LOT 7
上一件
下一件
Artemisia Gentileschi Mary Magdalen in meditation
作品估价：GBP 2,000,000 - 3,000,000
货币换算
成交状态：未知
买家佣金拍卖企业在落槌价的基础上收取买家佣金
26%
图录号：
7
拍品名称：
Artemisia Gentileschi Mary Magdalen in meditation
拍品描述：
The Property of a Gentleman
Artemisia Gentileschi
Rome 1593–after 1654 Naples
Mary Magdalen in meditation
oil on canvas
156 x 117 cm.; 61⅜ x 46 in.
Private collection, Italy, since the beginning of the 20th century;
From whom acquired in 2005 by a private collector, Italy;
By descent to his daughter, 2007;
From whom acquired in 2023 by the present owner.
P. Carofano, ‘Una Maddalena in meditazione tra Orazio e Artemisia Gentileschi’, in Atti delle Giornate di Studi sul Caravaggismo e il Naturalismo nella Toscana del Seicento, P. Carofano (ed.), Pontedera 2009, pp. 323–31, reproduced in colour figs 3 and 5 (detail) (as a collaborative work made by Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi during a formative phase in her career and datable to around 1609).
An incisive storyteller, Artemisia Gentileschi is known for her powerful depictions of women from history, and indeed her images of biblical heroines are among her most compelling creations. In this confidently painted work of the 1620s, a Caravaggesque realism is brought to this powerful subject. Barefoot, Mary Magdalen is depicted here in a rugged coastal setting that evokes the wilderness where she lived in solitude. With starkly contrasting areas of light and dark and showing a bold approach to the arrangement of its female subject, the picture makes reference to the saint’s sea voyage to the southern coast of France, where, according to legend, she sought refuge at Sainte-Baume in Provence. The Magdalen as protagonist is an important theme for Artemisia and one that constitutes a recurring thread in her work.
Blurring the boundaries between the sacred and the profane, the saint’s larger-than-life figure dominates the whole picture space, conveying her physical presence as a woman of flesh and blood. Peripheral to her statuesque presence are her attributes of cross, book and skull that allude to her legend and to her religious devotion. She meditates on the cross, directing her gaze to it. The intertwined fingers of her beautifully painted hands create a further devotional focus within the composition. In this reflective interpretation of the Magdalen’s inner life, the artist presents the penitent saint seated in contemplation, evoking the place that would become a pilgrimage site dedicated to her.
This newly identified picture has recently been dated to Artemisia’s second Roman period, when having returned to the Eternal City, the artist—celebrated and in high demand—responded to a shift in local taste. Mary Magdalen in meditation was likely painted at a time of stylistic transition, when soon after Artemisia's return to Rome she encountered Simon Vouet (1590–1649), with whom she is known to have associated, and when the influence of Guercino (1591–1666) was just beginning to become apparent in her paintings. Keith Christiansen (formerly John Pope-Hennessy Chairman, European Paintings, Metropolitan Museum of Art), first shown an image of Mary Magdalen in meditation in 2009 and then again in 2019, has long considered it a beautiful and fascinating painting. He has recently seen the work in person and remains of the opinion that it is by Artemisia, revising his thoughts on dating since first seeing it in photographic images fifteen years ago. At the time, the picture seemed to him to date from the moment when Artemisia was working under her father’s direction, in the years around 1610.1 He now regards it as exemplifying a shift in style from Artemisia’s years in Florence between 1612, or just after, and 1620, when she returned to live in Rome, and so views it as an autograph work of the 1620s.
When back in Rome, Artemisia reassesses her art and experiments with the dominant styles of Guercino, in works such as the Burghley House Susanna and the Elders, signed and dated 1622; and, as Christiansen points out, Vouet, in Artemisia’s great Judith and her maidservant with the head of Holofernes in the Detroit Institute of Arts—both large and ambitious paintings (figs 1 and 2). As Christiansen writes, Vouet is ‘the crucial model here for the colors, the lighting—especially the very beautiful still life—the dynamic yet elegant pose, the painterly waves and foliage, and the puffed out, fully baroque sleeve, so different from the more descriptive approach of her early works’.The picture seems to him ‘to bridge the two quite different styles of the Burghley House and Detroit pictures and reveals again the artist’s always savvy understanding of the market and her ability to adapt herself to meet expectations’.2 Indeed, Artemisia’s adaptability to market conditions is an aspect of her practice that has been much discussed in the recent literature.
