Caravaggio's drawings: reasons to doubt

by Federico Giannini, Ilaria Baratta , published on 06/07/2012
Categories: News Focus / Disclaimer
The reasons of those who doubt the alleged discovery of 100 drawings attributed to Caravaggio in the Peterzano Fund of the Castello Sforzesco

The discovery would be of the truly sensational kind: about one hundred drawings by Caravaggio discovered in one fell swoop in the Peterzano fund of the Castello Sforzesco in Milan. We will not dwell much on the details of the alleged discovery because televisions, newspapers and websites have already done so, all among others taking for granted the goodness of the attribution of such graphic production. We cite just an article from ANSA1 (which made the announcement yesterday exclusively: in the article we propose instead, the “discovery” is explained with a few more details) and a selection of images taken from Repubblica2.

We have become accustomed to resounding announcements that more or less often pop up and propose the discovery of something related to Caravaggio (be it paintings, drawings, documents or even... bones3), although then in the end it all often ends up with an initial media hype (to which great emphasis is given) followed by denials that have passed however in silence4. Once again, from the articles we read, it is taken for granted that those drawings really belong to Caravaggio, and an endless cloud of websites report the news uncritically, without questioning a little about what if it were true would be a really good discovery. But we have many reasons to doubt.

  1. If they really were Caravaggio drawings, these would have inspired works that chronologically are arranged throughout the life of Michelangelo Merisi. For example, the Repubblica gallery shows some details that would suggest Judith and Holofernes in the National Gallery of Ancient Art in Rome, David with the Head of Goliath in the Borghese Gallery, and Supper at Emmaus in the National Gallery in London: works from about 1609, 1599, and 1602, respectively. Is it really possible to think that Caravaggio, throughout his career, had merely copied invented drawings when he was a young boy, a pupil of Simone Peterzano?
  2. The two experts to whom the discovery is attributed, Maurizio Bernardelli Curuz and Adriana Conconi Fedrigolli, would not have to their credit a scientific record that would qualify them as experts on Caravaggio. In addition, they are talking about drawings found in the Peterzano Fund of the Castello Sforzesco in Milan, a fund well known to scholars and much studied. It is, to borrow the words of scholar Cristina Terzaghi(by clicking on this link you can read her resume), a corpus “composed of about 1,300 drawings most likely coming from a Milanese church, where they were in the early decades of the 20th century” and whose main nucleus belongs to “Simone Peterzano ”5. Is it possible that no one so far has noticed anything?
  3. We are well aware of Caravaggio’s very eventful life...to think that he had been so tidy as to take his youthful drawings with him on every move (from Lombardy to Rome and then to Naples, then to Malta and again toSicily) to the extremes of his life so that he could have drawn cues from them for his works seems a bit fanciful. And then a further question remains: by whom would these drawings have been gathered and how would they have made their way back to Milan?
  4. It is unclear how these drawings were attributed to Caravaggio. On the sources we consulted (including the ANSA article we cited at the beginning), only “comparisons” with works by the painter are cited, but nothing more... it would be interesting to have more information from the authors of the alleged discovery without being forced to buy the two ebooks on sale on Amazon that report the research of Bernardelli Curuz and Conconi Fedrigolli: the details of a scientific discovery should be made known (where “make known” does not mean “sell via ebook”), then those who want to delve deeper will be free to buy the ebook (by the way immediately on sale the same day of the announcement). Certainly, this is not good publicity for the ebook medium itself.
  5. There is a complete lack of confirmation from Caravaggio experts, those who have studied him and have publications on theLombard artist to their credit. Let’s hope, then, that the dissemination of the “discovery” will not have to be entrusted only to the two ebooks (which, to be ebooks, are not even sold at such a modest amount: 13.82 euros including VAT each), so that the experts can have their say.

Finally, a polemical note towards all those “art lovers” who report the news on Facebook giving themselves up to jubilation and smiling emoticons for the discovery of the century: but has it never crossed your mind that what the big newspapers are feeding you is only for looking for easy scoops? Have you ever thought of looking on less emblazoned but more attentive websites for serious art-historical popularization that does not seek the scoop but the knowledge and dissemination of that heritage we care so much about? All it takes is a little effort, you will find many sites: we recommend just a couple of them, this one (Art Stories), this one (Senza Dedica) and this one (Robe da Chiodi)... the next time someone tells you about the discovery of the century take a ride there... and maybe before you leave take a step by us too :-)

We close with a list of articles by those who advance reasons to doubt Caravaggio’s drawings.

  1. Sergio Momesso, One Hundred rediscovered works of Caravaggio: science or delusion?, from Storie dell’Arte, July 6, 2012
  2. Marco Vallora, Caravaggio unpublished: in this case the doubts are more than legitimate, from La Stampa, July 6, 2012
  3. Didier Rykner, Autour de Caravage, le délire continue... , from La Tribune de l’Art, July 6, 2012 (you can find the translation on our Facebook page)
  4. Giuseppe Frangi, Caravage and the stupidity of the internet, from Robe da chiodi, July 6, 2012

Notes

1. Caravaggio, 100 never-before-seen drawings found. Scholars had been looking for them for a century, ANSA, July 6, 2012, 11:10 a.m. ↑
2. 100 Caravaggio drawings found, Repubblica, July 5, 2012↑
3. Cf. Caravaggio’s remains found. Research conducted by the Alma Mater, Corriere di Bologna, June 16, 2010. Here is the link to the article. ↑
4. Emblematic in this regard is the very famous case of the Martyrdom of St. Lawrence discovered in 2010, passed off at first as a painting by Caravaggio. The attribution was then denied after a short time. Cf. New Caravaggio painting discovered, Corriere della Sera, July 17, 2010(link here) and Caravaggio, Observer’s about-face. Paolucci: “The San Lorenzo is not his,” Repubblica, July 26, 2010 (link here). ↑
5. 100 Works of Caravaggio. The expert: 700 million reasons to doubt they are his, Sussidiario.it, July 6, 2012 (link here). ↑

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.