Isaac laughing: Caravaggio, non-traditional imagery and traditional identification

Isaac Laughing: Caravaggio, non-traditionalimagery and traditional identification

Conrad Rudolph and Steven F. Ostrow

In the history of Western art, few paintings have engendered more debate abouttheir subject than Caravaggio's canvas representing a nude pre-pubescent boyembracing a ram in the Pinacoteca Capitolina in Rome (plate 17). Over the courseof the nearly four hundred years since it was painted, various writers haveinterpreted it as either a sacred or a profane image, and have bestowed upon itmore than half a dozen different titles. The most commonly held view is that it is adevotional painting representing ± albeit in a highly unconventional way ± theprecursor of Christ, Saint John the Baptist.1 However, this identification has alsobeen vigorously contested by many viewers, who have, in turn, proposed entirelydifferent readings of its subject. Several writers have affixed pastoral ormythological titles to the work: it has been dubbed a `Pastor friso' (a title thathas been variously interpreted to mean the legendary Phryxus from Greekmythology, a generic Phrygian shepherd, or the Phrygian shepherd Paris);2 a`Coridone' (that is, Corydon, a generic name for a shepherd in ancient andRenaissance pastoral literature);3 and, simply, à young shepherd caressing aram'.4 Others have viewed it in allegorical terms, embodying the ideas of lust andinnocence, the sanguine temperament, and divine love.5 And still other viewershave read the painting as lacking any specific iconography, portraying nothingmore than a `nude youth with a ram'.6

In his monographic study of Caravaggio of 1983, Howard Hibbard remarkedthat `there are persistent and well-founded doubts about Caravaggio's intentions inthis painting.'7 These doubts are no less prevalent today, as revealed by CatherinePuglisi's statement in her recent monograph on the artist that `consensus about the[authenticity of the] picture and its outstanding beauty has not yet resolved thedebate about the painting's subject and its meaning.'8 Indeed, all the titles proposedfor the work are problematical ± in terms of reconciling them with what is actuallydepicted in the painting and, no less important, what is not; moreover, many of thearguments put forward in support of such titles have involved considerablehermeneutical acrobatics. The notion that it represents the young St John isconfounded by the absence of the Baptist's traditional attributes ± the reed cross,banderole, bowl, or lamb ± as well as by the figure's emphatic nudity and his smile.The various mythological, pastoral and allegorical interpretations, while resolvingsome of these problems, raise new ones in their stead and have been argued in suchconvoluted ways as to render them unconvincing. Phryxus, for example, was a

Art History ISSN 0141-6790 Vol. 24 No. 5 November 2001 pp. 646±681

646 ß Association of Art Historians 2001. Published by Blackwell Publishers,108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

17 Caravaggio, Isaac Laughing. Rome, Pinacoteca Capitolina. Scala/Art Resource, NY.

CARAVAGGIO, NON-TRADITIONAL IMAGERY AND TRADITIONAL IDENTIFICATION

ß Association of Art Historians 2001 647

prince, not a shepherd ± which befits neither the figure's designation as a `Pastor'nor his humble (nude) appearance ± and the animal in the painting is decidedly notthe golden fleece, Phryxus's mythological attribute. The painting also lacks thetraditional attributes of Paris ± the Phrygian cap, shepherd's staff, dog and goldenapple ± making this identification equally improbable.9 And it is highly unlikelythat Caravaggio would have painted this work with as generic a subject in mind asa `nude youth with a ram', for none of his other paintings ± whether sacred orprofane ± lacks a specific subject, and there was no tradition of subjectless works inearly Seicento Rome.10

Ultimately, the reason for this confusion has been both Caravaggio's use of anon-traditional subject with a very striking psychological dynamic and thepersistent attempts by scholars to read this same image as an òdd' version oftraditional subject matter. This paper proposes what we believe to be a simplesolution to the question of the subject of Caravaggio's canvas. Simply stated, itdepicts a variation on the Sacrifice of Isaac, with Isaac sitting on the altar, at theprecise moment of his salvation, when the ram miraculously appears as anoffering to God. In support of this reading, we first consider the painting'sdocumentary and historiographical record, which provides evidence, at the veryleast, for challenging all previous interpretations. We then turn to the painting'siconography, examining the ways in which it both conforms to and departs fromthe visual and exegetical tradition of the Sacrifice of Isaac. Lastly we analyse thework within the context of Caravaggio's approach to art-making, especially interms of both his visual strategies and his often radical manner of interpretingsubjects. We also briefly discuss the painting's place within the collection of itspatron, and conclude with a consideration of the implications of re-identifyingone of Caravaggio's most compelling Roman works.11

The documentary and historiographical record

In a series of studies, Francesca Cappelletti and Laura Testa have unequivocallydemonstrated that Caravaggio's Isaac Laughing (as we shall refer to it here) wasone of three works executed by the artist for Marchese Ciriaco Mattei (1542±1614), one of the most discerning art collectors in early Seicento Rome.12 The firstof the three was The Supper at Emmaus in London, for which the painter received150 scudi on 7 January 1602.13 One year later, on 2 January 1603, Ciriacorecorded a payment of 125 scudi for The Taking of Christ, the recentlyrediscovered work that is now in Dublin.14 Two additional payments toCaravaggio, the first in the amount of 60 scudi on 26 June 1602 and the secondfor 25 scudi on 5 December 1602, are also recorded in the marchese's libro deiconti; no title or subject is indicated.15 There is good reason to believe, however,as Cappelletti and Testa have argued, that these payments refer to the work inquestion, for a date of 1602 accords with the style and pictorial handling of thepainting; the work is known to have been executed for the Mattei; and 85 scudiwas an appropriate sum to pay at the time for a painting with a single figure.16

Of the three Mattei paintings, only the Capitoline picture is not mentioned bytitle in the account book; The Supper at Emmaus is referred to as ìl quadro de


648 ß Association of Art Historians 2001

N[ostro] S[ignore] i[n] fractione panis', The Taking of Christ as the `quadro . . .d'un Cristo preso all'orto'. Why this was so and what it means are unclear. Whatis certain, however, is that from the time the work was completed in 1602 we haveno record of its title. Within a few years the painting did acquire one of its varioustitles: `Pastor friso', so named by Gaspare Celio in his guidebook to paintings inRome.17 Although Celio's guide was not published until 1638, it was largelycompleted by 1620; and in all probability Celio first encountered and bestowed atitle on Caravaggio's painting in 1607, when he began decorating one of the roomsin the palace of Ciriaco's younger brother Asdrubale (1556±1638), next door toCiriaco's palace in which the Caravaggio painting hung. In 1615, when Celio wasagain painting in Asdrubale's palace, he could have studied the work anew. And athird opportunity arose in 1616, when he completed a canvas for GiovanniBattista Mattei (1569±1624), Ciriaco's eldest son.18 Celio's text provides neitherhis reasons for calling the painting a `Pastor friso', nor what, exactly, he meant bythis title. But the likelihood that he first saw the work within five years of itscompletion and may well have had the opportunity to discuss it with GiovanniBattista Mattei, who inherited it from his father, would seem to lend Celio ± andthe title he gave the painting ± a certain credence.19

Celio's reading of the painting's subect was not, however, shared by others. Inthe Ìnventario della Guardarobba di Giovan Battista Mattei', drawn up in 1616,the painting was listed as Ùn quadro di San Gio: Battista col suo Agnello di manodel Caravaggio'.20 What had been viewed by Celio as a secular painting of aPhrygian shepherd or of a Phryxus had become ± in the mind of Giovanni BattistaMattei's guardaroba, who drew up the inventory ± a sacred image of Saint Johnthe Baptist.21 Seven years later, in 1623, when the Capitoline picture was nextdocumented, it was again called a Saint John the Baptist. This occurred in the willof Giovanni Battista Mattei, in which he instructed that the painting `di S.Giovanni Battista del Caravaggio' should be left to Cardinal Francesco Maria delMonte, one of Caravaggio's earliest and most significant patrons.22

That the painting is identified as a Saint John the Baptist in both GiovanniBattista Mattei's inventory and his will has been taken by some scholars as proofof its being a Saint John, for, it is assumed, its owner would certainly have knownits true subject.23 This is not necessarily the case, however. Unlike his fatherCiriaco, and his uncles Asdrubale and Girolamo, Giovanni Battista Mattei wasnot known as a distinguished patron of the arts and, indeed, he did little todevelop his family's collection.24 Furthermore, his will reveals that he divested hislargely inherited collection of a number of its best paintings ± including two worksby Caravaggio ± leaving them to various cardinals and other members of theRoman aristocracy. While the bequeathing of prized paintings to high-rankingindividuals was a common practice in early Seicento Roman society, as a means tocurry favor for one's family, Giovanni Battista's giving away the paintings mayalso be seen as evidence of a striking inattention to his own collection of paintings.This, in turn, may account for his having been uncertain of the subject of thepainting in question, or in his identifying it, conveniently, as his eponymous saint,John the Baptist.25

When Caravaggio's painting was next recorded, in Cardinal del Monte'sposthumous inventory of 1627, it retained the Saint John the Baptist



identification.26 One year later, however, when the cardinal's nephew and heir,Alessandro del Monte, sold the painting ± in a lot along with Caravaggio's GypsyFortune-Teller, a Saint Sebastian by Guido Reni, and an Orfeo by Bassano ± itwas recorded as ìl Coridone'.27 Whether this new title ± Corydon ± was intendedto refer to a specific shepherd from ancient or Renaissance pastoral literature (forexample, Theocritus' Idylls, Virgil's Eclogue, and Francesco Colonna'sHypnerotomachia Poliphili all feature characters of this name) or whether itwas used in its more generic sense, as a convenient name for a rustic figure,remains unclear.28 But it is noteworthy that Caravaggio's painting was once againinterpreted as a secular work, as an image of a shepherd.

The sale's record of 1628 does not name the individual who purchased thepainting, but there exists a general consensus that the buyer was CardinalEmanuele Pio, who was then amassing a large collection of pictures and in whoseposthumous inventory of 1641 the work was next recorded. It was listed neither asa Saint John the Baptist nor as a shepherd ± whether `Coridone' or `Pastor friso' ±but instead as à nude youth . . . who embraces a lamb with his right arm'.29

Caravaggio's enigmatic boy was now deprived of any biblical, mythological, orliterary identity; he had become, simply, an anonymous youth (at least in the mindof the inventory's compiler).