Francesco Solinas (Associate Professor, Collège de France, Paris), following first-hand inspection of the painting, also considers the Mary Magdalen in meditation to be an autograph work by Artemisia and, like Christiansen, he too argues for a date of execution between 1620 and 1626.3 In the classical stance of the sibyl-like figure of the seated Magdalen he finds similarities with the artist’s production on her return to Rome in spring 1620. For Solinas, the picture’s dramatic lighting and theatricality and the way of rendering drapery accords perfectly with the female saints painted by Artemisia in the 1610s and ’20s. In his opinion this painting marks a transition between Artemisia’s work in a grand ducal context, guided by Florentine models such as Cristofano Allori and Matteo Rosselli, and towards Roman Caravaggist tendencies filtered through Simon Vouet and the elegant nocturnal paintings of Guido Reni and Guercino.
As part of a conservation campaign to clean the painting in the 2010s, scientific analysis comprising diagnostic imaging and non-invasive examination revealed two compositions beneath the visible surface: an elderly male figure in the opposite orientation, partially covered by the Magdalen’s yellow drapery; and the heads of two abraded figures at the upper right, close to the cross.4 Since then, in 2022, a new restoration campaign with further imaging was carried out under the direction of Cinzia Pasquali at Arcanes, Paris, to reintegrate the background.5 Infrared False Colour imaging, used as a tool for the detection of different pigments, proved helpful in the preliminary identification of several pigments and in pointing to areas that merited further investigation. Infrared reflectography clearly shows two distinct compositions beneath the visible surface and aids legibility of the two figures at the upper right, while X-radiography reveals even more information about the first fully-realized composition (figs 3 and 4).
When rotated by 180° the X-ray of the painting shows the underlying composition of an elderly male figure holding the edges of a book in his left hand. A red pigment detected by IRR and XRF analysis reveals the presence of red drapery in quite a large area broadly corresponding with the figure’s legs, compelling evidence for his identification as Saint Jerome. With the Magdalen in its upright orientation, the two worn but sensitively painted heads at the upper right cover part of the underlying red drapery. The conservation campaign conducted by Arcanes has concluded that they are unconnected with the rest of the visible composition and represent an intermediate compositional idea. The reuse of canvas is not uncommon—examples can be found in Artemisia’s father’s own practice6—and reflects a pragmatic approach to materials. One possible explanation that has been proposed is that a painting of Saint Jerome by Orazio was painted over with the beginnings of a design with two figures and that the canvas was then abandoned and later reused and painted over by Artemisia with a larger figure of the Magdalen, as is visible today.
Both the X-ray and the IRR highlight several hidden details that relate to the Magdalen composition, as well as modifications. There are slight revisions to the profile of the saint’s face and to the positioning of her right knee. A cluster of leafy stems at the lower left, near the skull, is partially covered over by yellow drapery; the same colour was extended over part of her left leg, which was originally bare; a small column—its straight outline clearly visible in IRR—likely served as a support for her hands. The yellow area close to the left edge of the canvas near the visible passages of drapery (now covered by an abraded dark brown layer) probably indicates its wider extent before this part of the picture was altered.
Proposals for an earlier dating for the Mary Magdalen in meditation have been put forward by scholars. In 2009 Pierluigi Carofano published the painting in conference proceedings as a collaborative work made by Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi during a formative phase in her career and dating it to around 1609. He concluded that the Magdalen was the earliest picture to bear witness to Artemisia’s activity in her father’s workshop.7 An early dating was also espoused by Nicola Spinosa, who considered this painting to be the likely result of a collaborative exchange between Artemisia and her father, for which she chose to re-use a canvas that had been begun by him and never finished.8 He linked the picture to models by Orazio datable to the first decade of the seventeenth century, or shortly after, and placed the Magdalen within Artemisia’s early production, sometime between 1610 and 1613. In Spinosa’s opinion the solid rendering of drapery, the treatment of the hands and the facial features, as well as the warmer tonality, accord with her work between her time in Rome and her move to Florence, leading him to date the Magdalen between 1610 and 1613, when Artemisia painted the first version of Judith beheading Holofernes, now at Capodimonte, Naples. As discussed above, Christiansen too, when first asked about the picture in 2009, and then again in 2019, from photos had suggested an early dating to the years around 1610, attributing the figure of the Magdalen to Artemisia herself. As for the Jerome visible in X-ray, IRR and XRF, he seemed to him to have a certain correlation with the heads in the vault of the chapel in San Giovanni dei Fiorentini and he wondered if it was an abandoned composition by Orazio from an earlier moment.9 This suggestion remains tentative.
