) you see gold attached to the old paint layer.

In the second picture below this one, you can see more clearly, that the gold leave is not covered by the original paint but embedded in it.

Il Sacrificio: detail of traces of gold, shot with a macro lens

The gold stuck to the original paint and apparently remained there, even when the old varnish was removed and the painting was restored!

This must mean, the gold was brushed in to the original paint when the paint was still soft.

Il Sacrificio: enlarged detail of traces of gold
shot with a macro lens

During restauration some of the gold particles were rubbed in the old craquelures of original paint layer. These are the small gold lines following the craquelures. See the enlarged detail below.

However, in other spots you can see, that gold particles have split up, due to the forming of these craquelures suggesting the gold was there, before the cracking of the paint started!

In October 2016 we decided to research a larger part of the painting using a high resolution camera, which resulted in finding other traces of gold, at the bottom of the painting!

Il Sacrificio: Detail of the imposed folds in the shroud of Christ

The picture above shows a part of the shroud Christ is seated on. The picture below shows a "blow up" of the yellowish triangular fold in the shroud.

Il Sacrificio: Detail of the image above showing one of the super imposed folds
in the shroud (small gold particles now clearly visible, partly
painted over in brown, grey and white paint)

In this area, many of these gold particles - in the drapes on which Christ is seated - are covered with original paint, suggesting the gold landed there before the painting was finished!

What do we know for a fact?

At some point - during or shortly after finishing the painting, but before the painting was varnished for the first time - somenone left a gold trace on the painting.

It was most likely one of the guilders of the chapel ornaments who dropt a brush – used to affix the gold foil to the glued surface – or dropped some goldflakes, when brushing away excess gold foil, like you see in the image below.

Guilding ornaments (image from site: www. unisve.it)

I was told by expert guilder and restorer Mirjam Berntsen * that after guilding ornaments and ceilings she often is covered in goldflakes. They are easily brushed off of the ornament and fill the air, landing on almost everything.

* Berntsen Restauratie, Amersfoort, Netherlands.

This could explain how gold leaf landed on the modello, during the time when Vouet and the guilders both used the Chapel to work on there artpieces.

In my opinion we can rule out, that a later restorer or framer caused the gold traces. First of all, a restorer would not have needed gold to restor Il Sacrificio so why would he drop it in the first place?

Secondly, a restorer could have easily removed the gold, without damaging the painting underneath.

Even if the first varnish layer had been removed, the paint (more than one or two centuries old) would have been hardened enough to remove the gold particles, by dissolving the glue used to make the gold leaf stick.

Thirdly, the spots of gold in the shroud, are covered by original paint and not by later restauration paint. How would a restorer manage that?

And lastly: a framemaker would not have framed a painting that was still under construction.

The fact that the gold flakes in the lower part of the painting are underneath the original paint, underlines that Il Sacrificio was – as Dr. Wolters from the RKD argues – painted from the back to the front.

This meaning, that the gold landed on the painting, when the sky was finished but when the foreground was still under construction.

Had a framemaker accidently brushed gold onto the painting, then it would have ended up on top of the varnish. It could have easily have been removed. This too confirms, that the gold leaf must have landed on the painting, when the paint was still soft or sticky.

This would have meant, that the painter could not remove the gold, without damaging the painting. The painter therefore chose to leave these minor traces of gold in place, to save the painting as a whole.

The 18th/19th century restorer may have noticed these minute traces of gold.

But, since these were not part of a mistake the restorer had made - and were inbedded in the ancient paintlayers - the restorer left the painting as it was before restauration.

Do the traces of gold proof, that we are dealing with Simon Vouet himself?

To answer this question, we have to take into account, that Vouet worked on Il Sacrificio (model and stuco altarpiece) in the midst of 1625 until early 1626, during which the guilding of the new Choir Chapel was in full progress.

Proof of this coinciding of activities, can be found in the surviving Vatican records of payment to F. Naldini and G. Caslano of June 14 and August 8, 1625, for the guilding of the ceilings of the Choir Chapel and the new Sacristy.*

* see Pollak, p.228 and 229

We can safely assume, that the paint on Il Sacrificio had not yet hardened enough to varnish it. Even more likely; Vouet had not even finished Il Sacrificio.

Vouet may have created his model (partly) in situ i.e. on location, so he could best determine the direction and effect of the light on his artpiece.

Since Vouet had to use Il Sacrificio on site, Vouet would have taken his unvarnished model to work every day, or he would have left it at the site, when he went home after a long working day.

Any varnishing would have been done about one year after finishing the oilpainting it self. The oil paint first had to harden enough, so it wouldn't desolve when applying the varnish.

Based of physical evidence, I'm pretty sure that Vouet varnished Il Sacrificio after he had returned to France.

When the infrared images were made at the RKD in The Hague, we came across inexplicable vertical lines in the length of the painted canvas, underneath the varnish.

It is my firm believe, that Vouet - like many other painters did before him and after - rolled up his paintings, when he travelled home over the Alps.

Making their way to France over the mountains - carried by man or horse or coach - paintings on stretchers would have taken up to much space. An artist would therefore, role up his paintings and put them in a portable leather tube.

This explains, why we now find these vertical lines, were the paint was stretched, due to the rolling up of the canvas.

Keep in mind, that only an unvarnished painting can be rolled up safely. A varnished painting will crack, when it is rolled up and should not therefore not be taken from it's stretcher when transported!

There are no traces in the paintings surface, that would indicate, that the painting was rolled up, after it had been varnished.

An other reason why we must assume Il Sacrifio was not yet varnished when it came in contact with the gold leaf is, that the gold leaf could have easily been removed had the painting already been varnished. This is due to the non-sticky hard layer of varnish.

This means, the gold leaf must have landed on the painting, while Vouet was still working on this modello.

Vouet may have tried to take it of, or he may have left it there, since the small painting was just a modello/disegno, and not a painting for sale. Cleaning might have seriously damaged the painting itself, so Vouet must have taken the minute gold traces for granted.

Based on all the evidence, the explanation I have given for finding gold traces on an - at the time - unvarnished modello /disegno must be accurate, considering:

- that this modello/disegno must have been used on site, for the creation of Vouet's masterpiece: a stuco altarpiece for St. Peter's Basilica.

- that the new Choir Chapel was crowded with craftsman applying gold leaf on walls and ceilings, etc, when Vouet, or at least his modello/disegno, would have been there as well.

It seems, the traces of gold on Il Sacrificio have - for the first time - provided us with physical evidence of the thesis I formulated and started to research some 6 years ago.

The presence of gold leaf on Il Sacrificio proves, that the modello was actually in St. Peter's Basilica, during the time Vouet worked on his altarpiece.

There is no other logical explanation for the presence of gold leaf on any other model for an altarpiece Vouet has designed in his career. This also applies to the presence of gold on a copy of such a work!

This in it self confirms, that Vouet did start out painting a Pietà, using Il Sacrificio "in situ" as his model!

Around September 15, 1625, Vouet, was ordered to alter his designs for a second time; thus ending up painting a backdrop for Michelangelo's Pietà.

This explains the anger and feelings of insult Vouet demonstrated in his letters of complaint to the Vatican, sent May 10th, 1627.

It comes as no surprise, that Vouet subsequently left Rome in disillusion, when the Vatican made no serious offer to compensate Vouet for his efforts and his loss of face.

Hence, in 1627-1628 the French School was born!

XLII. Biblical references and Traces of Gold

When Pierre Daret in 1639 published the print based on Il Sacrificio, he engraved a compelling text underneath, which was clearly meant to explain what biblical image, or message, the painter wanted to depict.

I'm taking this side-step, because there is a remote possibility that the traces of gold on Il Sacrificio have been put there deliberately.

Were they meant to show yet an other part of the crucifixion and the foretold resurrection?

It is obvious – certainly not unlikely – that Daret's contractor Simon Vouet, himself was responsible for this written dedication (explanation) of his work.

Some surviving prints still carry this subtext, which reads as follows: " Et erit sepulchrum eius gloriosum" ... Isaja ...11 " This quote originates from the prophecies of Isaiah (11. 10), which can be found in the Old Testament.

The English translation would be (King James Bible) : "And his rest shall be glorious". This text clearly relates to the burial place of Christ; i.e. the tomb on the right of the painting.