To Giovanni Baglione, however, who reported that Caravaggio executed thepainting for Ciriaco Mattei, its subject was not an anonymous youth; it was aSaint John the Baptist. Similarly, Francesco Scannelli and Giovan Pietro Bellori,both of whom saw Caravaggio's painting in the Pio collection, described it asrepresenting the Baptist.30 Later in the seventeenth century, in a guidebook toRome, the painting was listed once more as a à young Saint John the Baptist, whoplays with the little lamb'; but in an inventory of the Pio collection compiled in1724, Caravaggio's canvas was recorded ± much as it had been in the 1641inventory ± as a `nude youth, who . . . embraces the head of a lamb'.31 In 1740 thepainting was again recorded in a Pio inventory ± this time, however, as a SaintJohn the Baptist.32 But in the inventory of 1749, compiled in anticipation of thesale (in 1750) of a large number of paintings from the Pio collection to PopeBenedict XIV, it was listed without any title at all ± a choice, one cannot help butsuppose, that reflects the longstanding confusion over the painting's subject.33

The paintings acquired by Benedict XIV from the Pio collection formed thenucleus of the Pinacoteca Capitolina, and the record of Caravaggio's paintingwithin its new setting is no less contradictory than when it was in the possessionof the Mattei, the del Monte and the Pio families. Although the work was called aSaint John the Baptist in the revised edition (of 1765) of Roisecco's guide to Romeand in Vasi's guidebook of 1794, in Venuti's guide of 1766, in Rossini's of 1771,and in nearly a dozen other Roman guidebooks and catalogues of the Capitolinecollection published between 1794 and 1914, it was recorded as a `nude youth',with his companion either being ignored or variously identified as a lamb, a ram,or even a goat.34 Bocconi's guide to the Capitoline collections of 1925 makes nomention at all of the picture, as it had been removed from the PinacotecaCapitolina sometime between 1918 and 1921.35 It was `rediscovered', however, byDenis Mahon in 1953, hanging in the office of the mayor of Rome. Mahonannounced his discovery in an article of that year, calling it a Saint John the



Baptist. But two years later, when it was exhibited in London, he reversed himself,cataloguing Caravaggio's painting under the title `Nude Youth with a Ram', andreferring to it as a `monumental genre' which appeared so `strange, irritating, andyet fascinating' to its audience `that it was imperative to provide the compositionwith some title which would give it respectable pictorial status' ± that is, SaintJohn the Baptist.36

The foregoing overview of the documentary and historiographical recordunderscores the extent to which Caravaggio's canvas has defied preciseidentification, intermittently being called a `Pastor friso', a `San GiovanniBattista', a `Coridone', and a `giovane nudo'. It is a record that demonstrates, ifnothing else, that there has been no consensus about its title or subject. One could,of course, argue that some sources are more reliable than others, but which of themany records of the painting should be so privileged? Should Celio, presumablythe first to assign the painting a title, but the only one to identify the subject as a`Pastor friso', be believed, or should we put more faith in Giovanni BattistaMattei's inventory and will, in which the painting is called a Saint John? Is therecord of the painting's sale in 1628, in which it is called a Corydon, more or lessauthoritive than other documents? Should we believe Bellori, who twice called it aBaptist? And what stock should we put in the four Pio inventories, in which it islisted twice as a nude youth, once as a Saint John, and once without any titlewhatsoever?

In evaluating the reliability of the surviving documentation, it may be notedthat we have five distinct types of records. The first consists of the two paymentdocuments of 1602, which are impossible to evaluate as they do not name thepainting in any way. Early guidebooks and artistic biographies comprise a secondcatagory. Limiting ourselves to those written in the seventeenth century, one,Celio's Memoria, calls the painting a `Pastor friso', while the other four affix to itthe title of Saint John the Baptist. Celio's àuthority' has been addressed at lengthby Creighton Gilbert and discussed briefly above; it is striking, however, that thetitle he gave the work finds no corroboration until the late twentieth century,when Leonard Slatkes, Gilbert and Avigdor PoseÁ q embraced the `Pastor friso'identification, albeit each interpreting this title in very different ways. As a painterworking in Rome in the same years as Caravaggio, Giovanni Baglione was in aposition to have firsthand information about his life and works. Notwithstandinghis enmity for Caravaggio, his biography of the artist ± especially for the Romanyears ± has proved to be generally accurate, ìn most cases', as Walter Friedlaenderwrote, `more reliable than that given by Bellori'.37 In contrast, Francesco Scannelliwas a medical doctor and an amateur of painting, who wrote at some years'remove from Caravaggio's Roman period. Gilbert dismisses his biography of theartist as being `not very informative'; and indeed, it offers no new information,being highly derivative of Baglione's vita. Giovan Pietro Bellori's credentials needlittle comment. In the words of Julius von Schlosser, he was `the most importanthistoriographer of art not only of Rome, but of all Italy, even of Europe, in theseventeenth century'.38 His biography of Caravaggio, however, while containingvaluable information, especially about the painter's post-Roman years, is colouredby his classicist bias and distorted by a reading of Caravaggio's art through thelens of the artist's violent life.39 Finally, the last of the seventeenth-century texts to



mention the painting is the guidebook written by the Rossi. Although a usefulguide to the art of Rome, it carries little weight in its own right, as it dependsdirectly on earlier guides and vite, and its description of Caravaggio's canvas is analmost verbatim recapitulation of Bellori's of 1664.

The third kind of record is the document of sale of 1628. It is a financialdocument, listing the monies received for works in the sale of Cardinal delMonte's collection and paid into the Banco di S. Spirito. Although one wouldexpect such an official document to be an accurate and complete source, this isonly the case in terms of the amount of money paid. Of the five hundred andninety-nine paintings sold, in fact, only forty-two are identified by artist; anumber of works are listed generically as `quadri diversi'; and in a number ofinstances the painters are indicated, but the paintings' subjects are not. Thereliability of the Corydon title bestowed on Caravaggio's painting in this list is,therefore, difficult to ascertain, but the fact that this is the only record with such atitle raises serious doubts.

The testament, drawn up by Giovanni Battista Mattei in 1623, constitutes thefourth type of record. A legal document notarized by a certain ChrisanthesRosciolus, it was, presumably, as was the norm, dictated by Mattei to a scribe. Theway Caravaggio's picture is listed in the will ± as a `S Gio: Battista' ± depended,therefore, on Giovanni Battista Mattei's conception of its subject, and as discussedabove, in light of his having not been the patron of the work, he could well havemisconstrued its theme, which, as we have seen, was already in doubt at the time.

Inventories make up the fifth and final category of evidence, and we have sixinventory records of Caravaggio's painting. The first is Giovanni Battista Mattei'sinventory of 1616, compiled by his guardaroba, Lodovico Carletti, which lists thework as a Saint John the Baptist and presumably reflects the opinion of its newowner (although Carletti himself may have been responsible for naming thework). The second is Francesco Maria del Monte's posthumous inventory of 1627,a notarial document accounting for all of the deceased cardinal's possessions,signed by the notary Paulus Vespignanus; it too records the work as a Baptist ± inkeeping with the title by which it was known when Cardinal del Monte inheritedit, but a far cry from ìl Coridone', the title by which it was sold one year later.The final four are Pio inventories dated 1641, 1724, 1740 and 1749. Those of 1641and 1724, whose authors are unknown, record the painting as a `nude youth'; inthe 1740 inventory, compiled by the painter Francesco Trevisani, it appears as aSaint John the Baptist; and in that of 1749, written by the painter Giovanni PaoloPannini, no title is listed. The lack of agreement among the inventories ± especiallythose of the Pio collection ± is notable and illuminates the degree to whichinventory records, while essential tools for establishing provenance, can beunreliable. Incorrect authors of works are listed with great frequency, as areerroneous titles and subjects. In the 1633 inventory of the Ludovisi collection, forexample, Guido Reni's Artemesia was recorded as a `Circe Maga', while AnnibaleCarracci's Saint Roche was listed as Ùn San Giacomo' by Ludovico Carracci.40

When Vincenzo Giustiniani's collection was inventoried in 1638, a Salome waserroneously recorded as a Judith.41 And to cite one additional example, in the1724 Pio inventory, Bartolomeo Manfredi's David was identified as a Saint Johnthe Evangelist, and his harp misconstrued as an eagle.42



In the end, we are confronted by a mass of contradictory information, albeit withthe majority of the early sources identifying the work as a Saint John. Yet theauthors of the early biographies and guides and those responsible for writing thevarious documentary records possessed no definitive knowledge of the work's title.Each identified it according to his own reading of its subject or on the basis of whathe was told its subject was; and it is not surprising that a young nude male figureseated in a landscape, accompanied by a ram, would be called a `Pastor friso', aCorydon, a nude youth, or, as in the majority of cases, a Saint John the Baptist. Allof these titles, however, present objective difficulties, and none accounts for what weactually see in the painting in terms of its iconography and its visual dynamics. It ison this basis, then, that we propose a new reading of Caravaggio's painting.

The visual tradition

In 398, only eighty-five years after the Peace of the Church, Augustine could feignastonishment at the apparent ignorance of one of his former teachers (albeit a veryshort-lived one), wondering how it was possible that this great master couldappear to be ignorant of the biblical subject of the sacrifice of Isaac, characterizingit in his attack as

so well known that a person becomes aware of it without having to read oreven ask about it ± indeed, it is sung in so many languages and painted inso many places that it strikes the ears and eyes of even those who wouldlike to avoid it!43

Twelve hundred years later, in 1602, the situation seems to have been littledifferent. Of great scriptural importance as the ultimate act of faith, marking theconfirmation of the covenant between God and his people, and serving as thepre-eminent Old Testament type of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, thesacrifice of Isaac was currently undergoing a renewal of popularity which it nowowed (not without a little irony) to the writings of Augustine himself, inparticular to the City of God, where the subject receives perhaps its classicexegetical interpretation.44 In painting the Sacrifice of Isaac in the earlyseventeenth century, one potential issue to be addressed by an artist ofCaravaggio's temperament was, then, how to create a dynamic alternative to thetraditional iconographic form while still employing enough traditionaliconography to make the image effective.

This was not necessarily as easy as it might sound, even for an artist with theindividuality of Caravaggio, and, completely aside from this, such a thing mightnot at all be desired by a particular patron. The traditional iconographicalcomponents of the Sacrifice of Isaac (or the Sacrifice of Abraham, depending onjust where your sympathies lie), were well established early on.45 A completelisting of iconographical components of the kind of Sacrifice of Isaac thateventually became standard in the West includes Abraham with knife or sword inhand; Isaac, either nude or clothed; an altar, typically monumental; wood; fire;the ram, whether free or caught in the bush; the bush in which the ram was



caught, often depicted as if it were a tree; and the angel. While there was always afair amount of freedom in the depiction of this subject, variations werecharacteristically unimaginative and typically consisted of eliminating one oranother minor component of the traditional iconography (for example, the angelis often omitted); on occasion, a traditional component might be alteredsomewhat (for example, rather than a monumental altar, the altar might bedepicted as if improvised); and very, very rarely a major component might beeliminated (for example, Isaac, leaving only Abraham and the ram; or even bothIsaac and Abraham, leaving the ram alone).46 The level to which Caravaggiocould accommodate himself to the traditional scheme, more or less complete, ismade quite clear in his Uffizi Sacrifice of Isaac of 1603, where almost all thetraditional components appear ± Abraham with knife, an apparently nude Isaac,an altar (here improvised), the ram, the bush or tree, and the angel ± the onlyexceptions being the wood and fire, which presumably are cut off by the lowerframe of the painting (plate 18). Furthermore, despite all its drama andimplication of escalating violence, each of the main narrative devices employedby Caravaggio in this painting had also appeared earlier, such as Isaac screaming,the angel gripping the arm of Abraham, and the angel pointing to the ram ±however unique and conceptually independent is the final creation, in fact (forexample, plates 19 and 20).