Throughout her career Artemisia was drawn to paint Mary Magdalen, whose life of sin and repentance offered rich narrative potential. Her representations of the saint include such masterpieces as the Conversion of the Magdalen in the Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, Florence, variously dated to the years around 1616–18;10 the Penitent Magdalen in Seville Cathedral, datable to the mid-1620s and bought by the 3rd Duke of Alcalá, who probably met Artemisia in Rome when he was Spanish ambassador to the Holy See;11 the Mary Magdalen in ecstasy, of about 1620–25, formerly in a private European collection, which depicts the saint in a state of abandon (fig. 5); and another Penitent Magdalen, smaller in format, likely painted in Naples c. 1630–32, now in a private collection.12 In its colour relationships—notably the pairing of purple and yellow—Mary Magdalen in contemplation resonates with other paintings by Artemisia, not least the Magdalen in ecstasy. In both of these works the use of a dark ground, the concentration on the figure and the eloquent gesture of the Magdalen’s clasped hands rendered with the same tapering fingers, evoke the sombre mood of Caravaggio’s widely disseminated composition of the same subject, painted in 1606 and known through numerous versions (fig. 6).
1 Carofano 2009, p. 326 n. 5, with transcription of Christiansen’s email to the then owner. Christiansen now believes the Magdalen to be wholly by Artemisia, without Orazio’s involvement.
2 Email communication dated 30 October 2024.
3 Report dated January–June 2022.
4 DriART (June 2019) identified three principal areas where abraded underlying compositional elements re-emerged: the two figures in the upper right; a yellow layer close to the left edge of the canvas near the visible areas of yellow drapery; and the elderly male figure in the opposite orientation in the lower right corner.
5 Restoration report, 2022.
6 For example, the Rest on the Flight into Egypt, formerly at the Getty, private collection, Mantua.
7 Carofano 2009, pp. 323–31. Tentatively identifying two hands, he assigned the elements he considered to be more expertly painted—comprising the still life, clasped hands and white sleeve—to Orazio, while apportioning responsibility for the drapery and the contrite expression of the protagonist to Artemisia. He regarded the picture as the fruit of her careful study of her father’s modus operandi, surmising that Orazio must have limited himself to a generally supervisory role, intervening only locally to redress any errors. In June 2019, in light of the diagnostic investigations and conservation treatment that had uncovered the two figures at the upper right, Carofano expanded on his views since first seeing the picture a decade before. In subsequent communication with the owner dated 2 July 2019, he re-stated his opinion that the Mary Magdalen was a collaborative work of father and daughter, Artemisia being responsible for much of the main figure; while the pair of figures at the top right he attributed to Orazio, so too the still-life elements of book and skull at bottom left and the left sleeve of the Magdalen’s chemise. The underlying depiction of St Jerome he considered to be by Orazio, datable to around 1604, corresponding in style to the Sacrifice of Isaac (Galleria nazionale, Liguria) and the Penitent St Jeromes (Palazzo Madama, Turin, and Koelliker collection).
8 Report dated 21 October 2019. Spinosa too noted stylistic similarities between the Jerome seen in X-ray and Orazio’s Penitent St Jerome in Turin of 1610–11; he compared the two heads under the visible surface at the upper right with the angels in Orazio’s Baptism of Christ, Santa Maria della Pace, Rome, of 1607; and for the Magdalen he saw affinities with Judith and her Maidservant Abra with the head of Holofernes, in the Lemme collection, dated to 1610 or earlier, which he ascribes to Orazio. Opinions about the authorship of the latter have oscillated mainly between Artemisia and Orazio, with the attribution to Artemisia garnering the widest scholarly consensus.
9 Private communication with the owner, 22 August 2019.
10 Artemisia Gentileschi, The Story of a Passion, R. Contini and F. Solinas (eds), exh. cat., Palazzo Reale, Milano 2011, pp. 156–57, no. 11, reproduced in colour p. 157.
11 R.W. Bissell, Artemisia Gentileschi and the Authority of Art, University Park 1999, pp. 222–24, no. 16, reproduced in colour pl. XI.