We are left with a print that only shows the lower part of Vouet's altarpiece, since there is no printed version of the upper part of Vouet's altarpiece in St. Peter's.

Because of this, it's understandable that Vouet/Daret did not include a passage from Isaiah, that follows almost directly after:

" Et levabit signum in nationes et congregabit profugos Israhel et dispersos Iuda colliget a quattuor plagis terrae."

This quote form Isaiah 11.12 is translated as follows :

"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

This part of the prophecy tells of a "signum" or ensign, that will be erected and which will unite all dispersed tribes of Juda (Israel). Often the ensign is depicted as a flag with a cross emblem, or as a floating cross in the sky!

This part of the same prophecy clearly relates to the upper part of the Vouet altarpiece.

The floating cross, above a scene showing the passing of the spirit of Christ, matches the description Vouet gave of his final Vatican commission.

Although I'm still convinced, that larger parts of the gold leaf on Il Sacrificio landed there by accident, it is a fact that painters through the centuries have used shell gold* or gold leaf, to accentuate certain details in paintings (jewelry, halos, stars).

* i.e. finely grinded gold mixed with arabic gum, which can be applied like a paint .

Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669) even painted some portraits on an underlayer of gold, so the painted hairs would glow, where the paint had been partly skratched away.

In the case of Il Sacrificio, one could argue, that the trace of gold we see (if it should be "shell gold") is in fact a shooting star - possibly badly removed by the painter, or during a later restoration.

Art restorer Mirjam Berntsen suggested, that this golden line could very well have been applied with a brush, rather than having landed their by accident.

The faint light blue paint around the beginning of the tail (on the right, were the meteor itself would be) seems to represent the light coming from the bright shooting star.

We must keep in mind, that the shooting star would have been larger and therefore, more visible, in the final 3 m X 7 m altarpiece.

Next question would be: Is there a biblical basis for a shooting star in the story of the Passion and it's aftermath? There is! According to the Gospel of Matthew 24-29 (King James Bible), following the crucifixion and before the resurrection, the stars will fall from heaven. Matthew 24-29 reads:

"…Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give its light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken…"

Vouet would have studied the biblical texts - or as a Catholic, he may have already known them by heart - when he first tried to translate his Vatican assignment into an image.

When we now observe the complete altarpiece Vouet conceived (lower and upper part), we find from bottom to top:

1. Empty crosses, signifying the past crucifixion;

2. The mother Mary and her child Jesus, signifying the sacrifice of the mother, and the sacrifice of the son;

3. A shooting star in an eclipsed sky, signifying the dark period after the crucifixion, before the resurrection;

4. A cross (signum), which is carried to heaven, signifying the victory over death, i.e. the resurrection and the gathering of the tribes of Israel.

When we embrace the possibility, that the painter of Il Sacrificio had the knowledge and took the time, to conceive the masterpiece described here (with the components 1 up to and including 4), we must conclude, that a master painter painted Il Sacrificio.

A copyist would probably not have known the hidden meaning of two crosses (in stead of three), a shooting star, the absence of Instruments of the Passion, etc.

A copyist lacks the knowledge and originality of the inventor. We have seen this with Daret in the 1639 print.

Daret wrongfully placed a crown of thorns on the side of the tomb, since Vouet had clearly decided that the crown of thorns was not to be shown in the lower part of the altarpiece.

It was already depicted in the upper part of the altarpiece, being carried to heaven with the other Instruments of the Passion.

It is the absence or presence of these details, that give away a copyist, or ..... show the hand of the master.

XLIII. The drawing of the Maria Sobieska funeral

In paragraph XI, I already mentioned a drawing made around 1735 from the funeral of Maria Clementina Sobieska.

This drawing was reproduced in a 1975 article by Erich Schleier on the lost altarpiece by Simon Vouet.

When I wrote paragraph XI, almost a year ago, I only owned a weak reprint, used by Louisa Rice in her extensive work on the altarpieces of St. Peter's in Rome.

Hence, I did not use this image, due to lack of detail.

Recently however, I thought it might be wise, to acquire all three articles by Schleier, as they originally appeared in the Burlington Magazine.

Having done this - so I could study the whole articles - I soon found out, that the images of the Sobieska drawing revealed the real treasure. What I had not seen before, I now saw very clearly!

Behind the Saint - seated at the right of the altarpiece, seen from a viewpoint of the spectator - one can distinguish the outlines of a tomb: a tomb with a keystone placed diagonally over it!

Below I've added a detail of the detailed image I used in paragraph XI. To point the reader in the right direction, I've circled the location of the outlines of the tomb.

Funeral of Maria Sobieska: pencil drawing (detail)

Keep in mind - Erich Schleier already concluded this - that the representation of the altarpiece itself, was probably based on memory, since the artist clearly focussed on the funeral proceedings and not on the truthfullness of the background.

The artist clearly had difficulty, reproducing the tomb in the right location.

This explains, why one can see a part of the topside of the tomb over Mary's right shoulder. Later the tomb was drawn further to her left.

Due to lack of accuracy, the keystone is drawn bigger, in comparison to the side of the tomb on which it rests.

The bending corner of the tomb (far to the right of the image) has clearly been rubbed out, since this corner would have been further to the left - almost behind the Pietà statue itself.

Anyway: we found clear evidence of the depiction of a tomb. A tomb just like the one in Il Sacrificio!

This finding confirms, that Vouet used this particular composition (Il Sacrificio) and not some other composition for the roman Pietà.

It also proves, that Daret made a "one on one"copy of Il Sacrificio and not a mirrored image.

The reason why no one ever indentified these lines as a tomb with a keystone is that, no one has ever before connected the 1639 Daret print, i.e. a copy of Il Sacrificio, to the Vatican commission of 1625!

Nobody knew, that Vouet had actually devised a Pietà, with a tomb, and angels above it, carrying the Instruments of the Passion, just like the one Annibale Carrachi had painted years before.

This means, that we can now safely conclude, that Vouet did in fact start to paint his own Pietà (Il Sacrificio) in St. Peter's church, before he was ordered to create a backdrop for Michelangelo's Pietà.

This means Il Sacrificio was in fact used as a modello/disegno for and in the most important church of christianity.

The change of contract at such a late time, would also more than explain the anger and grief Vouet clearly felt, when he made his complaints known to his contractors and afterward left for France.

XLIV. Il Sacrificio and the Hovingham modello connected

Of course I already discussed extensively the possibility of a link between Il Sacrificio and Hovingham modello.

I suggested that the two compositions are complementary and together form the contract for the New Chapel Choir chapel in St. Peter's Basilica.

I pointed out, that the two crosses in Il Sacrificio are completed by the one floating cross in the Hovingham modello.

I noted the absence of Instruments of the Passion (the column, the lance, the ladder, the crown of thorns, the veil of Veronica, etc.) in Il Sacrificio, where one would expect these details in a classical Pietà image.

I pointed out however, that these "Mysteries of the Passion" are present in the Hovingham modello, and therefore in the greater composition.

I also – with the invaluable input from Sir William Worsley – established, that the Hovingham modello, being a study for an altarpiece, arrived in Great Britain together with an other study for an altarpiece. Was this Il Sacrificio?

We know, that both compositions are (originally) by Simon Vouet, and that both images are considered studies for altarpieces which not, or no longer, exist.

Both paintings ended up in Great Britain and both ended up in private collections of the highest importance. It seems that their artistic connection is undisputed. But, having said all this, I still could not physically connect the two painting.

I needed to find something - a detail - that could be found in both paintings; a detail, which would justify stating that both paintings originated from the same source. Well, I think I may have found such a detail!

Recently, I was again studying the infrared images of Il Sacrificio made by the RKD in The Hague.

All of a sudden I noticed something in the upper part (slightly to the left) of the painting, resembling a cilinder, rising up from left to right in a 45० position.

I must admit, due to circumstances the details are vague, but I strongly believe I'm not suffering from scoptoma (the mind makes you see, what you want to see).

I immediately made the connection with the Hovingham modello, which also shows a column on the left, which represents the pillar to which Christ was chained, when the roman soldiers scourged him.

I decided to create the following overlapping "printscreen image" of both columns, so one can compare both images.

Printscreen of Hovingham modello (detail) and Il Sacrificio infrared (detail).