However, in any number of his other biblical works, whether he had greaterpatronal freedom or whether the Muse was simply with him, Caravaggio

18 Caravaggio, The Sacrifice of Isaac. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi. Alinari/Art Resource, NY.



19 The Sacrifice of Isaac, Psalterof Saint Louis. ClicheÂBibliotheÁ que nationale de France,Paris, MS lat. 10525:10.

20 Filippo Brunelleschi, TheSacrifice of Isaac. Florence, MuseoNazionale del Bargello. Alinari/Art Resource, NY.


brilliantly addressed the problem of freshly rendering age-old stories based onalmost equally ancient formats. He did this not simply by making the dramapalpable, as he did in the Uffizi Sacrifice of Isaac, or by eliminating one of theminor iconographical components, as had been feebly done for centuries, but byreconceiving the narration in a very specific way. The Calling of Matthew has itstraditional customs house and table, but it also has a visual narrative sopsychologically subtle that it has prompted an enormous amount of disagreementas to the very identity of its main subject, Matthew.47 The Conversion of SaintPaul and The Entombment of Christ have their customary horse and tomb slab,respectively, but their compositions are rendered so dynamically ± despite the factthat Bellori described the former as `completely without action' ± that the verynarrative is transformed psychologically from a third-hand to a first-handexperience, as it were.48 And The Penitent Magdalene has her jewellery, her vaseof ointment, her deÂcolletage and her long, loose hair, but even so the paintingmanaged to be criticized by the same Bellori as a depiction of a woman drying herhair, rather than the Magdalene, crying in penitence, with a tear running downher face, sitting in emotional isolation.49 In these cases, Caravaggio thus typicallytakes the traditional iconographical format but transforms it by intenselydeveloping the psychological component: the image remains narrative (ornarrative-evoking, as in the case of the Magdalene), but in a way that is virtuallyfrozen at the moment of greatest psychological drama.

The situation is similar, though a bit more extreme, with the Capitolinepainting ± which leads us to the question of just which iconographical com-ponents of the Sacrifice of Isaac are in it, and, eventually, to the more interestingquestion of which are not.

As we have said, earlier depictions of the Sacrifice of Isaac in Western arttypically employ a monumental altar, before the twelfth century usually antique(something that probably originally came about because of its narrative legibilitywithin the context of a common understanding of Mediterranean religiouspractice) and either antique or Christian thereafter.50 While Isaac is often shownon unfired wood on top of this altar (for example, plates 21 and 22), he is just asoften shown either next to a pile of burning wood or on a grill-like altar with afire below (for example, plates 19 and 20).

But such an altar and the presence of fire on or under it is not what is describedin the Genesis account. In Genesis 22:1±19, it is said that, having brought cut woodand fire with him (the wood carried by Isaac), Abraham built an improvised altaron the spot ± a far cry, for example, from Brunelleschi's depiction of a monumentalstone altar with a relief of the Annunciation to the Virgin carved on its side (plate20). Abraham then, according to this account, arranged the wood on the altar andplaced Isaac upon it; but the wood remained unfired ± at least in the imagination ofthose who undertake a close reading of the passage ± for nothing more is said of thefire that Abraham is described as having carried there.

It is in accordance with this close reading, rather than with the traditionaliconographic tradition, that Caravaggio chose to depict these elements of thestory. The boy Isaac sits upon an arrangement of wood which is not the naturallyfallen timbers of some pastoral scene but which show clear signs of having beencut: the cut wood that Isaac had carried with them, just as described in Genesis.



21 The Sacrifice of Isaac, from Saint Paul's, Rome. Rome, Bib. Vat. MS Barb. lat. 4406:38.

22 Lodovico Carracci, The Sacrifice of Isaac. Rome, Musei Vaticani. Scala/Art Resource, NY.


This wood, in turn, lies on top of the improvised altar of the Genesis account,made on the spot and here largely obscured by Isaac, his clothing and the wood.Although the depiction of improvised altars is not the norm before this time, it isnot at all uncommon after the first few years of the seventeenth century, andCaravaggio is far from alone in his depiction of an improvised altar or even ofIsaac's cast-off clothing upon it (for example, plate 22 for an earlier example, andplates 23 and 24 for later ones).51 But where he departs from his predecessors is inhis wonderfully imagined and realistic recreation of this altar and the relateddetails ± including what seems to be the jumbled stacking of unworked stones ofthe altar in the lower left corner, though the repainted and damaged state of thisarea (with traces of an earlier arrangement of Isaac's red robe) makes itproblematic.52

As in the vast majority of Sacrifices in the Western tradition, the importanticonographical component of the ram is present. Also present, in the upper rightcorner of the painting, immediately next to the ram, is the almost equallyimportant bush or tree in which the ram had been caught, barely emerging fromthe darkened background of the wild, almost primeval setting. This tree, with itshooked branch ± perhaps the branch upon which the ram was caught, a motiffound in the Uffizi Sacrifice and in other Sacrifice imagery, but in no other workof Caravaggio ± is essentially no different from those which had appeared inSacrifice iconography for centuries, though, here, brought up to date throughCaravaggio's highly naturalistic approach (compare plates 18 and 25). The logic

23 Peter Paul Rubens, The Sacrifice of Isaac. Paris, Louvre. Scala/Art Resource, NY.



24 Rembrandt van Rijn, The Sacrifice of Isaac. St Petersburg, Hermitage. Bildarchiv FotoMarburg/Art Resource, NY.



of the pairing of these two traditionalcomponents is clear enough, oncerecognized. The similarity, however,between this animal and the animal inCaravaggio's John the Baptist in theGalleria Borghese (plate 26) has led tothe fundamentally flawed basic premiseof an argument that has contributedgreatly to a misunderstanding of bothpaintings and the misidentification ofthe Capitoline one. It goes like this.Because the Borghese John, whose reedstaff identifies him as the Baptist, seemsto be shown with a ram rather than thelamb which is appropriate to hisrecognition of Christ as the Lamb ofGod (John. 1:29, 36) ± even though thiswould be inexplicably contrary to

Scripture ± the Capitoline painting, which shows a more or less similar animal,must also depict a Baptist, despite the fact that the Capitoline figure, in contrast,has none of the attributes of the Borghese John; that the figure is inappropriatelytotally nude, unlike every other Baptist ever painted by Caravaggio; and that aram would make no more sense here, if this figure were a John, than it would inthe Borghese painting.

There is no need to go to such lengths. The key to understanding the characterof these animals ± both sheep in the generic sense of the term ± liesstraightforwardly in Caravaggio's most renowned trait: his naturalism. The sheepin the Borghese John has been described by art historians as a ram, contrary towhat the subject matter demands, because of its horns. But the identification of asheep as a ram because of its horns is not that simple. Even `spring lambs' (i.e.,lambs in their first year) may have horns, though they are traditionally depicted inart without them. However, `yearling lambs' (lambs in their second year, afterwhich they become capable of breeding and so are called rams, in the narrow senseof the word) typically have what could be called a full set of horns in non-polled(i.e., horned) varieties. Indeed, the Lamb of the Apocalypse is able to be describedas horned for this very reason, and is regularly shown as horned in the conventionalmanner (with two horns, rather than the seven described in the Bible). While theBaptist is traditionally depicted with a hornless lamb, the Lamb of God of John1:29 was understood by some exegetes as referring to the yearling lamb (anniculus)of the Passover (Exodus 12:1±14), which is, at times, depicted with full horns.53

And this is precisely what Caravaggio has shown in the Borghese painting, ahorned lamb, not a ram. According to Professor Flint Freeman of California StatePolytechnic University, a specialist on sheep, the curvature of a sheep's horns isindicative of its age. The horns of the Borghese sheep arc gently down and out, thetype of horn growth, according to Professor Freeman, characteristic of a lamb ofaround twelve months. It is his opinion that the animal should definitely beconsidered a lamb. Dr Michael L. Ryder, the distinguished British historian of the

25 The Sacrifice of Isaac, Rome, MuseiVaticani.



sheep and author of Sheep and Man, agrees with this assessment of age exactly,also seeing the Borghese sheep as around twelve months old.54

While the Capitoline and Borghese animals are similar in that they both belongto the same variety of sheep, according to Freeman (though modern breeds onlycame after this time), the horns of the two are distinctly different. As sheep getolder, their horns curve more and the curve becomes tighter. In contrast to thoseof the Borghese lamb, the horns of the Capitoline sheep have generally curled upand in, in the tighter spiral thought of as the classic arrangement of a ram's hornsand almost exactly the same in their curvature as the ram's horns in the Sacrificeof Isaac in Princeton, attributed by many scholars to Caravaggio (plate 27). But, infact, the description of the animal of the Sacrifice as a `ram' is a factor of thebroad meaning of the word, not the narrow one: in the Latin of the Vulgate(aries), in early seventeenth-century Italian (montone), and in modern English, theword `ram' can mean either a male sheep of breeding age or simply any malesheep, regardless of age.55 And, in an Italian translation of the Bible of 1607, thesheep of the Sacrifice is first called a lamb (agnello) and then a male sheep or `ram'(montone), the same pattern found in the Hebrew from which it was translated.56

26 Caravaggio,John the Baptist inthe Desert. Rome,Galleria Borghese.Alinari/ArtResource, NY.



27 (above) Attributed toCaravaggio, The Sacrifice of Isaac.Princeton, The Barbara PiaseckaJohnson Collection.

28 (left) Jacopo della Quercia, TheSacrifice of Isaac. Panel. Bolgna,Porta Magna, San Petronio. Scala/ArtResource, NY.



Indeed, many artists before Caravaggio chose to portray the ram of the Sacrificeaccording to the broad meaning, with either no horns at all (for example, plates 25and 28) or with only the very short horns of a spring lamb (for example, plate 21).While none of this is to say that Caravaggio was versed in the subtleties ofzoology, it is to say that the universally recognized level of naturalism thatpermeates his work ± seen elsewhere in the Capitoline painting, for example, inthe mullein plant in the lower right corner, a rendering which would not be out ofplace in a botanical textbook ± does extend to his depictions of animals as well;and that the very close attention to age seen in his human subject matter is alsoseen in his portrayals of animals. There is no need to look for any non-scripturalinconsistencies or contradictions in regard to the sheep of either of these paintings.Caravaggio has simply followed traditional iconography ± depicting a lamb in theBorghese John and a ram in the Capitoline piece ± in his own, naturalistic way.

While the angel is not present, the angel was often not included in this subjectfor the simple fact that, according to the Genesis account, the angel neverphysically appears before Abraham, but only speaks `from heaven'. In fact, at onepoint the angel identifies himself as God. It is for this reason that, while thedepiction of the hand of God was common enough (for example, plate 29), it wasalso not unheard of to show neither an angel nor the hand of God in Sacrificeimagery (for example, plates 21 and 25) ± the latter being something that would bedistinctly discordant with Caravaggio's naturalism.57

29 The Sacrifice ofIsaac. Ravenna, SanVitale. Alinari/ArtResource, NY.



And, of course, the youthful Isaac is present ± here, totally nude, somethingwhich would be entirely inappropriate for John the Baptist, and which is found innone of Caravaggio's paintings of the Baptist.58 On a general iconographical level,his basic pose is not at all unusual, leaving aside for the moment some of its moreparticular aspects, as well as its probable derivation from one of Michelangelo'sSistine ignudi.59 For example, the general arrangement of the legs is found again andagain, in both unclothed and clothed examples going back hundreds of years (forexample, plates 29 and 30, and the later 23 and 24), these seated figures bearing aclose relation with a variety in which Isaac kneels on one leg (for example, plates 20and 25). Thus, although the impression of Caravaggio's figure is fundamentallydifferent, the basic pose itself falls into the general iconographical tradition. Butwhat is more important here, what is new and different, is the purpose of the pose, inthe broadest sense of the term, a pose that has been radically reconceived in regard toSacrifice imagery. For, despite the presence of the iconographical components of thealtar, the wood, the ram, the bush or tree and Isaac himself, what Caravaggio hasdone is only a bolder example of what he did in his other biblical works mentionedearlier. He has taken the traditional iconographical format ± or part of it ± andfrozen the narrative at the emotional highpoint, in this case, the highpoint in regardto the history of salvation. And he has done this by having Isaac partially rise fromthe altar, embrace the ram, directly address the viewer ± and laugh.