12 J.W. Mann in Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi, K. Christiansen and J.W. Mann (eds), exh. cat., Rome, New York and Saint Louis, 2001–2, pp. 395–97, no. 73, reproduced in colour p. 396.
Artemisia Gentileschi
Rome 1593–after 1654 Naples
Mary Magdalen in meditation
oil on canvas
156 x 117 cm.; 61⅜ x 46 in.
Private collection, Italy, since the beginning of the 20th century;
From whom acquired in 2005 by a private collector, Italy;
By descent to his daughter, 2007;
From whom acquired in 2023 by the present owner.
P. Carofano, ‘Una Maddalena in meditazione tra Orazio e Artemisia Gentileschi’, in Atti delle Giornate di Studi sul Caravaggismo e il Naturalismo nella Toscana del Seicento, P. Carofano (ed.), Pontedera 2009, pp. 323–31, reproduced in colour figs 3 and 5 (detail) (as a collaborative work made by Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi during a formative phase in her career and datable to around 1609).
An incisive storyteller, Artemisia Gentileschi is known for her powerful depictions of women from history, and indeed her images of biblical heroines are among her most compelling creations. In this confidently painted work of the 1620s, a Caravaggesque realism is brought to this powerful subject. Barefoot, Mary Magdalen is depicted here in a rugged coastal setting that evokes the wilderness where she lived in solitude. With starkly contrasting areas of light and dark and showing a bold approach to the arrangement of its female subject, the picture makes reference to the saint’s sea voyage to the southern coast of France, where, according to legend, she sought refuge at Sainte-Baume in Provence. The Magdalen as protagonist is an important theme for Artemisia and one that constitutes a recurring thread in her work.
Blurring the boundaries between the sacred and the profane, the saint’s larger-than-life figure dominates the whole picture space, conveying her physical presence as a woman of flesh and blood. Peripheral to her statuesque presence are her attributes of cross, book and skull that allude to her legend and to her religious devotion. She meditates on the cross, directing her gaze to it. The intertwined fingers of her beautifully painted hands create a further devotional focus within the composition. In this reflective interpretation of the Magdalen’s inner life, the artist presents the penitent saint seated in contemplation, evoking the place that would become a pilgrimage site dedicated to her.
This newly identified picture has recently been dated to Artemisia’s second Roman period, when having returned to the Eternal City, the artist—celebrated and in high demand—responded to a shift in local taste. Mary Magdalen in meditation was likely painted at a time of stylistic transition, when soon after Artemisia's return to Rome she encountered Simon Vouet (1590–1649), with whom she is known to have associated, and when the influence of Guercino (1591–1666) was just beginning to become apparent in her paintings. Keith Christiansen (formerly John Pope-Hennessy Chairman, European Paintings, Metropolitan Museum of Art), first shown an image of Mary Magdalen in meditation in 2009 and then again in 2019, has long considered it a beautiful and fascinating painting. He has recently seen the work in person and remains of the opinion that it is by Artemisia, revising his thoughts on dating since first seeing it in photographic images fifteen years ago. At the time, the picture seemed to him to date from the moment when Artemisia was working under her father’s direction, in the years around 1610.1 He now regards it as exemplifying a shift in style from Artemisia’s years in Florence between 1612, or just after, and 1620, when she returned to live in Rome, and so views it as an autograph work of the 1620s.
When back in Rome, Artemisia reassesses her art and experiments with the dominant styles of Guercino, in works such as the Burghley House Susanna and the Elders, signed and dated 1622; and, as Christiansen points out, Vouet, in Artemisia’s great Judith and her maidservant with the head of Holofernes in the Detroit Institute of Arts—both large and ambitious paintings (figs 1 and 2). As Christiansen writes, Vouet is ‘the crucial model here for the colors, the lighting—especially the very beautiful still life—the dynamic yet elegant pose, the painterly waves and foliage, and the puffed out, fully baroque sleeve, so different from the more descriptive approach of her early works’.The picture seems to him ‘to bridge the two quite different styles of the Burghley House and Detroit pictures and reveals again the artist’s always savvy understanding of the market and her ability to adapt herself to meet expectations’.2 Indeed, Artemisia’s adaptability to market conditions is an aspect of her practice that has been much discussed in the recent literature.