Arrows indicating top and bottom of both columns

I'm the first to admit, that I could be biased due to the fact, that this is my investigation. However, you must also consider, I'm taking quite a high risk presenting you with these findings.

My integrity and my relative expertise in the field could suffer quite a large blow, if this part of my investigation would be considered rubbish.

If one is willing to except, that Il Sacrificio does show a preparatory sketch of "Christ's column born to heaven", we can draw some interesting conclusions.

First of all, it could proof, that Vouet involved the murals of the Sistine Chapel, painted by Michelangelo himself, in his conception, since the torture column is also visible in the right top corner of Michelangelo's "Judgment Day", painted in fresco on the altar wall of this famous chapel.

Michelangelo, The last Judgment (1534-1541)

Vouet surely must have seen this extraordinary work, when he visited the Vatican working on his own masterpiece.

Knowing of the link between Vouet’s commission and the work of his famous predecessor, it must come as no surprise, that Vouet borrowed some of his ideas, like the depiction of the Instruments of the Passion.

Michelangelo: Final Judgment (detail: Christ Column)

Vouet from the start tried to combine the earthly misery with the devine glory.

Just like in Michelangelo's wall-filling painting of the “Last Judgement”(1536-1541) and in Annibale Carracci's "Deposizione con la Vergine e i Santi" (1585).

Both of which were, without a doubt, inspiration to Vouet's "Sacrificio, qual Dio Padre riceve...."

Apparently Vouet at first tried to fit the ascending of the Instruments of the Passion, into the small sized Il Sacrificio; his first modello.

At some point, maybe already in the early fases of conception, Vouet decided, that the depiction of the glory would not fit in the same 35 x 45 cm modello.

He therefore rubbed out the sketched column - pentimento - and afterward created a separate painting for the lunette, or upper part of his altarpiece; thus creating the Hovingham modello.

Fortunately, Vouet kept the column in place in the Hovingham modello. This is why we can now compare Il Sacrificio and the Hovingham modello and conclude, that both must have been painted by the same artist.

They proof to have been part of and the same composition - i.e the 1625-1626 commission for the new Choir Chapel of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome!

XLV. Treaty between France and the Vatican

In the preceding paragraphs I have not really focused on the reason why Vouet at such a late time - while painting his own Pietà, i.e. Il Sacrificio - was forced to give up his dream and was made to accept, that his painting was to become the backdrop for the Pietà statue by Michelangelo.

I did however in 2013 come across an incident in history, that could explain, why Vouet's star suddenly fell, which led him to lose his most precious commission ever. Although a unprofen thesis, I have decided to share it with you.

It is conceivable that there was a political motive for revoking or adjusting the final contract of Vouet in September 1625.

In the months prior to the Vatican’s decision to place the Pietà statue in front of Vouet’s altarpiece – which was communicated by Cardinal Del Monte to Vouet after 15 September 1625 – fruitless negotiations had taken place in Paris, between Francesco Barberini (nephew of Pope Urban VIII) on behalf of the Vatican and Cardinal Richelieu on behalf of French king Henry XIII.

Negotiations took place, because of an international dispute over a strategic valley in Northern Italy.

In 1624, the French – de facto at war with Spain – had occupied Valtelline, a valley in Northern Italy, which was under the influence of the King of Spain, but which had been occupied for the Spaniards by the Vatican armies.

Valtelline, in Northern Italy, was of great importance to the communications between the Spanish and Austrian branches of the House of Habsburg (the kingdom of Philip IV of Spain).

The Sforza family had ceded the territory to the Grison family, but due to this arangement, there were religious conflicts due to Valtelline natives being Catholic and their Grison liege lords being Protestant.

Seeing an opportunity, the Spanish incited a revolt in Valtelline and eventually controlled the valley.

Realizing the danger, in 1623 an alliance was forged between Venice, the Duke of Savoy, and the King of France, to (re-) capture this strategic position.

Spain tried to maintain peace by allowing the Papacy, over which they had great influence, to control Valtelline. France did nothing as the Papal troops of Gregory XV established control over Valtelline. Gregory XV was soon afterwards succeeded by Pope Urban VIII.

With the ascendancy of First Minister Cardinal Richelieu, French policy changed. It claimed, that – due to the alliance between them and the Duke of Savoy – it had to help Savoy which was attacking Genoa, by attacking Valtelline.

Philippe de Champaigne: Armand du Plessis, Cardinal de Richelieu (1637-1642)

In 1624, French troops quickly expelled Papal troops from the valley. The irony of a Cardinal attacking the troops of a Pope was not lost on Rome, Spain, and ultra-Catholics in France.

Urban VIII sent Cardinal Francesco Barberini (1597-1679), his nephew, as legate to Paris to seek peace in 1625. Francesco Barberini was also authorized by Spain to negotiate a peace on behalf of Phillipe IV.

Ottavio Leoni: Cardinal Francesco Barberini (1624)

Negotiations took place from March until September 1625.

The negotian attempts by Francesco Barberini focused on stopping the fighting, receiving compensation for insults against the Pope because of the French invasion of Valtelline, and providing for the safety of the Catholics in the valley by not letting the Grisons regain control of the valley.

Barberini left, without getting any response from Richelieu!

Although the Vatican negotiator received some valuable tapestries from Louis XIII – as a token of good will towards the Pope – it is most likely, that the Vatican wanted to sent a message to the French government, that this insult to the Pope and to one of his most important prelates was not taken lightly.

Richelieu told his king Louis XIII, to summon an Assembly of the Notables at Fontainebleau. Richelieu spoke in favor of an advantageous peace, which the wide majority agreed to.

Eventually, the Pope raised another 6000 troops to retake Valtelline.

This led the Count du Fargis, the French ambassador to Madrid, to conclude peace quickly with the Spanish, on 1 January 1626.

Richelieu dismissed this treaty and a new one, the Treaty of Monçon was signed at Monçon, Aragon, on 5 March 1626.

The treaty provided for the protestant Grisons to rule over Valtelline. However, it made it so that no religion other than Roman Catholicism was allowed in the valley.

Also, the Valtelline people could elect their own magistrates and judges, though subject to the approval of the Grisons.

Forts in Valtelline also had to be demolished. Lastly, the Valtelline people had to pay the Grisons an annual tribute to be agreed on later.

Notably, this treaty did not stipulate who could use the passes in Valtelline. Instead, it granted equal rights to the passes to both France and Spain.

It is not unlikely, that Vouet fell victim to the diplomatic clash between France and the Vatican over Valtelline, thus losing his favoured position as one the Pope’s chosen painters.

This would explain why it was Richelieu himself, who summoned Vouet to return to France to become courtpainter to Louis XIII.

Perhaps the powerful Spanish vaction within the Vatican, had used it’s influence, to insure, that Vouet’s commission was altered in such a way, that it would become an insult to the French nation.

I’m not sure the Pope himself endorsed the way Vouet was treated, since the Barberini family was known to be liberal and favorable of the French instead of the Spanish.

Francesco Barberini would later become the church’s Great Inquisitoir, but in 1633 he was one of three members of the Inquisition’s heresy trial who stood against condemning Galileo Galilei.

XLVI. Il Sacrificio, Epilogue

Recently - in paragraph XLI - a "link" was added to the official site of the Vatican, which will enable desktop/tablet users to virtually "walk" through the Chapel of the Choir.

The chapel has not been changed since is it was constructed, in the years (1625-1626) when Vouet delivered his altarpiece for this important chapel.

The original guilding on walls and ceiling is still present, and the current altarpiece is in the same possition - and of the same size - as the one Vouet painted in 1625-1626.

The only objects missing, are the relocated bronze tomb by Pollaiuolo and the marble Pietà by Michelangelo.

An other addition I want to make to this blog is, that I've not been alone in this quest.

From february 2014 - when I visited Vouet expert Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée at his residence in Paris - some highly respected art experts, lead by Mr. Brejon de Lavergnée, have studied my findings, now and than asking questions, or giving advice.

I was told, that the information I have provided is highly interesting and will be recorded in the Vouet monography, which Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée is currently writing, together with Barbara Brejon de Lavergnée, Alain Mérot and Veronique Meyer.

If (I prefer when) my thesis is judged correctly - Il Sacrificio hopefully will appear as a central piece in the monography Brejon de Lavergneé c.s. are writing on Simon Vouet.