The exegetical tradition

In some ways, the exegetical tradition of the Sacrifice of Isaac is perhaps as wellknown to art historians today as it seems to have been in Augustine's time. Even

30 The Sacrificeof Isaac. Choir,Saint-BenoõÃ t-sur-Loire. Photo: TheConway Library,Courtauld Instituteof Art.



so, just as the visual tradition of the Sacrifice of Isaac is one that Caravaggio bothincorporated and went beyond, so is the Capitoline painting a field both for thetraditional exegetical interpretations known to art historians through traditionaldepictions as well as for other equally traditional ± equally well known ± exegesiswhich, to the best of our knowledge, was never worked into a major depiction ofthis subject and so is something that is ultimately unique in the visual tradition ofthe Sacrifice of Isaac.

Already found in Paul and appearing relentlessly throughout the Fathers andlater sources ± from Irenaeus to Tertullian to Origen to Ambrose to Augustine toChrysostom, among many, many others ± the exegetical interpretation of Isaac asa type of Christ is one of the best-known Christological foreshadowings of theOld Testament.60 The willingness of the father Abraham, to offer his son Isaac,was seen as a type of God the Father's willingness to sacrifice his son, Christ. Alittle more specifically, according to Augustine and others, the carrying of thewood by Isaac for his own sacrifice was interpreted as the carrying of the cross byChrist.61 Even more specifically still, Isaac was placed on the altar just as Christwas `hung on the tree' (in ligno suspensus), according to Isidore of Seville, in apassage that found its way into the widely diffused Glossa Ordinaria, a text whichhad undergone many printings by Caravaggio's time and had lost none of itsstatus as `The Standard Gloss'.62 In regard to this specific exegetical component,then, what we see in Caravaggio's stunning work is the Old Testament type ofChrist in the context of his own sacrifice, sitting on the means of his sacrifice, thewood of the cross, a sacrifice for which his father was both willing and a witness.

We have noted that Isaac's basic pose is not iconographically unusual. But thatdoes not mean that Caravaggio simply blindly appropriated it. As Caravaggioemploys it, it has become something more. Isaac has partially risen from the altarand, resting his left arm on it, twists to embrace the ram before completing the rise,his right foot placed on the ground in anticipation of this. Exegetically, the risingmotion conveys the idea of Isaac/Christ rising from the expectation of death orfrom death itself, an idea that first makes its appearance already in the Epistle tothe Hebrews and which is repeated by virtually every major exegete thereafter.63

This is not to deny the sensual manner in which Caravaggio rendered the generalpose. However, while this sensuality may accompany the traditionaliconographical and exegetical traditions, it by no means displaces them.

This brings us to the `perfection' of the body of Isaac, a body which is treatedwith neither the relative modesty of Caravaggio's Baptists in general, nor with theheavy shadows of his Kansas City John in particular, where the heavy shadowstend to de-emphasize any ideal qualities of the youthful body (plate 31). Indeed,while Caravaggio ultimately depicts the Capitoline figure in a distinctlyhomoerotic manner ± though perhaps one that was seen as somewhat lesshomoerotic within Roman culture of the early seventeenth century than it is today± for our purposes the main point is the figure's bodily perfection. Although wepersonally feel that Caravaggio needed no theological justification for theperfection of the nude Isaac ± the classicizing undercurrent of early Seicentoartistic culture and his own predilections being enough ± the fact is that there wassuch a patristic basis. As the type of the perfect man, Christ, or simply as thehistorical Isaac himself, texts such as Chrysostom's Homilies on Genesis provided



31 Caravaggio, Saint John the Baptist in the Wilderness. Oil on canvas, 172.7 � 132.1 cm.Kansas City, Missouri, The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art (Purchase: Nelson Trust).Photography by Robert Newcombe and Edward Robinson. ß 2001 The Nelson GalleryFoundation. All reproduction rights reserved.



a point of acceptability for such a depiction in their references to `the externalelegance and internal beauty of the boy, his obedience, grace, and the bloom of hisyouth'.64 And so while the sensuality of the figure may test the limits of a religioussubject ± Cardinal Ottavio Paravicino wrote the very year after this work wasfinished that Caravaggio's paintings lay somewhere `between the religious and theprofane'65 ± the perfection which is the basis of this sensuality is entirely inkeeping with the spiritual conception of Isaac/Christ, whatever else may beoperative here.

The same seems to be true for the rich clothing (the white tunic, the red robeand the fur of Isaac): a patristic or theological explanation can be found, althoughwe do not feel that one is necessary in this particular case. For example, in theJewish tradition, The Book of the Generations of Adam (which was firstpublished in Italy in 1552 and again not long after the painting was made) tellshow Isaac was dressed in à very fine and beautiful garment'.66

If Isaac is universally seen as a type of Christ, the ram that was to be sacrificedin confirmation of the covenant between God and his people has an equally vastbase of support among the Fathers as a type of Christ as well.67 In fact, accordingto Augustine, Ìsaac was Christ and the ram was Christ. . . . Christ was in bothIsaac and the ram', an opinion in which he was not alone.68 This seems to be thethought behind the pronounced juxtaposition of the face of Isaac and the face ofthe ram, an arrangement that is also seen in the Uffizi Sacrifice (plate 18), thoughto somewhat less effect. A visual equation is being drawn, underscoring thatChrist was in both Isaac and the ram, although one need not turn specifically toAugustine for what was simply common knowledge within the religious culture ofthe period.69

A corollary of the interpretation of the ram as a type of Christ is that the bushor tree (lignum), as it was often called, in which it was caught is a type of the cross(just as is the wood that Isaac carried).70 Some exegetes even saw the site of thebush or tree as the site of Christ's coming crucifixion.71 As if to make clear thisconnection with the cross, a grape-vine grows up this tree ± a grape-vine like theone from which the Lamb of God eats in anticipation of its sacrifice in theBorghese John the Baptist (plate 26)72 ± in indication of the Christological andeven eucharistic meaning embedded in this important element of the painting.

In all of this, we see that Caravaggio has followed the basic and well-established iconographical and exegetical traditions of the Sacrifice of Isaac, whileat the same time diverging from both in a uniquely creative and independentmanner whenever the need or opportunity arose. In no way any less well knownthan the interpretation of Isaac and the ram as types of Christ, and no less fullysupported by the exegetical literature, is by far the most unique and independent,even striking, element of the painting: the smile or laugh that is so effectivelyrendered on Isaac's face, an element that dominates the work and to which the eyereturns again and again for psychological as well as compositional reasons. Firstfound in the pre-Christian writings of Philo Judaeus, and taken up by manyChristian writers, typically as exegetical commentary on Abraham and Sarah's`laughing' when told that Sarah would give birth to Isaac ± for example, Clementof Alexandria, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome (in his Liber InterpretationisHebraicorum Nominum, no less, one of the basic biblical reference works of



the Middle Ages and Renaissance) and Gregory the Great, and dutifully recordedin the Glossa Ordinaria ± the name Isaac is repeatedly interpreted in the exegeticalliterature as meaning `laughter', `laughter or joy', or `laughter [as] a sign of joy'.73

It is thus no accident that this is exactly what we see in Caravaggio's IsaacLaughing. The reason that Isaac is laughing here, however, is not in recognition ofthe narrow etymological interpretation of Jerome and others, but to express themore developed understanding first expressed by Clement of Alexandria, thoughby no means dependent upon him:

Isaac is explained as meaning `laughter'. . . . He laughed mystically,foretelling that the Lord would fill us with laughter, we who have beenredeemed from death and corruption by the blood of the Lord. . . . ForJesus arose unharmed after his burial, just as Isaac was released fromsacrifice.74

The expression and gesture of Isaac, therefore, are not those of a simplerecognition of the ram as Christ in the sense of John the Baptist acclaiming theLamb of God.75 Nor is their principal purpose here to refer to Christ's willingacceptance of the passion, as in Leonardo's Christ Child and the Lamb in TheMadonna and Saint Anne in the Louvre. Rather, they primarily indicate joy insalvation and the welcoming of Christ as saviour ± Christ, the ram, who has comeforward voluntarily, as is appropriate for any proper sacrifice, from the tree upwhich the life-giving eucharistic vine grows. But with whom is Isaac laughing?Towards whom does he naturally turn and make eye contact at this specialmoment? Where is the boy's much-relieved father Abraham?

As we have said, virtually nothing appears in this painting that is entirely newin the strict sense of having no basis either in the visual or the exegeticaltraditions, and this is true even for the psychological dynamic of the painting, adynamic that has determined its viewpoint both emotionally and compositionally.Already with Josephus's Jewish Antiquities, which had been translated early onfrom Greek into Latin and was widely read in Christian culture (there were manyItalian editions by Caravaggio's time), an overt emotional component missing inthe Genesis account was introduced, with Isaac and Abraham being described ashaving been `restored to each other beyond all hope' and èmbracing' after theram was brought forth from òbscurity' for them to see.76 But it is withChrysostom, the most widely translated and read Greek exegete in the West, thatthe sacrifice of Isaac is most fundamentally rendered from the psychological pointof view of the father, Abraham:

With what eyes did he gaze upon the boy bringing along the wood uponwhich he himself was soon to sacrifice him? How was his hand able tohold the fire and the sword? Indeed, his hand carried a visible fire, but aninterior fire fanned the flames of his very mind and consumed his reason.. . . And Isaac said to his father, Abraham, `Father . . . where is the sheepfor the whole burnt-offering?' Think at this point, I ask you, about theanguish of this just man, how he bore hearing this, how he managed toanswer the boy, how he did not become rattled in his mind, how he



managed to conceal from his son what was going to happen, and insteadsaid with noble spirit and a resolute soul, 'God himself will see to a sheepfor the whole burnt-offering, my son.'77

Indeed, this passage continues with the one cited earlier, evoking the processthrough which Abraham increased his own mental anguish by thinking about hisson's èxternal elegance and internal beauty, his obedience, grace, and the bloomof his youth'. And this is precisely the viewpoint chosen by Caravaggio, althoughwe do not mean to imply that he was necessarily directly dependent uponChrysostom. In the Uffizi Sacrifice, Caravaggio followed one iconographicaltradition of the Sacrifice by portraying the intervening angel, whose physicalpresence is not supported by the Genesis account. But in Isaac Laughing, hefollowed the equally venerable iconographical tradition that was based on a moreliteral reading of Genesis which did not include the angel. In doing this, however,he took a less travelled path by choosing not to include the hand of God whichusually (though not always) acts in place of the angel, apparently seeing it asarchaic by seventeenth-century standards and as alien as well to his ownnaturalistic approach to biblical depiction. All that is really missing in IsaacLaughing, iconographically, is Abraham. But Abraham is only missing visually.Psychologically and emotionally, he is forcefully present, though outside the spaceof the picture. For Isaac, following the widespread and venerable exegesismentioned earlier, is understood as having been brought back from death andrestored to his father, from whose viewpoint ± psychologically, emotionally andvisually ± the entire event is conveyed. The viewer is put in the place of Abraham,a radically conceived viewpoint in that the viewer is expected to enter more deeplyinto the narrative of the event, indeed, play a role in it, figuratively. The viewerbecomes part of the dynamic of the painting through the implied positioning ofAbraham, the father who was about to commit his son to blood sacrifice as aholocaust ± a whole burnt-offering ± and who now has his son returned to himthrough the grace of God.

