" I l S a c r i f i c i o "©
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.
![]() |
Il Sacrificio (detail with remnants of signature VO...) |
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".
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.
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).
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.
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 |
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.
![]() |
Louis Dorigny: Verona, Cappella dei Notai (1693-1697) |
In reponse, on February 9th, 2016, I got some very important information from Sir William Worsley, 6th Baronet of Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, Yorkshire.
![]() |
Simon Vouet: Selfportrait, 1626-1627, M.B.A Lyon. Same size and painted on roughly woven hemp |
![]() |
Ottavio Leoni: Cardinal Del Monte (1616) |
![]() |
Emblem: Congregazione della Reverenda Fabricca di San Pietro |
![]() |
M.M. da Caravaggio:Maffeo Barberini before his papacy as Pope Urban VIII (1598) |
![]() |
St. Peters Basilica (floorplan) |
![]() |
Simon Vouet (after?) : St. Peter healing with his shadow,1624 (Uffuzi Museum, Florence) |
![]() |
Michelangelo: Pietà, St. Peter's Basilica Rome, 1498-1499 |
![]() |
Pierre Daret (after Simon Vouet), Descente de la Croix, 1639 |
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) |
![]() |
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.
![]() | |
|
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.
* 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.*
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.
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.
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.
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.
* 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.
* 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!
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.
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!
*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".
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.
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.*
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.
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 |
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.
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
Sacrificio: X-Ray image with part of 18th century framework |
![]() |
Pietà : Pietro da Cortona (1620-1625 ) |
![]() |
Déploration : Jacques de Létin (1st. half 17th century) photo: Médiathèque de l'Architecture et du Patrimoine. |
"Deploration" , Simon Vouet and /or Francois Perrier (1631 / 1639?) Photo taken by author in situ |
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.
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 |
The image below shows the 1640 engraving Michel Dorigny made of this altarpiece.*
![]() |
Michel Dorigny, after Simon Vouet: Assomption de la Vierge, 1640, Abbaye de Pont-Aux-Dames, detail 2 |
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 |
*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 |
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 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.
We don't know, what the final altarpiece looked like, when Vouet finished it, early 1626.
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. |
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.
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 |
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 |
![]() |
Sarificio (detail), S. Vouet, 1625 |
The compositions of the angels is similar, the atmosphere is the same, the devision of the composition in two registers is the same.
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.
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*
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.
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.
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.
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 |
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) |
After extensive research I'm convinced, that this combination of author and subject description is unique.
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.
" ...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".
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.
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.
![]() |
18 Belgrave Square, London. Il Sacrificio was located in the "inner front bedroom" from 1843 until 1850 |
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.
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.
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.*
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.
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.
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.
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 |
![]() |
William e. Kilburn: Sir George Scharf (circa 1857), Daguerreotype, NPG London |
![]() |
Sir George Scharf'; SSB 47, p 23-24. Drawings on p. 24 dated 17-19 september 1857. |
![]() |
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
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.
* (see: https://www.hslc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/10-24-Scharf.pdf).
![]() |
George Scharf: "On the Manchester Art Treasures Exhibition, 1857" p. 275 |
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....".
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.
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!
![]() |
The Main Gallery of Bridgewater House, Cleveland Row, London after the Bombardment of May 11th, 1941 |
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.”
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.
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).
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) |
![]() |
Louis Philippe, Duc d'Orléans |
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.
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.
Bridgewater House, home to the Bridgewater Gallery, 14 Cleveland Row, St. James's London 1896 |
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) |
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.
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. |
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.
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.
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 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).
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.
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 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".
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 |
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.
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.
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 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!
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).
Below I've added a detail from the mentioned catalogue.
![]() |
Christie's auction catalogue 18 Oct 1946 (detail) |
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
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.
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 |
![]() |
Bridgewater Catalogue 1830, p. 8 |
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)
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.
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)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 |
![]() |
Il Sacrificio; infrared image 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.
![]() |
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.
- 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.
![]() |
Il Sacrificio: Angel torso between Christ and the Magdalen |
![]() |
Il Sacrificio: fist holding a dagger |
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: 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 |
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 |
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 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 |
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).
![]() |
Domenichino: A Sybil, early 1620's (Wallace Collection, London) |
![]() |
H. Terbrugghen: Woman Playing a Lute, 1624-1626 (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna) |
![]() |
Simon Vouet: St. Catharine of Alexandria, ca. 1625 (N.G. Bratislava) |
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.
1. Il Sacrificio was painted as an original painting, and not as a copy.
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 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.
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.
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) |
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.
Il Sacrificio: Detail of white lady/angel |
Nevertheless, one would expect a more convincing expression, like the face of the fainted Madonna.
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) |
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) |
Her eyes are most interesting and so is her nose.
![]() |
Simon Vouet: drawing of a woman (The Louvre, Paris) |
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.
![]() |
Simon Vouet: Diseuse de bonne Aventure, ca. 1620 |
![]() |
Simon Vouet: Diseuse de bonne Aventure, ca. 1620 (detail) |
![]() |
Simon Vouet: l'Intellect, la Mémoire et la Volonté , 1625, Pinacoteca Capitolina, Rome(?) |
![]() |
Simon Vouet: l'Intellect, la Mémoire et la Volonté (detail) |
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.