Most recentely I was informed by Mr. Brejon, that he has finished writing his notes on Vouet's commission for St. Peter's in Rome and that he will grant me access to his notes, shortly.

In june 2020 I was asked to write a concice provenance and literature review on Il Sacrificio, which will be added to the discussion of the altarpiece for St. Peter's Basilica.

I think, you will understand, that I find this kind gesture most exciting and that I'm looking forward to reading, what the experts have concluded with regard to my findings.

Meanwhile I have little doubt – based on my own findings and my correspondence with Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée, Sylvain Laveissière, Sir William Worsley and Aidan Weston-Lewis – that Il Sacrificio can be considered the key painting of Simon Vouet's career.

This small disegno (with the Hovingham Modello) is the only surviving evidence of a pivoting moment in Vouet's career - and in the development of French art.

Vouet's successive return to France in 1627 is commonly considered the birth of the École Française. This interpretation of art history, adds great art historical value to this little painting.

Of almost equal importance was my discovery - based on many traces of gold we found - that Il Sacrificio must have been used as a modello, or even (partly) has been painted within the walls of St. Peter's Basilica.

Furthermore I have established - without a doubt - that Il Sacrificio belonged to the infamous Bridgewater Collection of Pictures, for more than one hundred years (ca 1830-1946).

I've shown, that Il Sacrificio must have been much appreciated by the renowned art critics of the 19th century (Waagen and Jameson).

And, that it was chosen by the Earl of Ellesmere personally, to represent the Bridgewater Collection of Pictures at the famous Manchester Art Exhibition of 1857.

To give you an idea of the historical importance of the small altar sketch, I've added a paragraph below, in which I've listed a variety of illustrious people who saw, or most likely saw, Il Sacrificio in person in the past (almost) 400 years.

XLVII. Il Sacrificio, Illustrious spectators

Here's a list of illustrious persons who most likely saw Il Sacrificio in person in the past (almost) 400 years:

17th century, Italy

Pope Urban VIII (Maffeo Barberini, 1568-1644), since Il Sacrificio was the (altered version of the) first and most important commission for an altarpiece, handed out by Urban VIII himself during the construction of New Saint Peters Basilica. Being an artlover and benefector of the French faction within the Vatican, Urban VIII would certainly have known, if not seen, the disegno’s for the altarpieces he had ordered.

Francesco Barberini (1597-1679), nephew to Pope Urban VIII (Maffeo Barberini), and chairman of the Congregazione della Reverenda Fabbrica, who o behalf of H.H. the Pope supervised the adornment of St. Peters Basilica.

Cardinal Francesco Maria del Monte i.e. Francesco Maria Bourbon del Monte Santa Maria (1549-1627) was an important openly pro-french churchprelate and diplomat. He was protected Galileo Galilei and patroned Caravaggio, but also patroned Gerrit van Honthorst (Gerardo delle notti) and Simon Vouet*.

*L. Zirpolo, Historical Dictionary of Renaissance Art, p. 168

Cardinal Del Monte was an important member of the Reverenda Fabbrica and patron of the Academia di San Luca.

He acted as the official intermediary between the Pope and Vouet, when Vouet between March 1624 en September 1625 received orders* to paint “un altra historia per accompagnare La Pietà di Michel Angelo”.

*O. Pollak, Die Kunsttätigkeit unter Urban VIII, Die Peterskirche, p. 231

Del Monte definitely was the intermediary when, in September 1625, Vouet was ordered to quickly finish his altarpiece*, so the marble Pietà could be placed in the new Choir Chapel. He must have seen Il Sacrificio and the full scale altarpiece in the making.

*O. Pollak, p. 232

17th century, France

King Louis XIII (1601-1643), when he would visit the artist in his studio in the Louvre. The King received drawing lessons from Simon Vouet, his Court Painter.

Queen/Regent Anne of Austria (1601-1666), widow of Louis XIII and mother of Louis XIV, who ordered several large paintings (ceilings etc.) for the royal palace at Chateau de Saint- Germain-en-Laye.

It is to be expected that she, like her late husband visited the artist to inform about his works and his school of artists.

Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu (1585-1642), i.e. Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu et de Fronsac (1585-1642), “First Minister” and advisor of Louis the XIII and Anne of Austria.

Richelieu personnaly ordered Simon Vouet’s return to France in 1627 . These orders may have been a direct political respons to the Vatican’s insulting treatment of France’s leading painter of that time (the relocation of Michelangelo’s Pieta, placing it in front of Vouet’s own Sacrificio).

Fellow artists like Guido Reni, Pietro da Cortona, Nicolas Poussin, Gian Lorenzo Bernini and others may have seen Il Sacrificio, when they themselves were working on their altarpieces in St. Peter’s during 1625-1626.

Since Il Sacrificio remained in the possession of Simon Vouet when he returned to France, other artists related to Vouet, like Francois Perrier, Pierre Daret de Cazeneuve, Michel Dorigny and Francois Tortebat must have seen this model.

Some – like Jacques de Letin, who was in Rome when Vouet was there – seem to have been directly inspired by it. The image below is undoubtedly connected to Il Sacrificio.

Jacques de Létin (1597-1661): Deploration Musee des Beaux Arts Reims

It is clear, that Il Sacrifio was of special importance to the painter himself. There is sufficient evidence to substantiate, that Vouet kept Il Sacrificio, when he returned to France in 1627.

We know this, because Il Sacrificio was used (at least once) as a model for another altarpiece (Chilly-Mazarin) and it was copied by engraver Pierre Daret de Cazeneuve in 1639, by orders of Vouet himself.

18th century, Italy

Louis (Ludovico) Dorigny (1654-1742), grandson of the painter.

Louis, who is best known under his Italian name Ludovico, most likely in 1693-1697 used Il Sacrificio, as a model for the murals he painted, for the Cappella dei Notai, Palazzo delle Ragione, Verona (It.)

Gavin Hamilton (1723-1798). Scottish neoclassical history painter, archaeologist and art dealer/art collector, from 1744 took up residence in Italy, visiting Naples and Venice.

Knowing Gavin Hamilton was a vivid art dealer – his Madonna of the Rocks by Leonardo da Vinci, nowadays adorns the National Gallery of London - it is not unlikely, he came across the collection of pictures of the late Louis Dorigny, in Verona.

I have shown, that the main characters in Hamilton’s picture of Achilles lamenting the death of Patroclus bare a stiking resemblance to those depicted in Il Sacrificio.

We know Gavin Hamilton sold several famous artpieces to his distant relative, sir William Hamilton British Ambassador to the Kingdom of Naples, who is likely to have brought Il Sacrificio from Italy to Britain, in the 1770’s.

Sir William Hamilton (1730-1803), British Ambassador to the Kingdom of Naples from 1764 to 1800.

An artdealer/artcollector, archaeologist and vulcanologist, Hamilton used his time on the mainland of Italy to buy old paintings and other artifacts, some of which he sold or gave to the nobility back home.

From Naples he brought several pictures by the Carracci’s and other painters. It is likely that Hamilton acquired “the two sketches for altars”* from Gavin Hamilton, on his visits to Gavin Hamilton in Rome. William Hamilton also stayed at Gavin Hamilton’s villa in Rome, on his return to England, in 1800.

* handwritten catalogue Thomas Worsley of Hovingham Hall, Hovingham Hall, ca. 1770

The oil sketch depicting the upper part of the altarpiece – which has since been identified as an autograph Simon Vouet – he sold to Lord Thomas Worsley.

William Hamilton must have kept the oil sketch, which depicted the lower part of the St. Peter altarpiece – i.e. Il Sacrificio – until his death in 1803.*

*Afterwards Il Sacrificio must have ended up in the possession of his heir, Charles Greville.

19th century, Great Britain

Vice-Admiral Horation Nelson (1758-1805), 1st Viscount Nelson, 1st Duke of Bronté who, at Merton Place, Merton, Surrey, lived in a ménage a trois with Sir William Hamilton and Hamilton’s second wife Emma Hamilton (né Hart), who became Nelson’s mistress.

We may assume, that Lord Nelson saw Il Sacrificio at his shared residence of Merton Place, or on his visits to William and Emma Hamilton’s leased residence in Piccadilly, London.