* * *

Thus, in Caravaggio's Isaac Laughing, we see Isaac partially rising from the woodlaid on the altar just as Christ rose after the crucifixion from the tomb. He rises, asit were, from death and, embracing his saviour, the ram ± who has just come forthfrom the tree on which the salvific eucharistic vine grows ± laughs in joy at hissalvation, both physical and spiritual. Basic to both the spiritual interpretationand the pictorial composition is the traditional exegetical understanding that Isaacis Christ and the ram is Christ, that Christ is in both Isaac and the ram, anunderstanding that accounts for the basic relation between Isaac and the ram, aswell as for the juxtaposition of their heads. Isaac looks the viewer right in the eye,establishing an astonishingly direct psychological relationship, a psychologicalrelationship that is fundamental to the narrative basis of the painting. Indeed, thispainting only makes real sense when understood as a narrative: Isaac's laughing,his nudity, his partial rising motion, his turned head, his direct look, hisembracing of the ram ± all are components of the emotional high point of the



story (in the context of the history of salvation), when he is `brought back fromdeath' and restored to his father, Abraham, from whose viewpoint we see Isaac.

The painting is based almost entirely on the visual and exegetical traditions,though uniquely rendered by Caravaggio. Iconographically, virtually all thetraditional components are present: Isaac, the altar, the wood, the ram and thetree in which the ram was caught. Only Abraham is omitted. Exegetically, the caseis the same: all the religious meaning embedded in this work came right out of themainstream exegetical and homiletic precedent, including the psychologicaldisplacement of Abraham to outside the space of the picture, equating his impliedviewpoint with the viewer's actual one ± the real visual innovation of Caravaggio.Absolutely none of this exegesis was arcane or obscure; virtually all of it wasarticulated by major authors, repeated by other major authors, and/or `codified'in the Glossa Ordinaria. Caravaggio did not have to be a scholar to becomefamiliar with any of this, nor did he even have to read the exegetical literaturehimself. It was all easily obtainable from any of the many educated clerics whomCaravaggio knew, including any number of current and former patrons, of whoseculture he was an integral part, not the least of whom were Cardinal Francesco delMonte and Cardinal Girolamo Mattei, in whose households Caravaggio had beenliving prior to, and during, the time he painted Isaac Laughing. But none of thisexegesis directly accounts for the immediate and strangely compelling power ofIsaac Laughing; nor, actually, does Chrysostom's homily, though it is certainlypossible that it may have acted as an indirect impetus to it. Rather, it comes rightout of the dramatic psychological and emotional potential of the narrative itself ±a potential recognized by Augustine, whose observation describes the dynamicoperating in Isaac Laughing much as one of Caravaggio's contemporaries mighthave:

I do not know how it is, but every time [the story of the sacrifice of Isaac]is read, it is as if it were happening at that very moment, it so affects theminds of those listening.78

This seems to have been the very goal of Caravaggio himself.

Concluding thoughts

Among his many concerns as a painter, Caravaggio, as is widely recognized, soughtto make his art accessible, to depict his subjects with a physical and psychologicalimmediacy so as to engage and ultimately captivate the viewer in an unprecedentedway. By means of his dramatic tenebrism, his depiction of extreme and momentaryexpressions, and his ability to capture a sense of the fleeting moment, theinstantaneous action, Caravaggio created images of astonishing reality, whichprovoke, as Sydney Freedberg has aptly called it, à transaction of experience'between the spectator and the pictures.79 In the lateral canvases in the CerasiChapel, The Conversion of Saint Paul and The Crucifixion of Saint Peter (1600±01),the painter achieved this level of engagement by designing the compositions in termsof the spectator's (oblique) line of vision; the figures seem to project into the space



of the chapel, beckoning the viewer to become involved in the remarkable eventsunfolding across the paintings. Another way Caravaggio achieved this `transactionof experience' was through portraying his figures gazing directly at the beholder. Ina number of his early secular paintings, among them the Borghese Boy with a Basketof Fruit and the Uffizi Bacchus, the subjects look directly at us, stare us in the eye,making it impossible for us to remain passive observers. We are compelled, as itwere, to reach for a piece of the boy's fruit and to accept the glass of wine from theyouthful god. This kind of implication of the viewer was also enacted by the artistin his Entombment of Christ (1602±04), albeit with an entirely different purpose.Here Nicodemus, as he struggles with the weight of Christ's lifeless body, casts hisgaze downwards, as if imploring the viewer to assist him in his task, to become avirtual participant in the religious drama.

Isaac Laughing exemplifies Caravaggio's goals as an artist in their mostpronounced form. It presents the biblical hero as a pre-pubescent boy frozen intime at the heightened moment of his salvation. Dramatically illuminated,physically proximate, and highly expressive, Isaac confronts the viewer with hiseyes, with his laughter, so as to make inevitable a `transaction of experience'. Thespectator inescapably becomes involved in the drama, visually and psycho-logically, assuming the role of Abraham, to whom Isaac will be restored. Thisrelationship between Isaac and the viewer is imbedded in the structure of thepainting; Caravaggio's canvas, in other words, thematizes its relation to theviewer, who, as a surrogate Abraham, is integral to its narrative. Although heidentified the painting's subject as a Saint John the Baptist, Sydney Freedbergnevertheless clearly recognized this remarkable visual dynamic of Caravaggio'swork. `Here', he wrote,

Caravaggio has created a voyeuristic situation into which the spectator . . .necessarily must fall. The meaning of the picture thus depends not only onthe presence Caravaggio has evoked in it, but on the situation he has nowmade. There is no meaningful action . . . that occurs within the painting;what is meaningful comes instead from the relationship . . . between themodel-image and ourselves.80

Indeed, the painter has created a work in which the viewer is expected ± evenrequired ± to enter the subject and complete its plot. The meaning of the paintinghinges upon the engagement between the work and the viewer, an engaged viewerwho becomes a participant in the historical narrative.

* * *

As we have discussed in the previous section of this essay, with the exception ofAbraham, Caravaggio's Isaac Laughing contains all the essential and traditionaliconographical components of the Sacrifice of Isaac. The omission of Abraham,however, is nothing short of extraordinary, without any direct pictorial precedentor progeny, and it was for this very reason that Howard Hibbard rejected thepossibility (which had been suggested to him orally) that the painting's subjectcould be Isaac.81 The fact is, however, that Caravaggio often departed from



iconographic tradition, sometimes subtly, sometimes more radically, and hefrequently interpreted traditional subjects in highly personal and novel ways. In hisUffizi Sacrifice of Isaac (plate 18), for example, the angel approaches Abraham notfrom above, as was the norm, but from behind, and Isaac's expression of terror,while not unprecedented, is unusual to the degree presented here.82 No lesscontrary to tradition was his now lost Resurrection of c. 1608, which hung in Sant'Anna dei Lombardi in Naples, in which, as an early description records, Christ was`represented not as usual, agile, and triumphant in the air, but in . . . [an] audaciousmanner . . . with one foot in and the other outside the sepulchre on the ground'.83

When painting The Martyrdom of Saint Ursula (1610, Banca CommercialeItaliana, Naples), Caravaggio rejected the typical epic presentation of the scene,with a cast of thousands, opting instead for an intimate presentation of the eventwith only five figures. And as Puglisi has recently commented, `so unusual is hisconception of the theme that when the canvas was first rediscovered, its subjectwas vaguely labeled as an allegory.'84 Numerous other iconographic novelties, orambiguities, could also be cited in this context (first among them, the uncertainidentity of Matthew in The Calling of Saint Matthew). The point is simply thatCaravaggio, throughout his career, experimented with and sometimes radicallyaltered traditional iconography, which contributed fundamentally to theoriginality of his artistic vision. The departure from pictorial tradition in IsaacLaughing ± or, more precisely, the way in which it presents an entirely newconception of the sacrifice narrative ± should thus be viewed as in keeping with theartist's lifelong effort to transform the conventional into the unconventional.

* * *

Of course, the patron of Isaac Laughing, Ciriaco Mattei, could have been acatalyst in Caravaggio's reinvention of the subject. He may have provided thepainter with the idea of casting the viewer (himself) as Abraham or, as seems morelikely, requested a painting of the Sacrifice of Isaac and asked that it be somethingnovel. The marchese was, after all, a collector of exceptional taste, a connoisseur,who demanded much from the artists whose works he commissioned.85 CardinalGirolamo Mattei (1546±1603), who shared the dwelling of his brother Ciriaco ± inwhich Caravaggio was living in 1601±02 ± may also have inspired the choice and/or the interpretation of the subject matter, much as he appears to have done forthe painter's Supper at Emmaus and The Taking of Christ.86 But if, in the end, wecan only speculate about how and why Caravaggio arrived at such anunprecedented interpretation of the subject, we can state with certainty that theSacrifice of Isaac was a theme particularly favoured by the Mattei, as archivaldocumentation and inventories of their collections reveal. Soon after Caravaggiocompleted his canvas, in 1607±08 Asdrubale Mattei had the subject painted byFrancesco Nappi on the vault of a bedroom in his palace.87 Another Sacrifice ofIsaac, without attribution, is recorded in the 1613 inventory of Asdrubale'scollection, and still another painting of the subject, attributed to `Giovannino'(i.e., Giovanni Lanfranco), is listed in the 1616 inventory of Giovanni BattistaMattei, who inherited the work from his father Ciriaco.88 Less than a decade later,c. 1625, Asdrubale purchased an additional painting of the Sacrifice, by Orazio



Riminaldi, which is recorded in the 1631 inventory of his collection as hanging inthe gallery of his palace.89 And in the post mortem inventory of Asdrubale's sonGirolamo (d. 1676), the universal heir of Giovanni Battista, one final Sacrifice ofIsaac is listed, which in an eighteenth-century inventory acquired an attribution toGuido Reni.90 Thus, including Caravaggio's canvas, the Mattei owned sixversions of Isaac's sacrifice, making it the most frequently depicted Old Testamentsubject in their collections.91

* * *

As we have argued, all the subjects proposed for Caravaggio's painting aredifficult to reconcile with the visual evidence. As the painter did not portray thefigure as a prince, he cannot be Phryxus; the omission of a Phrygian cap,shepherd's staff, dog, or golden apple excludes the possibility that the figure is

32 Anon. St Johnthe Baptist, Oil oncanvas, 115.4 � 85.9cm. GlasgowMuseums: ArtGallery and Museum,Kelvingrove.



Paris; and the absence of a reed cross, banderole, or bowl, not to mention thefigure's exuberant demeanour, argue against his being the Baptist, whomCaravaggio consistently portrayed as an introspective, even melancholic, youth.The question remains, however, of why the work was repeatedly and mostfrequently called a Saint John the Baptist, and by such informed critics as Baglioneand Bellori? The answer lies, we suggest, in Caravaggio's unprecedentedreinvention of the Sacrifice of Isaac theme, for in his removal of Abraham, inhis casting the beholder as Isaac's father, he created a work that challenged theviewer's expectations. To the eyes of Baglione, Bellori and others, all unaware ofCaravaggio's invenzione, the nude male figure set in a landscape and accompaniedby a woolly creature could only be Saint John. The painting appeared, in otherwords, to conform to the visual tradition of Saint John the Baptist in thewilderness to such an extent that it made such an identification virtuallyinevitable. As Ernst Gombrich observed (in another context), Èxpectation createdillusion.'92 Or, to put it another way, it was identified on the basis of an analogouspattern, whereby the painting's visual data ± a youthful male figure, a landscapesetting, and a lamb-like creature ± were read in terms of the pattern of a SaintJohn the Baptist in the wilderness.93 It should be mentioned, however, that thiswas not always the case. In at least two instances, when artists made (variant)copies after Caravaggio's painting, they recognized that certain elements were atodds with the tradition of Baptist imagery. Consequently the copyists added theappropriate attributes (the reed cross and the bowl) and transformed the hornedram into a hornless lamb (plate 32).94

Throughout this essay, we have sought to look at Caravaggio's Capitolinepainting unencumbered by expectations, and to re-examine all the evidence ±historiographic, iconographic and visual ± surrounding and within the pictureitself. This evidence, in the end, leads us to one conclusion: that the paintingproduced for Ciriaco Mattei in 1602, known over the centuries by a number ofdifferent titles, depicts Isaac partially rising from the altar, embracing the ram thatwas his salvation, and, with an expression of joy, gazing at the viewer, who enactsthe role of Abraham. It is a reading of the image that accounts for both what wesee and what we do not; which is consistent with Caravaggio's artistic practices;and which requires far less of the overly complex interpretive arguments put forthin support of other titles. This reading of the painting as Isaac Laughing is alsoone that we believe recovers much of its original meaning and serves further todeepen our understanding of Caravaggio as one of the most innovative andprovocative painters of early modern Europe.