Francesco Solinas (Associate Professor, Collège de France, Paris), following first-hand inspection of the painting, also considers the Mary Magdalen in meditation to be an autograph work by Artemisia and, like Christiansen, he too argues for a date of execution between 1620 and 1626.3 In the classical stance of the sibyl-like figure of the seated Magdalen he finds similarities with the artist’s production on her return to Rome in spring 1620. For Solinas, the picture’s dramatic lighting and theatricality and the way of rendering drapery accords perfectly with the female saints painted by Artemisia in the 1610s and ’20s. In his opinion this painting marks a transition between Artemisia’s work in a grand ducal context, guided by Florentine models such as Cristofano Allori and Matteo Rosselli, and towards Roman Caravaggist tendencies filtered through Simon Vouet and the elegant nocturnal paintings of Guido Reni and Guercino.
As part of a conservation campaign to clean the painting in the 2010s, scientific analysis comprising diagnostic imaging and non-invasive examination revealed two compositions beneath the visible surface: an elderly male figure in the opposite orientation, partially covered by the Magdalen’s yellow drapery; and the heads of two abraded figures at the upper right, close to the cross.4 Since then, in 2022, a new restoration campaign with further imaging was carried out under the direction of Cinzia Pasquali at Arcanes, Paris, to reintegrate the background.5 Infrared False Colour imaging, used as a tool for the detection of different pigments, proved helpful in the preliminary identification of several pigments and in pointing to areas that merited further investigation. Infrared reflectography clearly shows two distinct compositions beneath the visible surface and aids legibility of the two figures at the upper right, while X-radiography reveals even more information about the first fully-realized composition (figs 3 and 4).
When rotated by 180° the X-ray of the painting shows the underlying composition of an elderly male figure holding the edges of a book in his left hand. A red pigment detected by IRR and XRF analysis reveals the presence of red drapery in quite a large area broadly corresponding with the figure’s legs, compelling evidence for his identification as Saint Jerome. With the Magdalen in its upright orientation, the two worn but sensitively painted heads at the upper right cover part of the underlying red drapery. The conservation campaign conducted by Arcanes has concluded that they are unconnected with the rest of the visible composition and represent an intermediate compositional idea. The reuse of canvas is not uncommon—examples can be found in Artemisia’s father’s own practice6—and reflects a pragmatic approach to materials. One possible explanation that has been proposed is that a painting of Saint Jerome by Orazio was painted over with the beginnings of a design with two figures and that the canvas was then abandoned and later reused and painted over by Artemisia with a larger figure of the Magdalen, as is visible today.
Both the X-ray and the IRR highlight several hidden details that relate to the Magdalen composition, as well as modifications. There are slight revisions to the profile of the saint’s face and to the positioning of her right knee. A cluster of leafy stems at the lower left, near the skull, is partially covered over by yellow drapery; the same colour was extended over part of her left leg, which was originally bare; a small column—its straight outline clearly visible in IRR—likely served as a support for her hands. The yellow area close to the left edge of the canvas near the visible passages of drapery (now covered by an abraded dark brown layer) probably indicates its wider extent before this part of the picture was altered.
Proposals for an earlier dating for the Mary Magdalen in meditation have been put forward by scholars. In 2009 Pierluigi Carofano published the painting in conference proceedings as a collaborative work made by Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi during a formative phase in her career and dating it to around 1609. He concluded that the Magdalen was the earliest picture to bear witness to Artemisia’s activity in her father’s workshop.7 An early dating was also espoused by Nicola Spinosa, who considered this painting to be the likely result of a collaborative exchange between Artemisia and her father, for which she chose to re-use a canvas that had been begun by him and never finished.8 He linked the picture to models by Orazio datable to the first decade of the seventeenth century, or shortly after, and placed the Magdalen within Artemisia’s early production, sometime between 1610 and 1613. In Spinosa’s opinion the solid rendering of drapery, the treatment of the hands and the facial features, as well as the warmer tonality, accord with her work between her time in Rome and her move to Florence, leading him to date the Magdalen between 1610 and 1613, when Artemisia painted the first version of Judith beheading Holofernes, now at Capodimonte, Naples. As discussed above, Christiansen too, when first asked about the picture in 2009, and then again in 2019, from photos had suggested an early dating to the years around 1610, attributing the figure of the Magdalen to Artemisia herself. As for the Jerome visible in X-ray, IRR and XRF, he seemed to him to have a certain correlation with the heads in the vault of the chapel in San Giovanni dei Fiorentini and he wondered if it was an abandoned composition by Orazio from an earlier moment.9 This suggestion remains tentative.