Arthur Wellesley (1769-1852), 1st Duke of Wellington, who commanded the English Army, that defeated Napoleon in the Battle of Waterloo (1815), with great support from William II, Prince of Orange.

Young Francis Egerton, 1st Earl of Ellesmere, became protégé and friend of Wellington.

No doubt Wellington must have seen the famous Bridgewater Collection of Pictures, and thus Il Sacrificio, when he visited his noble protégé, at his residence at Bridgewater House, London.

Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1819-1901), who is known to have stayed with the Earl of Ellesmere and his wife in 1851 and also in june 1857, at their residence at New Worsley Hall, Worsley, Lancanshire.

Queen Victoria, visiting the Earl of Ellesmere, 1851

It is more than likely that the Queen also made one or more visits to the infamous Bridgewater Gallery, at Bridgewater House the London residence of the Earl of Ellesmere.

On May 5th, 1857 – due to a death in the family, not the Queen, but her husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1819-1861), opened the Manchester Art Treasures Exhibition of Great Britain at Old Trafford, Manchester.

There, Il Sacrificio was exhibited as one of the paintings lent to the Exhibition by the late 1st Earl of Ellesmere, who had died on february 18th , 1857, only months before the opening of the great Exhibition.

The Queen visited the Art Exhibition twice – ceremonially on the 29th of june, and privately on the 30th of june, 1857. During her visit to Manchester the royal couple stayed with Harriet Catherine Egerton, widow of the late 1st Earl of Ellesmere, at the Egerton residence, New Worsley Hall, Worsley, Lancashire.

Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1819-1861), prince-consort to Queen Victoria. The Prince co-founded the Manchester Art Treasures Exhibition of 1857.

Prince Albert and the 1st Earl of Ellesmere - who was the first chairman of the organizing committee - closely discussed the organization and arrangement of the Exhibition, which Prince Albert officially opened.

Needless to say Prince Albert most likely visited Bridgewater House, and thus Bridgewater Gallery. Of course he also must have seen Il Sacrificio as (nr. 316) when he opened the Manchester Art Exhibition on may 5th, 1857.

Among the other visitors to the famous Manchester Art Exhibition of 1857 were:

- Napoleon III (Charles-Louis-Napoleon), Emperor of France;
-  Sophie of Württemberg, Queen of the Netherlands;
-  Leopold I, King of Belgium;

-  Henry J. Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, Prime Minister;
-  Benjamin Disraeli, future Prime Minister;
-  William Ewart Gladstone, future Prime Minister;
-  Arthur Richard Wellesley, 2nd Duke of Wellington
soldier / politician (son of the Victor of Waterloo);

- Charles Dickens, celebrated English writer of famous novels like Oliver Twist, A Christmas Carol, The Pickwick Papers,etc;

- Alfred Lord Tennyson, Poet Laureate of Great Britain and Ireland;

- Florence Nightingale, social reformer and statistician and the founder of modern nursing;

- Elizabeth Gaskell, English novelist, biographer, short story writer;

- John Ruskin, leading English art critic of the Victorian era;

- Nathaniel Hawthorne, American art patron/artist, philanthropist;

- Maria Mitchell, American astronomer, She was the first American woman to work as a professional astronomer.

This summary is by no means complete, but it does show, what unexpected journeys a piece of art can make over the centuries, provided it is not lost or destroyed, or remains in one private collection from creation to present.

Franz Xaver Winterhalter: Napoleon III ( 1855)

Update April 2019

In 2010 I started off with my research, having no idea where it would lead me. I could never have imagined, that I would come this far in what at first seemed a "wild goose chase".

But, experts from many different countries supported my findings. They also came up with their own ideas on the subject and presented their own findings.

Mr. Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée especially, gave me a lot of support and encouraged me to keep on digging.

This great French art historian was even prepared to take sides with me, when some of his colleagues earlier suggested, that my thesis on the subject/depiction of Il Sacrificio was probably incorrect.

However, I'm still awaiting a formal attribution of Il Sacrificio. The opinion of the expert is indispensable!

I was recently informed by Mr. Brejon de Lavergnée, that the catalogue raisonné on Simon Vouet will appear around 20222 and that I needn't worry.

Update September 2019

I came across a beautiful 17th century engraving by Michel Dorigny - Simon Vouet's son in law - showing a lost altarpiece of an Assomption de la Vierge. It was created for the Abbey of Pont-Aux-Dames, just out of Paris, and which is now a retirement home for artists.

I published images of the whole engraving and the subtitle in paragraph XIV under C. (Visit to "St. Nicolas-des-Champs", Paris).

In my opinion this altarpiece was conceived, when Vouet was still influenced by designs he had made during his Italian period - which are clearly reflected for instance in the altarpiece of St. Nicolas-des-Champs.

It seems Il Sacrificio was used as a basis for these altarpieces, when we look at the pigments used, the and the features of the persons depicted. The two images below are details from the Pot-Aux-Dames altarpiece print.

Michel Dorigny, after Simon Vouet (1630's):
Assomption de la Vierge (detail 1)

Michel Dorigny, after Simon Vouet (1630's):
Assomption de la Vierge (detail 2)

Both the faces of the Virgin Mary (in the heaven) and the Mary Magdalene (looking into the empty tomb) seem to have been directly derived from the Mary Magdalene depicted in Il Sacrificio.

Update October 2019

Recently I updated paragraph XIV under C. (Visit to "St. Nicolas-des-Champs", Paris), because of the finding of an engraving of the altarpiece of Pont-Aux-Dames, which (in style) bears resemblance to Il Sacrificio.

Today I added to the same paragraph an image of the preparatory ink drawing for the 1629 altarpiece of St. Nicolas-des-Champs. It appears that this drawing was made during Vouet's stay in Italy.

This would explain why the 1629 altarpiece is still closely connected (composition, colors and chiaroscuro) to Italy, rather than to France. I elaborated on this issue in paragraph XIV under C.

Since Il Sacrificio - and the Hovingham modello - bear the same Italian "signature", I have found yet an other compelling argument to date Il Sacrificio to the period before 1627 - Vouet's return to France.

Follow up October 2019

In paragraphs XXXV and XXXVI it was necessary to add some newly found information.

First I found, that in 1810 the dispersal of goods of the deceased Charles Francis Greville - a nephew of William Hamilton - took place at Christie's and Manson, London. A painting of two children teasing a cat by Annibale Carracci - now in the MET Museum in New York, was auctioned during that sale.

Could "GD" on the verso of Il Sacrificio mean Greville dispersal? If so, this marking would then also be visible on the Annibale Carracci. I asked for information from the MET, but did'nt get a reply yet.

Furthermore, I came across the saved correspondence between William Hamilton and Charles Francis Greville.

In his letters of 1776, Hamilton mentions "the two sketches by Luca Jordano (Giordano)" ergo by one and the same painter (just like in our case), which he sends to his nephew, with other paintings of various masters.

Did Hamilton attribute the origin of the two paintings to a lesser painter, in order to facilitate their export from Italy, or did Hamilton mistake two sketches by Vouet for sketches by Giordano?

Strangely enough, neither Hamilton, nor Greville (alive or deceased) sold any "sketch" by Giordano, before or after 1776 in auction. Could this mean the two pictures were "given" to other painters, when they arrived in Britain?

Did they become a Llanfranco (Hovingham modello) and a Lodovico Carracci (A Pietà: a study for an altarpiece), because this upped the price?

It is a fact that painters of the "later" Italian school were considered degenerate and less worthy, than the "old masters", who's names were wrongfully applied to many a painting.

Below you find a quote taken directly from Anna Jameson's "Companion" of 1844, which says it all.

Anna Jameson: Companion to the most celebrated private galleries
of art in Great Britain, 1844, General Introduction XXVII.

What ever the case, fact is that the Hovingham modello and Il Sacrificio remain connected, by more than just their author.

Update January 2020

This is a very important update. We now know for the first time with certainty, that the painting in the Bridgewater Gallery (Lodovico Carracci, Pietà: A study for an altarpiece) was in fact Il Sacrificio.

We - for the first time - have a drawing by an eyewitness who was at the Art Treasures Exhibition of Manchester 1857 and who confirms, that Il Sacrificio must be the same painting as the Ellesmere Pietà.

In addition to the image, the measurements taken by the eyewitness also correspond. Last but not least the eyewitness confirms that this is "A Lamentation of the circle of Simon Vouet, exhibited as an Entombment by Lodovico Carracci".