Conrad Rudolph and Steven F. OstrowUniversity of California, Riverside



Notes

When dual systems of traditional numeration exist for primary sources, reference is made to the more preciseof the two. All biblical references are to the Vulgate. Unless otherwise indicated, translations are our own.The following abbreviations have been employed: Corpus Christianorum (CC), Series Latina (Turnhout,1953-); Patrologia Graeca-Latina (PG), ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, 162 v. (Paris, 1857±1866); Patrologia Latina(PL), ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, 221 v. (Paris, 1844±1864).

1 See, esp., Maurizio Marini, Io Michelangelo daCaravaggio, Rome, 1974, pp. 154, 382±5; idem,Caravaggio: Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio`pictor praesantissimus', Rome, 1987, pp. 444±6;Mia Cinotti, Michelangelo Merisi detto ilCaravaggio (I pittori bergamaschi: Il Seicento, I),Bergamo, 1983, pp. 521±3; Maurizio Calvesi, LerealtaÁ del Caravaggio, Turin, 1990, pp. 242±7;Sergio Guarino, `San Giovanni Battista', inCaravaggio e la collezione Mattei, exhib. cat.,Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica di PalazzoBarberini, Rome, Milan, 1995, cat. no. 2, pp.120-3; Catherine Puglisi, Caravaggio, London,1998, pp. 205±207; Helen Langdon, Caravaggio:A Life, London, 1998, pp. 213±14, 230, 281. Afterthe completion of this article, we became awareof B. Treffers, Caravaggio nel sangue delBattista, Rome, 2000, in which (pp. 9±19 andpassim) the author argues for an identification ofthe Capitoline painting as a Saint John theBaptist.

2 As is discussed below, the painting was firstcalled a `Pastor friso' by Gaspare Celio, Memoriadelli nomi dell'artefici delle pitture che sono inalcune chiese, facciate, e palazzi di Roma,Naples, 1638, p. 134, facsimile edn, ed. EmmaZocca, Milan, 1967, p. 41. For its identificationas a Phryxus, see Leonard J. Slatkes,`Caravaggio's Painting of the SanguineTemperament', in Actes du XXIIe CongreÁ sinternationale d'histoire de l'art (1969), Budapest,1972, II, pp. 17±24 and `Caravaggio's `̀ PastorFriso'' ', Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboekvol. 23, 1972, pp. 67±72. Avigdor W. G. PoseÁ q,`Caravaggio's `̀ Pastor Friso'' ', Source, vol. 8,1988, pp. 13±17, further develops thisidentification and raises the possibility thatCelio's `Pastor friso' might simply refer to a(generic) Phrygian shepherd. A reading of thepainting as a Paris is developed in extenso inCreighton E. Gilbert, Caravaggio and his TwoCardinals, University Park, 1995.

3 When the painting was sold in 1628 (on which,see below), its title was listed as ìl Coridone'.

4 X. Barbier de Montault, Les MuseÂes et Galeriesde Rome, Catalogue geÂneÂ ral, Rome, 1870, p. 42:`jeune berger caressant un belier'.

5 F.W.B. von Ramdohr, UÈ ber Mahlerei undBildhauerarbeit in Rome, Leipzig, 1787, vol. 1,p. 265, identified it as a Saint John the Baptist,allegorically expressing the ideas of `Wollust undUnschuld'; Slatkes, op. cit. (note 2), argued thatthe painting ìs the most fully developedrendering of the sanguine temperament', a theme

he further related to Phryxus, Aries and themonth of March. Calvesi, op. cit. (note 1), titledthe work `̀ San Giovannino'' o il Divino Amore'.

6 Denis Mahon and Denys Sutton, Artists in 17thCentury Rome, exhib. cat. Wildenstein and Co.,2nd edn, London, 1955, cat. no. 17, pp. 20±4. Asnoted by Rosalia Varoli-Piazza, Ìl `̀ San GiovanniBattista'': dalle fonti all'immagine,' inIdentificazione di un Caravaggio. Nuovetecnologie per una rilettura del `San GiovanniBattista', ed. Giampaolo Correale, Rome, 1990,p. 35, the painting was referred to as a `giovanenudo' in published texts as early as the mid-eighteenth century. Veronika Schroeder,Tradition und Innovation in KabinettbildernCaravaggios, Munich, 1988, passim, esp. pp.78±91, flirts with identifying the painting'ssubject as a Ganymede, but concludes by callingit a `Knabe mit Widder'.

7 Howard Hibbard, Caravaggio, New York, 1983,p. 306.

8 Puglisi, op. cit. (note 1), p. 205.9 Walter Friedlaender, Caravaggio Studies,

Princeton, 1955, p. 91, first noted that Phryxuswas a prince, not a shepherd. Gilbert, op. cit.(note 2), passim, esp. p. 13±54, providesadditional and convincing arguments againstreading the painting as a Saint John the Baptistor a Phryxus; his efforts to identify the subject asParis, however, are marked, as Helen Langdonnoted in her review of his book (BurlingtonMagazine, vol. 137, 1995, p. 621), by a `strainedand dizzying complexity'. Gilbert proposes thatCaravaggio's `Paris' was painted as a critique ofAnnibale Carracci's figure of Paris in the GalleriaFarnese, à suggestion', Langdon further notes,`that involves Caravaggio making extremelyrecondite, subtle, Warburgian criticisms of theiconography of the Farnese ceiling.' It should benoted that Slatkes's reading of the painting as aPhryxus and an allegory of the sanguinetemperament is based (in part) on hismisidentification of the branch formation in theupper left corner of the painting as a bird.Further on the problems of Slatkes'sinterpretation of the iconography, see Gilbert,op. cit. (note 2), p. 48±54.

10 Puglisi, op. cit. (note 1), p. 205.11 Hibbard, op. cit. (note 7), p. 307, briefly raised

and then summarily dismissed the possibility thatthe figure could be Isaac, as did Marini, 1987 op.cit. (note 1), p. 445. The reasons for Hibbard'srejection of this identification are discussedbelow. As we were completing this manuscript,



Liliana Barroero's essay, `L' Ìsaaco' diCaravaggio nella Pinacoteca Capitolina',Bollettino dei Musei comunali di Roma, vol. 9,1997, pp. 37±41, came to our attention. We werepleased to discover that a number of Barroero'sarguments for identifying the painting as an Isaacparallel and corroborate those reachedindependently here. As will be evident to readers,however, the range of our discussion is muchbroader than that of Barroero, who concernsherself solely with the painting's iconography.On the basis of Barroero's brief article, thepainting has recently been catalogued under thetitle `Saint John the Baptist or Isaac' by SergioGuarino in Maria Elisa Tittoni, Patrizia Masini,and Sergio Guarino, Caravaggio's St. John andMasterpieces from the Capitoline Collection,exhib. cat., Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford,1999, cat. no. 2, pp. 18±19. In addition, whenthis article was in production, the followingpiece, which reaches conclusions very similar toour own, was brought to our attention: RodolfoPapa, Ìl Sorriso di Dio', Art e Dossier, vol. 14,no. 131 (1998), pp. 28±32.

12 Francesca Cappelletti and Laura Testa, 1990a, Ìquadri di Caravaggio nella collezione Mattei. Inuovi documenti e i riscontri con le fonti', Storiadell'arte, vol. 69, pp. 234±44; FrancescaCappelletti and Laura Testa, 1990b, `Ricerchedocumentarie sul `San Giovanni Battista' deiMusei Capitolini e sul `̀ San Giovanni Battista''della Galleria Doria-Pamphilj,' in Identificazionedi un Caravaggio. Nuove tecnologie per unarilettura del `San Giovanni Battista', ed.Giampaolo Correale, Rome, 1990, pp. 75±101;Francesca Cappelletti and Laura Testa, 1994, IlTrattenimento di virtuosi. Le collezionisecentesche di quadri nei Palazzi Mattei di Roma,Rome, pp. 39±41, 101±106; and Laura Testa, `Lacollezione di quadri di Ciriaco Mattei,' inCaravaggio e la collezione Mattei, Milan, 1995,pp. 29±38. Further on Caravaggio and theMattei, see Elisabeth SchroÈ ter, `Caravaggio unddie GemaÈ ldesammlung der Familie Mattei,'Pantheon, vol. 53, 1995, pp. 62±87, andAlessandro Marabottini, `Caravaggio e lacollezione Mattei: qualche considerazione e uncontributo', Commentari d'arte, vol. 1, no. 2,1995, pp. 62±72.

13 Recanati, Archivio Antici-Mattei (hereafter citedas AAM), Mazzo 43A, Rincontro I, unpag.Cappelletti and Testa, 1994, op. cit. (note 12),p. 139, Appendix A, doc. no. 31. See alsoCappelletti and Testa, 1990a, op. cit. (note 12),p. 235; Cappelletti and Testa, 1990b, op. cit.(note 12), p. 77; Testa, op. cit. (note 12), p. 33;and SchroÈ ter, op. cit. (note 12), p. 65±6.

14 AAM, Mazzo 43 A, Rincontro I, unpag.Cappelletti and Testa, 1994, op. cit. (note 12),p. 140, Appendix A, doc. no. 47. See alsoCappelletti and Testa, 1990a, op. cit. (note 12),p. 237±8; Cappelletti and Testa, 1990b, op. cit.

(note 12), p. 77; Testa, op. cit. (note 12), p. 33;and SchroÈ ter, op. cit. (note 12), p. 70.

15 AAM, Mazzo 43 A, Rincontro I, unpag.Cappelletti and Testa, 1994, op. cit. (note 12),p. 139±40, Appendix A, doc. nos. 33 and 49. Seealso Cappelletti and Testa, 1990a, op. cit. (note12), p. 237; Cappelletti and Testa, 1990b, op. cit.(note 12), p. 77; Testa, op. cit. (note 12), p. 34;and SchroÈ ter, op. cit. (note 12), p. 68.