Throughout her career Artemisia was drawn to paint Mary Magdalen, whose life of sin and repentance offered rich narrative potential. Her representations of the saint include such masterpieces as the Conversion of the Magdalen in the Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, Florence, variously dated to the years around 1616–18;10 the Penitent Magdalen in Seville Cathedral, datable to the mid-1620s and bought by the 3rd Duke of Alcalá, who probably met Artemisia in Rome when he was Spanish ambassador to the Holy See;11 the Mary Magdalen in ecstasy, of about 1620–25, formerly in a private European collection, which depicts the saint in a state of abandon (fig. 5); and another Penitent Magdalen, smaller in format, likely painted in Naples c. 1630–32, now in a private collection.12 In its colour relationships—notably the pairing of purple and yellow—Mary Magdalen in contemplation resonates with other paintings by Artemisia, not least the Magdalen in ecstasy. In both of these works the use of a dark ground, the concentration on the figure and the eloquent gesture of the Magdalen’s clasped hands rendered with the same tapering fingers, evoke the sombre mood of Caravaggio’s widely disseminated composition of the same subject, painted in 1606 and known through numerous versions (fig. 6).
1 Carofano 2009, p. 326 n. 5, with transcription of Christiansen’s email to the then owner. Christiansen now believes the Magdalen to be wholly by Artemisia, without Orazio’s involvement.
2 Email communication dated 30 October 2024.
3 Report dated January–June 2022.
4 DriART (June 2019) identified three principal areas where abraded underlying compositional elements re-emerged: the two figures in the upper right; a yellow layer close to the left edge of the canvas near the visible areas of yellow drapery; and the elderly male figure in the opposite orientation in the lower right corner.
5 Restoration report, 2022.
6 For example, the Rest on the Flight into Egypt, formerly at the Getty, private collection, Mantua.
7 Carofano 2009, pp. 323–31. Tentatively identifying two hands, he assigned the elements he considered to be more expertly painted—comprising the still life, clasped hands and white sleeve—to Orazio, while apportioning responsibility for the drapery and the contrite expression of the protagonist to Artemisia. He regarded the picture as the fruit of her careful study of her father’s modus operandi, surmising that Orazio must have limited himself to a generally supervisory role, intervening only locally to redress any errors. In June 2019, in light of the diagnostic investigations and conservation treatment that had uncovered the two figures at the upper right, Carofano expanded on his views since first seeing the picture a decade before. In subsequent communication with the owner dated 2 July 2019, he re-stated his opinion that the Mary Magdalen was a collaborative work of father and daughter, Artemisia being responsible for much of the main figure; while the pair of figures at the top right he attributed to Orazio, so too the still-life elements of book and skull at bottom left and the left sleeve of the Magdalen’s chemise. The underlying depiction of St Jerome he considered to be by Orazio, datable to around 1604, corresponding in style to the Sacrifice of Isaac (Galleria nazionale, Liguria) and the Penitent St Jeromes (Palazzo Madama, Turin, and Koelliker collection).
8 Report dated 21 October 2019. Spinosa too noted stylistic similarities between the Jerome seen in X-ray and Orazio’s Penitent St Jerome in Turin of 1610–11; he compared the two heads under the visible surface at the upper right with the angels in Orazio’s Baptism of Christ, Santa Maria della Pace, Rome, of 1607; and for the Magdalen he saw affinities with Judith and her Maidservant Abra with the head of Holofernes, in the Lemme collection, dated to 1610 or earlier, which he ascribes to Orazio. Opinions about the authorship of the latter have oscillated mainly between Artemisia and Orazio, with the attribution to Artemisia garnering the widest scholarly consensus.
9 Private communication with the owner, 22 August 2019.
10 Artemisia Gentileschi, The Story of a Passion, R. Contini and F. Solinas (eds), exh. cat., Palazzo Reale, Milano 2011, pp. 156–57, no. 11, reproduced in colour p. 157.
11 R.W. Bissell, Artemisia Gentileschi and the Authority of Art, University Park 1999, pp. 222–24, no. 16, reproduced in colour pl. XI.
12 J.W. Mann in Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi, K. Christiansen and J.W. Mann (eds), exh. cat., Rome, New York and Saint Louis, 2001–2, pp. 395–97, no. 73, reproduced in colour p. 396.