The eyewitness is none other than Sir George Scharf (1820-1895) artist and art historian, who would later become the first director of the National Portrait Gallery.

Spread over a number of sketchbooks, Scharf - organisor and supervisor of the "ancient masters" section of the exhibition - not only mapped where the paintings in the exhibition catalog were hanging, but he also drew the most interesting ones.

These Scharf Sketchbooks are accessible to the public, since 2019, via the database of the National Portrait Gallery.

I found them by chance, when I was actually looking for a better picture of the 1857 exhibition.

This new information not only confirms that Il Sacrificio was in the Bridgewater Gallery from 1830 until 1946.

It also proves without a doubt, that Il Sacrificio was part of the world-famous Art Treasures Exhibition of Manchester 1857, as one of Great Britain's art treasures of the time!

Next to that, we also have yet an other written source – in addition to publications by the Art Union, Gustav Waagen, Anna Jameson and Casimir Stryienski – that discusses Il Sacrifico as an important part of the Bridgewater Gallery, this time even completed with an image and the measurements.

In paragraph XVIII, I have processed this extremely important new information - with images - and added links to the relevant web pages of the National Portrait Gallery.

Update April-July 2020

In recent months, Mr Brejon and myself have discussed the results of my research.

I even received written congratulations for my "gigantic work".

My research was considered so complex however, that Mr. Brejon asked me to send him a summary, which he could then process in his note on St. Peter's Basilica.

On June 29, 2020 I again received congratulations, this time for my nine page resumé of May 11, 2020, which I had accompanied by many photos (both infrared and X-ray).

Mr Brejon wrote, that he had now completed his notes on St. Peter’s. He asked, that I send him a brief, concise note on the provenance and literature reference of Il Sacrificio, without comment.

Mr Brejon stated that the elaboration of the provenance will be incorporated in his note accompanying the painting. All this will be included in the forthcoming Catalogue Raisonné on Simon Vouet.

As an example for me, Mr. Brejon suggested No. 6 from the exhibition catalog "Vouet (au Grandpalais)", 1990-1991, J. Thuillier and others).

On July, 3, 2020 I finished my notes on provenance and literature and sent them to Mr. Brejon. Since then, I was informed, that Mr. Brejon has finished his notes on St. Peter's Basilica.

In September I received word, that Mr. Brejon has turned over his notes to co-author, Dr. Alain Mérot - Professeur émérite at the Sorbonne University - who will make corrections where necessary.

I'm assured these corrections don't concearn my findings, but solely Mr. Brejon's concept text.

As you can see, the last few months have shown a lot of progress!!

Due to the scale of the work, Mr Brejon stated that the publication date of the Catalogue Raisonné on Simon Vouet is te be expected in 2022-2023.

Update October 2020

This is about an important addition to the introduction and to section XL.

Sometimes by rereading literature you discover certain information that is of great value to your research, but that you have previously overlooked.

This is the case with the white vertical lines visible in the Osiris IRS photographs of Il Sacrificio, included in section XL.

I had long suspected that those lines / folds could have been caused by the rolling up of the freshly painted canvas for transportation purposes.

Well, when rereading passages in the Nantes-Besancon exhibition catalog: Simon Vouet, les années italiennes (2008), I made an interesting observation.

It turned out, that Arnauld Brejon had already noted in 2000 - in his description of the estate of Simon Vouet (1649) - that in the estate a modello for the top part of the commission for St. Peter's was found, which was found rolled up (without support).

Apparently it had been rolled up when Vouet traveled back to France from Italy. Is it a coincidence, that Il Sacrificio has the same markings?

Update February 2021

Recent research indicates that there was a more direct family connection between the Earl of Ellesmere (1800-1857) - who brought Il Sacrificio into the Bridgewater Collection of Pictures - and Charles Francis Greville (1748-1809) - the man who most likely acquired Il Sacrificio from his uncle William Hamilton (one of the two sketches Hamilton brought from Naples).

Joshua Reynolds: George Greville, 1754

Charles Francis's eldest brother was George Greville, first Earl of Warwick (1746-1819). After the death of his first wife in 1772, George married Henrietta Vernon. She was the daughter of the Hon. Richard Vernon and Lady Evelyn Leveson-Gower.

The wedding took place at the Earl Gower's London residence.

Evelyn Leveson-Gower (1725-1763), was a younger sister of Granville Leveson-Gower (1721-1803). The latter was the grandfather of Francis Leveson-Gower, from 1846 named Francis Egerton, first Earl of Ellesmere.

As we have seen, Ellesmere added Il Sacrificio to the famous Bridgewater Collection of Pictures. The obvious family connection may explain why Il Sacrificio - directly of indirectly - ended up with Ellesmere.

Update April 2021

In December 2021, after some searching, I finally found a digital image of the drawing of Maria Clementina Sobieska's funeral. The drawing appears to have been published in the digital database of the Stiftung Preussicher Kunstbesitz in Berlin.

Inquiries resulted in a high resolution image being obtained. I was formaly forbidden to include an image of this work in my blog, because of presumed copyright.

However, after studying an article by Charlotte Meindersma*, copyright expert, I decided to post below the technical unedited image that I received from the museum itself.

*Charlotte's Law & Fine Prints: Read for Dutch Law : https://www.charlotteslaw.nl/auteursrecht-op-oude-kunstwerken/

Because I consider the scientific importance of this drawing very high, I have thought to include this image in this non commercial blog.

It is important to note that this is the only color image of the altarpiece painted by Simon Vouet in 1625-1626 for St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Shortly after this drawing was made, Vouet's plastered altarpiece was lost.

In my research I discovered that the artist Giovanni Paolo Pannini (1691-1765) is the possible author of this drawing. Pannini has also signed the funeral procession on behalf of either the Vatican or the relatives of Maria Sobieska. The drawing style of other works by Pannini is very similar to the drawing discussed here. Incidentally, Pannini also painted some beautiful interiors of St. Peter's Basilica.

The drawing of Maria Sobieska's funeral, if we look closely, shows a great number of details, from which we can deduce that Il Sacrificio was actually used as a modello / disegno and that Vouet had actually started his own Pietà painting before he heard , that his painting would become a setting for Michelangelo's marble Pietà.

Below I have included two detailed images of Pannini's (?) drawing.

G.P. Pannini (?): Burial of Maria Sobieska (detail)

The only thing I have added to the original image is a network of red lines, placed on the visible remains of Vouet's work, as they were still visible on the altarpiece in 1735.

G.P. Pannini (?): Burial of Maria Sobieska
(detail with red accents by author)

To the left of the painting (seen from the viewer) we see the bent posture of a kneeling figure, which refers without question to the Mary Magdalene in Il Sacrificio.

On the right side (partly hidden behind Michelangelo's Pietà, we can just see part of the head of the seated Virgin Mary.

Diagonally behind her, we see part of the sepulcher with lid and an outstretched arm of an apostle, with shoulder and part of a head (comparable to the female figure in Il Sacrificio, which in Daret's print has become the apostle John the Evangelist).

Update May 2021

A few years ago, when I wrote paragraph V of this blog, I already mentioned that on the back of the painting, in green pastel letters, the name Simon Vouet was written.

Below is an unedited photo of the back of Il Sacrificio, and a slightly improved detail, taken in October 2010. On the top beam of the frame you can see the remnants of this green pastel text.

I wondered who was responsible for this text, now that it is evident that it could not have been Simon Vouet himself. After all, he had passed away years ago.

I remembered, that with restorations it is common for information that was on the original painting to be preserved, or transferred to the new support or frame.

Because the painting in the 18th or 19th century must have received an adjustable frame (not yet available in the 17th century), it is thus plausible that the restorator copied what was written on the original frame.

The name Simon Vouet will not have been put on it by the previous owners or for the Manchester exhibition, since the owners, because of its value, had an interest in keeping the painting a Lodovico Carracci (which it remained until at least case, sale in 1946).

The name has been largely erased, but becomes visible by connecting the remaining lines with an editing program, such as Paint 3D.

I had already done this once and thus found the name Simon Vouet.

However, to the right under the name Simon Vouet there were a number of small pastel lines, which I had not yet digitally clarified.