16 See Cappelletti and Testa, 1990a, op. cit. (note12), p. 239, and Testa, op. cit. (note 12), p. 34.Puglisi, op. cit. (note 1), p. 205, generally acceptsCappelletti and Testa's association of thesepayments with the picture, but notes (p. 401) that`the language recording the small paymentsuggests it may have been a bonus from Ciriacoto Caravaggio.' Guarino, op. cit. (note 1), p. 120,writes that èÁ estremamente probabile che si trattiproprio di questo quadro', a position with whichLangdon, op. cit. (note 1), p. 230, concurs. Thesuggestion by Gilbert, op. cit. (note 2), p. 279,n. 5, that the painting was a gift to Ciriaco fromCaravaggio, rather than being a commissionedwork, is not convincing, as it does not accordwith the pattern of patronage between patronand client. Equally unconvincing is SchroÈ ter's,op. cit. (note 12), p. 68, proposal that the twopayments refer to not one but two paintings, theone under consideration and his DoubtingThomas (in Potsdam). Eighty-five scudi seemsinsufficient payment for two works byCaravaggio. In fact, in light of the sums paid forThe Supper of Emmaus and The Taking ofChrist, four- and six-figure compositionsrespectively, one would expect the four-figureDoubting Thomas to have commanded anequivalent price. Moreover, The DoubtingThomas was painted for the Giustiniani and notthe Mattei, despite the claim of GiovanniBaglione, Le Vite de' Pittori Scultori et Architetti.Dal Pontificato di Gregorio XIII. del 1572. Infino aÁ tempi di Papa Urbano Ottavo nel 1642,Rome, 1642, facsimile edn, ed. Valerio Mariani,Rome, 1935, p. 137.

17 See n. 2 above.18 Celio's guide bears a dedication to his friend

Giovanni Vittorio de' Rossi dated 1620. Gilbert,op. cit. (note 2), pp. 36±41, convincingly datesCelio's first encounter with the painting to 1607.See also Hibbard, op. cit. (note 7), p. 290. OnCelio's work for Asdrubale in the Palazzo Matteidi Giove, which he carried out in 1607±08 and1615, see Gerda Panofsky-Soergel, `ZurGeschichte des Palazzo Mattei di Giove',RoÈ misches Jahrbuch fuÈ r Kunstgeschichte, vol. 11,1967±68, pp. 137, 141, 175, 180, docs. XXI,XXIV and XXXII. In 1616 Celio completed hisBattle of Caesar and Pompey (now in theGalleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, Rome) forGiovanni Battista Mattei's collection, which,together with the old Palazzo Mattei (nowCaetani), he inherited from his father. On the



painting, see Cappelletti and Testa, 1994, op. cit.(note 12), pp. 39, 109.

19 Virtually all Gilbert's argument in favour ofidentifying the painting as a `Paris' depends onthe authority of Celio.

20 AAM, Mazzo 105, fol. 21r. Cappelletti andTesta, 1990a, op. cit. (note 12), p. 239;Cappelletti and Testa, 1990b, op. cit. (note 12),p. 77; Cappelletti and Testa, 1994, op. cit. (note12), p. 106; and SchroÈ ter, op. cit. (note 12), p. 82,doc. 2, no. 12.

21 The inventory was written and signed byLodovico Carletti, the guardaroba of Mattei.

22 Christoph Luitpold Frommel, `CaravaggiosFruÈ hwerk und der Kardinal Francesco Maria delMonte', Storia dell'arte, vol. 9/10, 1971, p. 9,n. 31, and SchroÈ ter, op. cit. (note 12), p. 83, doc.3. AAM, Mazzo 31, fol. 2v: Ìtem lascio all'Ill.moS.r Cardinale del Monte come unico mio Signore,et Padrone il quadro di S. Gio: Battista.' Thetestament was first drawn up on 21 Jan. 1623and then rewritten with a codicil on 5 June,1624.

23 Marini, 1974, op. cit. (note 1), p. 384; Guarino,op. cit. (note 1), p. 123, writes èÁ davvero certoche Giovanni Battista Mattei, identificando ilquadro, in piuÁ di un'occasione, come in [sic]`̀ San Giovanni Battista'', fosse del tuttoconsapevole di quello che diceva.'

24 See Carla Benocci, Ìl rinnovamento seicentescodella Villa Mattei al Celio: Francesco Peparelli,Andrea Sacchi, Andrea Lilli ed altri artisti',Storia dell'arte, vol. 66, 1989, pp. 187±96;Cappelletti and Testa, 1994, op. cit. (note 12),passim; and Gilbert, op. cit. (note 2), pp. 44±45.His exclusive focus was the renovation andenlargement of his father's Villa Celimontana. AsBenocci notes (p. 191), the `Libro di memoriefatte dal Signor Marchese Giovanni BattistaMattei', spanning the years 1614±24, records thepurchase of only two paintings, Celio's Battle ofCaesar and Pompey (cited above, n. 18) and oneportrait.

25 Cf. Gilbert, op. cit. (note 2), p. 45±6, who offersa similar argument. Barroero, op. cit. (note 11),p. 40±1 suggests that Giovanni Battista Matteimay have wanted to deliberately transform theboy (in the painting) into his name saint.

26 Frommel, op. cit. (note 22), p. 31. Archivio diStato di Roma, 30 Notai Capitolini, PaulusVespignanus, ufficio 28, vol, 138, fol 575v: Ùn'S. Giovanni Battista del mano del Caravaggio . . .'

27 W. Chandler Kirwin, Àddendum to CardinalFrancesco Maria del Monte's Inventory: the Dateof the Sale of Various Notable Paintings', Storiadell'arte, vol. 9/10, 1971, pp. 53, n. 1, 55.Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Arciconfraternita delSantissimo Crocifisso di San Marcello, vol. F,XIX, 20: À di 5 Maggio do [1628] Per ilCoridone e Zingara del Caravaggio, S. Bastianodi Guido Reni, e l'orfeo del BassanoÐÐÐÐscudi 240. Kirwin mistakenly believed that ìl

Coridone e Zingara' referred to a single picture.Cardinal del Monte had first left the Capitolinepainting to his nephew Uguccione, and then tothe latter's brother Alessandro, bishop ofGubbio. See Cappelletti and Testa, 1990b, op.cit. (note 12), p. 77.

28 On Corydon, see PoseÁ q, op. cit. (note 2), pp. 14,17, n. 13.

29 Cappelletti and Testa, 1990a, op. cit. (note 12),p. 240; Cappelletti and Testa, 1990b, op. cit.(note 12), pp. 78, 89. Milan, BibliotecaAmbrosiana, Archivio Pio FalcoÁ , Inventario deibeni dell'EreditaÁ del R. mo Sig. re Eman.leCard.le Pio 1641: Ùn quadro con un giovinenudo aÁ sedere mezzo calco, quale tiene colbraccio dritto abbracciato un' agnello'. See alsoLaura Testa, Ùn collezionista del Seicento: ilcardinale Carlo Emanuele Pio', in Quadririnomatissimi: il collezionismo dei Pio di Savoia,ed. Jadranka Bentini, Modena, 1994, pp. 93±100.

30 Baglione, op. cit. (note 16), p. 137: ùn s. Gio.Battista'; Francesco Scannelli, Il microcosmodella pittura, Cesena, 1657, p. 197: `nella Galeriadell'Eminentissimo Pio alcuni Quadretti, ed inparticolare una figura di S. Gio. Battista ignudo';Giovanni Pietro Bellori, Nota delli musei,librerie, gallerie et ornamenti di statue e pitturene' Palazzi, nelle Case, e ne' Giardini di Roma,Rome, 1664, p. 45: `S. Giovanni giovinettoscherza con l'Agnello di Michele da Caravaggio';and Giovanni Pietro Bellori, Le vite de' pittori,scultori e architetti moderni, Rome, 1672, ed.Evelina Borea, Turin, 1976, p. 217: `Dipinse SanGiovanni nel deserto, che eÁ un giovinetto ignudoa sedere, il quale sporgendo la testa avantiabbraccia un agnello.'

31 Michel Angelo and Pier Vincenzo Rossi,Descrizione di Roma moderna, Rome, 1697,p. 275: `S. Giovanni Battista fanciullo, chescherza con l'Agnellino, di Michel' Angelo daÁCaravaggio'. Cappelletti and Testa, 1990b, op.cit. (note 12), p. 97, and Sergio Guarino,`L'inventario Pio di Savoia del 1724', in ed.Jadranka Bentini, op. cit. (note 29), p. 122, no.132: Àltro quadro di un Giovine nudo, qualeappoggia il braccio sinistro sopra i suoi panni, econ il destro abbraccia la testa di un agnello . . .del Caravaggio'.

32 The inventory, drawn up by Francesco Trevisani,records the painting as Ùn Quadro depinto intela rappresentante un San Giovanni Battista . . .del Caravaggio'. See Cinotti, op. cit. (note 1),p. 522, and Cappelletti and Testa, 1990b, op. cit.(note 12), p. 83, n. 73.

33 Cinotti, op. cit. (note 1), p. 522, and Cappellettiand Testa, 1990b, op. cit. (note 12), p. 79: Ùnquadro di misura di palmi 5 per alto, con cornicedorata, compagno della suddetta MariaEgizziaca, originale di Michel Angelo daCaravaggio, di valore scudi 60'. Caravaggio'spicture, along with the rest of Cardinal EmanuelePio's collection, was left to his brother Ascanio,



and then to his son Carlo Francesco. The 1724inventory was compiled after the death ofFrancesco Pio, heir to the family collection.

34 Gregorio Roisecco, Roma antica e moderna,Rome, 1765, vol. 1, p. 360: `S. Giovanni Battistafanciullo di Michel Angelo da Caravaggio';Giuseppe and Mariano Vasi, Itinerario istruttivodi Roma, Rome, 1794, ed. Guglielmo Matthiae,Rome, 1970, p. 92: ùn S. Gio: Battista delCaravaggio'; Ridolfino Venuti, Accurata, esuccinta descrizione topografica e storica diRoma moderna, Rome, 1766, pp. 200, 377: `[un]giovane nudo': Giovanni Pietro Rossini, Mercurioerrante. Supplemento, Rome, 1771, p. 129: `[un]giovane ignudo'. For the other guides andcatalogues, see Maria Elisa Tittoni, Ìl `̀ SanGiovanni Battista'' nelle collezioni capitoline,' inIdentificazione di un Caravaggio. Nuovetecnologie per una rilettura del `̀ San GiovanniBattista'', ed. Giampaolo Correale, Rome, 1990,p. 13, and Varoli-Piazza, op. cit. (note 6), pp.35±6.

35 Settimo Bocconi, Musei Capitolini. Pinacoteca eTabularium, Rome, 1925. See Tittoni, op. cit.(note 34), p. 14, and Carlo Pietrangeli, `Lariscoperta di un Caravaggio', in Identificazione diun Caravaggio. Nuove tecnologie per unarilettura del `̀ San Giovanni Battista'', ed.Giampaolo Correale, Rome, 1990, pp. 15±16.

36 Denis Mahon, `Contrasts in Art-HistoricalMethod: Two Recent Approaches toCaravaggio', Burlington Magazine vol. 95, 1953,p. 213, n. 7; and Mahon and Sutton, op. cit.(note 6), esp. p. 22.