Claude Mellan engraved the unknown girl in 1625, exactly after the formentioned painting by Vouet - depicing the same puffy eyes.
![]() |
Claude Mellan (after S. Vouet): Intellectus et Memoria (1626) (detail) |
![]() |
Marthe accuse sa soeur vain Marie Madeleine, ca. 1621 (KHM Vienna) |
![]() |
Simon Vouet: St. Catharine, 1620's (NMWA Tokyo) |
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) |
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?
![]() |
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.
According to Lucia Tongiorgi Tomasi in Reading Early Modern Women * little is known about Anna Maria Vaiani.
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.
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) |
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!
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).
Before Anna Maria secured her biggest commissions, she - just like most of the artists in Rome - had to scrape her living together.
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 |
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.
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.
Many artcritics/arthistorians believe, that circumstantial evidence is not nearly enough, to confirm authenticity of a piece of art.
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.
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. |
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.
*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!
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.
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”.
![]() |
David Allen: Sir William Hamilton (1775), NPG London |
![]() |
Portland Vase: Roman AD 1 - AD 25 (material cameo glass) British Museum |
![]() |
Pietro Fabris: "Neapolitan Peasants at Leisure" (before 1769), Royal Collection Trust |
![]() |
Annibale Carracci: Two children teasing a cat 1578-88) MET, New York © |
This would mean, we would have a direct link between Il Sacrificio and the Hovingham modello.
![]() |
Ozias Humphrey: Gavin Hamilton ca. 1770 |
![]() |
Gavin Hamilton: Achilles Lamenting the Death of Patroclus, 1760-1763 National Galleries, Scotland |
![]() |
Il Sacrificio: detail |
![]() |
Achilles lamenting the dead Patroclus: detail |
![]() |
D. Cunego after G. Hamilton: Hebe giving drink to the Eagle of Jupiter (ca.1727-1803) (Mirrored image) |
![]() |
Leonardo da Vinci: Virgin of the rocks (1483), NG London |
![]() |
Annibale Carracci: St. Gregory at prayer , 1601-1602. Formerly Bridgewater Collection. Destroyed bombing of May 11th 1941 |
![]() |
Lemuel F. Abbott: Admiral Horatio Nelson (before 1798) |
![]() |
![]() |
The Collection of Autograph Letters and Documents: The Hamilton & Nelson papers, Volume I (1893), p 47 and 48 |
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".
![]() |
Pompeo Batoni: Francis Basset, Baron De Dunstanvill and Basset on his Grand Tour in Rome (1778) |
![]() |
Guido Reni: Assumption of the Virging, 1627, MET, NY |
![]() |
J. Carreno de Miranda:Son of the Duke of Olivares (before 1650) (image: W. Bourke and L.Cust,The Bridgewater Gallery, 1903 |
![]() |
The Athenaeum, February 17, 1844, Titlepage (detail) |
![]() |
The Athenaeum, February 17, 1844, Sale of the late Michael Peacock |
![]() |
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.
![]() |
New Choir Chapel, St. Peter's Basilica (interior ca. 1624-1626) |
![]() |
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.
![]() |
Il Sacrifcio: detail showing traces of gold, mistaken for a scratch in the surface |
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!
![]() |
Il Sacrificio: enlarged detail of traces of gold shot with a macro lens |
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) |
What do we know for a fact?
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.
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?
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.
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.
* 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.
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!
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!
![]() |
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.
![]() |
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.
![]() |
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.
![]() |
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.
Here's a list of illustrious persons who most likely saw Il Sacrificio in person in the past (almost) 400 years:
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.
![]() |
Franz Xafer Winterhalter: Queen Victoria , 1842, Royal Collection Trust © |
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.
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.
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.
![]() |
Scharf Sketchbook 47, p.24), © database NPG |
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.
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.
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.
![]() |
Giovanni Paolo Pannini (?) Burial of Maria Clementina Sobieska, 1735 © bpk / Kunstbibliothek, SMB / Dietmar Katz |
![]() |
G.P. Pannini (?): Burial of Maria Sobieska (detail) |
![]() |
G.P. Pannini (?): Burial of Maria Sobieska (detail with red accents by author) |
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.
![]() |
Claude Mellan after Simon Vouet: Fainting Mary Magdalene, 1627 |
![]() |
Il Sacrificio (IRR image) and mirrored detail of Claude Mellan |
![]() |
Charles Mellin: Maddalena Penitente 1626-1627, Galleria Nazionale Barberini Corsini, Rome |
UPDATE January 6, 2022: Contact with The Louvre
![]() |
Simon Vouet: Portrait d'Homme, 1625-1630, Museum De Fundatie, Zwolle |
![]() |
L. Rice: The Altars and Altarpieces of new St. Peter's, p. 428 |
![]() |
Drawing burial Maria Sobieska (detail) |
![]() |
Drawing burial Maria Sobieska (detail), accentuated lines |
![]() |
Il Sacrificio (detail recto UV-reflection Rik Klein Gotink) |