I therefore recently decided to re-examine the photo of the verso of the painting, taken in 2010, in order to obtain more information if possible.

I decided to trace all the remaining pastel lines as best as possible with the help of the Paint program.

Below you will find the result of my digital work.

I think I am reading here "Simon Vouet 1624". This is a discovery of mayor importance, since this date is fully in line with my theory that Il Sacrificio was painted in 1624-1625 as a disegno for St. Peter's Basilica.

The dating confirms, in more ways than one, my theory that Il Sacrificio is thus much older than Daret's print from 1639, and that the style and color characteristics correspond completely to the period in which Il Sacrificio was commissioned by the Vatican.

Never before has anyone suggested, that this composition by Simon Vouet dates from Vouet's italian period. It is therefore highly unlikely that someone else, who only knew the picture of Vouet, came up with the date 1624.

For this, the (never proposed) link with the Pope's commission had to first have been established.

It goes without saying that I myself did not apply these green pastel lines.

I only heard about the painter Simon Vouet months after having let taken the photos by a professional photographer. I only found out about Vouet's assignment for the Vatican in mid-2013 - about six months before my visit to Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée.

Could this be the final piece of my theory?

Update 2, May 2021

In order to investigate whether we are dealing with a copy or an original, it is important that we pay attention to the small details. In this blog I already discussed - with the addition of photos - several differences between Il Sacrificio and the print by Daret and similarities with the altarpiece by Chilly-Mazarin, which means that Il Sacrificio must be the source and not the copy.

Recently I saw for the first time that there is another obvious difference between Il Sacrificio and Daret's print.

In the painting we see (with extra lighting) the right ear of the Virgin. It is striking that this ear is missing in Daret's print. The ear is visible again on the Chilly-Mazarin altarpiece!

Below I have a detailed image of Il Sacrificio and the print of Daret, so you can see the difference for yourself.

The reason for the absence of the ear in Daret's print may lie in the fact that Il Sacrificio is a dark painting, so that Daret could not perceive all the details. Another possibility is that Daret had engraved the ear, but was not satisfied with the result and then engraved over it.

We will never know the exact reason, but this distinction between painting and altarpiece versus the print, reaffirms that Il Sacrificio is an original invention and not a copy of Daret's print.

To illustrate the foregoing, you will find a painting below, which is clearly based on Daret's print. Here too the ear of the Blessed Virgin is missing.

Other similarities with the print by Daret and thus differences with Il Sacrificio are also striking.

I think of Mary Magdalene's gaze, her shoulder strap, the folds in the burial cloth of Christ, the "old witch" to the left of the Blessed Virgin, who looks nothing like the powerful woman in Il Sacrificio. This also applies to the woman (angel) who bends over the right shoulder of the Blessed Virgin.

Anonymous copy after Daret's print of 1639

Another recent discovery is an engraving by Claude Mellan, made in Rome in 1627, after a painting by Simon Vouet. It depicts a Mary Magdalene who faints, supported by angels. You can see the original below.

Claude Mellan after Simon Vouet:
Fainting Mary Magdalene, 1627

The relevance of this find in the collection of the British Museum is, that the decor shown in the (mirrored: as Vouet would have painted it) engraving is almost identical, to the decor shown in Il Sacrificio and the 1639 print by Pierre Daret.

Compare the outline of the wall, and the position of the plants.

Il Sacrificio (IRR image) and mirrored detail of Claude Mellan

The existence of the Mellan print confirms, that Vouet already used an identical rock wall in several paintings before 1627 - the date of the engraving is after the dating of the original.

This, combined with the use of color from the 1620s, the canvas used and the dedication we are familiar with for the St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, further strengthens the proposition that Il Sacrificio must indeed have been painted around 1624-1627.

These undisputable facts more or less establishes that Il Sacrificio is the model for Vouet's Roman altarpiece.

When I recently pointed out this discovery to Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée, he wrote to me, that the painting Mellan based his engraving on, is no longer attributed to Vouet, but to Mellan himself.

This is strange, since Mellan not only explicitly writes, that Vouet is the author of the painting, but also that he - Mellan - is only responsible for the engraving and not for the design. Does objectivity lose out to subjectivity here?

Be it as it may, Mellan must have seen this rock face in Vouet's Roman work, according to the dating of the engraving. After all, the engraving by Daret from 1639 proves that Vouet was the source. It was Vouet who devised this rock wall and that must have been before 1627, instead of around 1639.

The reverse - the master copies his pupil - is not obvious. Mellan was Simon Vouet's apprentice and hired engraver in Rome from 1624 to 1627. Mellan remained in Rome when Vouet returned to France in 1627.

In support of the foregoing I would like to mention here another painting by Simon Vouet - nowadays given to Charles Mellin (1597-1649) - which is in the collection of the Galleria Nazionali Barberini Corsini in Rome.

This concerns the Mary Magdalene at the tomb of Christ dated 1626-1627 (note museum).

I was formaly forbidden to include an image of this work in my blog. However, remembering the article by Charlotte Meindersma*, I mentioned earlier, I decided to post the technical unedited image that I received from the museum itself.

*Charlotte's Law & Fine Prints: Read for Dutch Law : https://www.charlotteslaw.nl/auteursrecht-op-oude-kunstwerken/

Charles Mellin: Maddalena Penitente 1626-1627,
Galleria Nazionale Barberini Corsini, Rome

We see the rock face and a part of the tomb in one picture, painted before Vouet's departure from Rome! Whether this is the work of Vouet, or of Charles Mellin, who was a pupil of Vouet during this period - it proves, that Il Sacrificio was created at that time and that Vouet most likely provided the source for this decor.

This provides even more evidence for the correct dating of Il Sacrificio and the related commissioning by the Pope.

Too much coincidence is no coincidence!

UPDATE January 6, 2022: Contact with The Louvre

Here's an update that I didn't want to add to this blog before, because I waited for a formal reaction. However, because of the value of the information, I decided to publish it anyway.

On March 4, 2021, I sent a request to Nicolas Milovanovic via the science portal Academia.edu.

At the moment Nicolas Milovanovic is Chief Curator at het Louvre Museum in Paris. He is responsible for 17th century French paintings and Greek and Russian icons. Next to that Mr. Milovanovic is a teacher at the Louvre school.

On March 14, 2021, I received a positive response from Nicolas Milovanovic, also via the portal of Academia.edu. He promised me that he would study my blog and tell me his opinion.

Of course I was surprised and happy to receive such a positive response from this expert.

I sent him a brief, delighted response. I wrote that I thought it important that, in determining the age of the composition of Vouet's painting, one should take into account the existence of the altarpiece in Chilly-Mazarin (F. Perrier?) painted in 1631- 1632.

I wrote this, because I prior to this had heard from Mr. Brejon, that he had discussed Il Sacrificio with experts at the Louvre. The Louvre had apparently told him, that the composition must have been created much later, around the time of the Daret print.

This is what I strongly dispute, because of the existence of the earlier Chilly-Mazarin altarpiece of 1631-1632, which was already a copy of the original – and therefore older - composition by Vouet!

To my surprise, shortly after I sent my response to Mr. Milovanovic, the message from Mr. Milovanovic himself was removed from Academia.edu.

Fortunately, I still have a g-mail from Academia.edu to me dated March 14, 2021, stating that I have received a message from Mr. Milovanovic. I also still have my own message and response to Mr. Milovanovic, which are still listed in Academia.

Afterwards I heard no more from Mr. Milovanovic. Not even when I sent him a reminder in August 2021.

We cannot, of course, draw any conclusions from the fact that Mr. Milovanovic has decided to withdraw his previous commitment. It is however a pity, that an institution like the Louvre is unwilling to recognize and investigate the importance of this discovery.

Or, has the Louvre investigated Il Sacrificio, but does not want to publish the outcome?

It is striking that on March 28, 2021 - fourteen days after I received the message from Nicolas Milovanovic - my blog was visited no less than 98 (!) times within 8 hours by people from France.

In the last 6.5 years my blog has been visited more than 26,600 times in recent years, by people from all over the world.

In total, this blog has been visited a total of 879 times by someone from France, never more than 4 times in one day!

The visitors of March 28, 2021, were these the Louvre's expert? If so, it would have been very easy to send a message: "Unfortunately, mister Teusink.....".

Unless????

Update March 2022

In March 2022, Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée requested me to urgently help his team complete the provenance of a painting, which is located in Museum de Fundatie in Zwolle, approximately 15 kilometers from my hometown.

It concerns a painting by Simon Vouet, depicting "a man" - according to the museum possibly a self-portrait - that has been in the collection of the Hannema de Stuers Fundatie since 1975, the predecessor of the current De Fundatie museum. The painting has never been formally attributed to Simon Vouet before. That is now the case.

Below is an image of the painting.

Simon Vouet: Portrait d'Homme, 1625-1630,
Museum De Fundatie, Zwolle

Since I already knew the curator of the collection, Kristian Garssen, from a previous contact in this matter, I contacted the museum. Kristian Garssen and Sandra Rauwelink then gave a statement of the information they already had regarding the painting.

Through contacts that I managed to make myself, with Koetser Gallery in Zurich, Switzerland, I managed to complete the information that the museum already had. Through Koetser's art gallery I found out, they exhibited the painting in the 1960s, and to whom it was then attributed (Giovanni Bernardo Carboni a.k.a. Carbone).

From information I got from Mr. Brejon himself, I deduced that Benedict Nicolson, in a May 1963 article in Burlington Magazine, spoke of the said painting, which he erroneously attributed to Luigi Carlone - an understandable misspelling, though it must be said that there are no records for one Luigi Carlone.

After translating the notes of de Fundatie and myself into French and providing them with comments regarding the history of the Hannema de Stuers collection, I sent our findings to Mr. Brejon.

Recently I received the draft of the final note on the said painting, as it will be included in the Catalog Raisonné about Vouet. In a word of thanks, Mr. Brejon names successively "K. Garssen,S. Rauwerdink,ainsi que (as well as) Wim Teusink".

It goes without saying that I am particularly proud of the entry of my name in the standard work on the great French painter.

Update April 2022

I'm presenting you with yet another argument for the originality of ll Sacrificio and the connection with Hovingham bozzetto. See picture of Rice's book (p. 428) below.

L. Rice: The Altars and Altarpieces of new St. Peter's, p. 428

It is commonly believed that the Hovingham bozzetto (the sketch for the upper part of the Vatican commission must have been cut, as the base is missing. Il Sacrificio would be to small to be the missing cut off. But is this correct?

Compare the original drawing Vouet made for his first (never realised) commission for St. Peter's, the "Healing of St. Peter with his shadow", in which a Heaven with Angels is visible, to the painting's bozzetto, in which the Heaven with Angels is missing.

It seems an insignificant detail, but it seems to prove that Hovingham and Il Sacrificio may very well be part of the same order: that Hovingham is therefore not cut, like Il Sacrificio, but that they are essentially two parts based on the same sketch, which are again combined in the final work.

Let's not forget that Vouet may have even worked on these modellos or disegnos in Saint-Pierre in relation to the incidence of light, etc. The gold particles in Il Sacrificio's paint seem to proof this.

Working on location requires a small canvas. Too large a canvas is inconvenient for transportation.

Update May 2022

To substantiate the connection between Il Sacrificio and the commission for St. Peter's, I have added colored lines to a detail of the drawing of Maria Sobieska's funeral, where faint lines are already visible. Lines that certainly belong to Vouet's original work. See below.

Drawing burial Maria Sobieska (detail)

Drawing burial Maria Sobieska (detail),
accentuated lines

I have recently forwarded this information to Arnauld Brejon's team.

Although the drawing undoubtedly shows part of the tomb and its lid with a pointing figure behind it (just like in Il Sacrificio and the Daret print), I recently received an unmotivated message from Mr. Brejon in which he indicates that, according to him, the composition of Il Sacrificio/print Daret is not related to the assignment for the Vatican.

Unfortunately, to date I have not heard one scientific argument to substantiate Mr Brejon's claim.

Update October 2022

In October 2022 I had a number of special photos of Il Sacrificio taken by the well-known art photographer Rik Klein Gotink (Bosch Research Project) because Mr. Brejon had doubts about the authenticity of Il Sacrificio.

High resolution photographs of the front of the painting were taken under normal light, infrared and ultraviolet light.

An infrared photograph was also taken of the back of the painting.

The results were encouraging. Beginning with the back of the painting, we found evidence that, as we had hoped and suspected, Il Sacrificio was indeed in the possession of Michael Peacock, after he had purchased the painting at Christie's auction on May 8, 1824, from the collection of Francis Basset, 1st Baron De Dunstanville and Basset.

On the center wood of the stretcher we found the remains of the name "M. Pea..." written in graphite.

No doubt these letters stand for M. (Michael) Peacock, of 22 Marylebone St, Golden Square, London, picture dealer, artist and picture restorer.

As I said earlier, according to the 1824 catalogue, this was the same Pietá by Lodovico Carracci, which was sold to Basset on 31 March 1810 from the estate of Charles Francis Greville.

We know that William Hamilton returned from Naples with two sketches for altarpieces, one of which (a top piece by Simon Vouet) ended up with William Worsley, of Hovingham Hall.

The other - no doubt the base of the altarpiece, also by Simon Vouet - Hamilton must have kept.

In 1803 Greville would have inherited this painting - now labeled Pieta by Lodovico Carracci - from his uncle William Hamilton.

It is this same painting that subsequently - also as Pieta by Lodovico Carracci - ended up in the collection of the Earl of Ellesmere via Peacock.

So we finally found a direct link between the Vouet of Hovingham Hall and the Vouet of the Earl of Ellesmere. It is thus highly unlikely, that Il Sacrificio is anything other than an ORIGINAL Vouet.

Below is a detail of the infrared photo of the back of Il Sacrificio. The letters M.Pea... (written in Old English of the correct period) are clearly visible.

Il Sacrificio (detail verso infrared R. Klein Gotink)

On a high resolution photo of the front of the painting we found what appears to be a remnant of the signature. It is true that this is partly a matter of later overpainting, but this does not seem to be a forgery, but a restoration of existing information that was (partly) almost lost due to later restoration.

A detail of this photo has now been included in the foreword to this blog, on which the letters "VO.." appear to be visible.

The most interesting photo to me was the UV-reflection photo that was made of Il Sacrificio. Because the real image is much too large (in data) to include in this blog, I will suffice with a detail that I also sent to Mr. Brejon. See below.

Il Sacrificio (detail recto UV-reflection Rik Klein Gotink)

When I showed these photos to a former curator of a renowned Dutch museum, his reaction was that everything visible on the UV photo can be attributed to overpainting from different periods. According to this expert, no relevant pentimenti were visible.

However a few things stand out in this detail.

Between the back of Christ's head and the right side of his mother, a right hand/arm with a sleeve of the mother Mary appears to be visible, which are not visible on the surface of the painting. It is not logical that this would be a restoration of damage. Rather, this is a pentimento visible because the top paintlayer is translucent . In the final picture Mary's right arm is shown stretched out downwards and therefore appears to the right of Christ's head.

It is also interesting that a "construction" appears to be visible at the height of Christ's shoulder. It looks a bit like a backrest of a chair.

It is not clear what this "construction" was used for, but it could be that the painter tried to represent the position of the shoulder as accurately as possible in his preliminary study. Nothing of this construction can be seen in the surface of the painting either.

Although the said expert was skeptical about these observations, he did confirm the following:

Based on the style and colours, the base layer and the canvas used, there is no doubt that this is a painting that originated in Italy and dates from the correct time period. The painting is of good quality, but in poor condition (many overpaints, so a lot of restoration).

According to the expert, the painting has no visible undersketch. This may indicate a copy - although there are no traces that indicate a copy, such as a grid or spolveri (small dots of charcoal, created by tracing an example on the underlying canvas) - but can certainly also be evidence of originality of the painting.

All information has now been handed over to Mr. Brejon. Perhaps this can contribute to a correct assessment of the origin of Il Sacrificio.

Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts!

Those who have any comments with concearn to this blog, or who are seriously interested in acquiring Il Sacrificio are free to contact the owners through me. My email address: wimteusink@gmail.com.

Simon Vouet - Pieta 1625

maandag 25 mei 2015

Simon Vouet , Pieta 1625

" I l S a c r i f i c i o "©

Simon Vouet: "Assomption de la Vierge" (bottom section) 1629, Paris Photo taken "in situ" by the author