37 Friedlaender, op. cit. (note 9), p. 229.38 Julius Schlosser Magnino, La letteratura artistica,

3rd Italian edn, Florence, 1964, pp. 464±5.39 Cinotti, op. cit. (note 1), p. 210, writes of

Bellori's biography of Caravaggio that the author`si cammina sulle sabbie mobili, per lamescolanza di dati preziosi, di giudizi illuminati edi invenzioni'.

40 Klara Garas, `The Ludovisi Collection of Picturesin 1633±II', Burlington Magazine, vol. 109, 1967,pp. 345 and 346 (nos. 119 and 196).

41 Luigi Salerno, `The Picture Gallery of VincenzoGiustiniani', Burlington Magazine, vol. 102, 1960,p. 137 (no. 49).

42 Guarino, op. cit. (note 31), p. 118, n. 7, and RitaRandolfi, `La vita di Bartolomeo Manfredi neidocumenti romani e un'ipotesi sulla suaformazione artistica', Storia dell'arte, vol. 74,1992, p. 90, n. 45.

43 Augustine, Contra Faustum 22:73, ed. JosephZycha, Corpus Scriptorum EcclesiasticorumLatinorum 25:6:1, Vienna, 1891, p. 671: `[TheSacrifice of Isaac is] ita nobile, ut non lectum necquaesitum animo occurreret, ut denique totlinguis cantatum, tot locis pictum et aures etoculos dissimulantis feriret.' On Augustine andFaustus, see Confessiones 5:11±13, ed. LucasVerheijen, CC 27, Turnhout, 1975, pp. 62±4.

44 Genesis 22:1-19; on the covenant proper, seeGenesis 17. Augustine, Civitas Dei 16:32, edsBernhard Dombart and Alfons Kalb, CC 47-48,Turnhout, 1955, pp. 536±8. On the renewedinterest in Augustine and the Sacrifice of Isaac,see Mina Gregori, `Sacrificio di Isaaco', ed. MinaGregori, Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio:Come nascono i capolavori, Florence, 1991,p. 230.

45 Fernand Cabrol and Henri Leclercq, Àbraham',Dictionnaire d'archeÂologie chreÂ tienne et deliturgie, eds Fernand Cabrol and Henri Leclercq,Paris, 1907, vol. 1, part 1, cols 111±27. AlisonMoore Smith, `The Iconography of the Sacrificeof Isaac in Early Christian Art', AmericanJournal of Archaeology, series 2, vol. 26, 1922,pp. 159±73. Henri Leclercq, Ìsaac', Dictionnaired'archeÂologie chreÂ tienne et de liturgie, edsFernand Cabrol and Henri Leclercq, Paris, 1924,vol. 7, pt. 2, col. 1553±77. Theodor Klauser,Àbraham', Realllexikon fuÈ r Antike undChristentum, Stuttgart, 1950, vol. 1, pp. 18±27.Isabel Speyart van Woerden, `The Iconography ofthe Sacrifice of Abraham', Vigiliae Christianae,vol. 15, 1961, pp. 214±55. E. Lucchesi Palli,Àbraham,' ed. Englebert Kirschbaum, Lexikonder christlichen Ikonographie, Rome, 1968, vol.1, pp. 20-35. To the bibliography in Kirschbaumshould be added Friedrich-August von Metzsch,Johannes der TaÈ ufer: Seine Geschichte und seineDarstellung in der Kunst, Munich, 1989; and ed.Sandro Bellesi, Mostra dedicata all'effigie di SanGiovanni Battista, Florence, 1994.

46 Van Woerden, op. cit. (note 45), p. 234.47 The debate is summarized in P.J. Burgard, `The

Art of Dissimulation: Caravaggio's `̀ Calling ofSaint Matthew'' ', Pantheon, vol. 56, 1998,pp. 95±102. See also Irving Lavin, `Caravaggio's`̀ Calling of Saint Matthew'': The Identity of theProtagonist,' in Past-Present: Essays onHistoricism in Art from Donatello to Picasso,Berkeley, 1993, pp. 85±99.

48 Bellori, 1976, op. cit. (note 30), p. 222: affattosenza azzione.

49 Bellori, 1976, op. cit. (note 30), p. 215.50 Van Woerden, op. cit. (note 45), p. 234.51 For even earlier examples, see the capitals in

the cloister at Moissac and the nave aisle ofSt-Lazare in Autun; Meyer Schapiro, `TheRomanesque Sculpture of Moissac I', inRomanesque Art, New York, 1977, fig. 84; DenisGrivot and George Zarnecki, Gislebertus:Sculptor of Autun, New York, 1961, p. 139.

52 What appears to be a fire or burning embers inthe lower left corner of the painting ± and wasidentified as such by Calvesi, op. cit. (note 1),p. 245, and Barroero, op. cit. (note 11), p. 40 ±is, in fact, underpainting, a pentimento, redpigment from a piece of drapery first paintedthere by the artist; on this see Paola Sannucci, Ìmateriali e la tecnica', in Identificazione di unCaravaggio. Nuove tecnologie per una rilettura



del `San Giovanni Battista', ed. GiampaoloCorreale, Rome, 1990, pp. 56, 63. See alsoVaroli-Piazza, op. cit. (note 6), p. 38.

53 On the exegesis of this passage, see, for example,Origen, Commentaire sur Saint Jean 10:97, ed.and trans. CeÂ cile Blanc, Sources chreÂ tiennes 157,Paris, 1970, vol. 1, p. 441. For an example of thePaschal Lamb with full horns, see the fourteenth-century Golden Haggadah now in the BritishMuseum, Add. Ms. 27210:15 (reproduced inBezalel Narkiss, The Golden Haggadah, RohnertPark, 1997, fig. 30).

54 Professor Freeman conveyed his opinions to us ina phone call of 5 June, 2000; Dr. Ryder in aletter of 5 July 2000. Our thanks to both of themfor their invaluable help.For an exposure-adjusted black and white

photograph of the Borghese John, in which thelamb and background are much clearer than incolour reproductions, see von Metzsch, op. cit.(note 45), fig. 154.

55 See Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca,Venice, 1612, under `montone'.

56 Genesis 22:7-8, 13. Cf. La Bibbia, cioeÁ , i libri delVecchio e del Nuovo Testamento, trans.Giovanni Diodati, Geneva, 1607; The NIVInterlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, ed.John R. Kohlenberger, Grand Rapids, 1979.Caravaggio's depiction of Matthew correctlywriting his gospel in Hebrew characters fromright to left in the now-lost first San Luigi deiFrancesi Matthew shows that he was notunaware of the philological aspect of the Bible,something that was currently of enormousinterest in intellectual circles throughout Europe.

57 Genesis 22:11-18.58 Those arguing in favour of the Capitoline

painting's being a Saint John the Baptist oftencite Leonardo's Saint John in the Louvre andBronzino's painting of the saint in the GalleriaBorghese as precedents. However, both of thesefigures are, in fact, partially draped.

59 On the possibility of some more immediate,contemporary models, see Keith Christiansen,`Thoughts on the Lombard Training ofCaravaggio', ed. Mina Gregori, Come dipingevail Caravaggio, Milan, 1996, pp. 11±16.The absence of pubic hair supports the

youthful age of Isaac as implied in Genesis21±22.As to Isaac's uncircumcized state (cf. Genesis

21:4, where it is stated that he was circumcisedwhen eight days old), this is one of those thingsthat are very disconcerting to the modern mindbut which were clearly far less so to that of thesixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Althoughreference could be made to the naturalism ofCaravaggio, which received so much attentionfrom contemporaries (e.g., Bellori, 1976,, op. cit.[note 30], pp. 215±18), and exegeticalexplanations could be given (e.g., Acts 15;Romans 2:25-29; 1 Corinthians. 7:18-19;

Galatians 5:2-6; Ambrose, De Abraham 2:78, ed.Karl Schenkl, Sancti Ambrosii Opera, CorpusScriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 32:1.Vienna, 1897, pp. 630±1), the fact is that it wasstandard in this period to ignore the depiction ofcircumcision in biblical figures: one need look nofurther than Michelangelo's David, Brunelleschi'sSacrifice (plate 20), or Ghiberti's Sacrifice. Onthis, see also Leo Steinberg, The Sexuality ofChrist in Renaissance Art and in ModernOblivion, New York, 1983, pp. 157±9. Far, farmore of an anachronism in Caravaggio is theappearance of the man with eyeglasses in hisCalling of Saint Matthew. Our thanks toThomas Izbicki for his thoughts on this.

60 Hebrews 11:17±19 (on this, see Augustine and theGlossa Ordinaria, cited below). Irenaeus ofLyons, Adversus Haereses 4:5:4, ed. and trans.Adelin Rousseau, Sources chreÂ tiennes 100, Paris,1965, vol. 4, part 2, p. 434 (Irenaeus wastranslated early on into Latin). Tertullian,Adversus Marcionem 3:18, ed. A. Kroymann, CC1, Turnhout, 1954, pp. 531±2; taken up againvirtually word for word in Adversus Judaeos10:6, p. 1376; cf. also ibid. 13:20±21, pp. 1388±9.Origen, Homiliae in Genesim 8, PG 12:203±210.Ambrose, De Abraham 1:66±79, op. cit. (note59), pp. 545±53; De Isaac vel Anima 1:1, ed.Schenkl, op cit. (note 59), p. 641; De Cain etAbel 1:7, ed. Schenkl, op. cit. (note 59), p. 343.Augustine, Civitas Dei 16:32, op. cit. (note 44),p. 536±37; In Psalmos 30, enar. 2, ser. 2, vol. 9,eds E. Dekkers and J. Fraipont, CC 38,Turnhout, 1990, pp. 208±09; Sermones de VetereTestamento 19:3, ed. Cyril Lambot, CC 41,Turnhout, 1961, pp. 253±54. Chrysostom,Homiliae in Genesin 47:3, PG 54:432±3. Theseare only a few of the many, many sources thattake up this subject, including the widely readGlossa Ordinaria, Genesis 22, PL 113:137-139.

61 See, for example, Augustine, Civitas Dei 16:32,op. cit. (note 44), p. 537, among many others,both earlier and later, which we will not citehere.

62 Isidore of Seville, Quaestiones in VetusTestamentum, In Genesin 18:10, PL 83:251.Glossa Ordinaria, Genesis 22:9±11, PL 113:139.

63 Hebrews 11:17-19. Ephraem Syrus,Commentarius in Genesim 20:2±3, ed. R.-M.Tonneau, Corpus Scriptorum ChristianorumOrientalium 153, p. 69 (Ephraem was translatedinto Latin at an early date). Ambrose, De Isaacvel Anima 1:1 (ed. Schenkl, note 59), p. 641.Augustine, Civitas Dei 16:32, op. cit. (note 44),p. 536. Jerome, Ep. 118:5, ed. and trans. JeÂ roÃ meLabourt, Saint JeÂ roÃ me: Lettres, Paris, 1948±1963,vol. 6, pp. 94±5. Chrysostom, Homiliae inEpistolam ad Hebraeos 25:1, PG 63:173. GlossaOrdinaria, Genesis 22:5±8 (citing Alcuin), PL 113.

64 Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesin 47:2, PG54:431, we translate from the Latin: `Puerielegantiam externam, internamque



pulchritudinem, obedientiam, gratiam, aetatisflorem'; and cf. Homiliae in Genesin 47:1, PG54:428±9. Cf. also Gregory of Nyssa, De DeitateFilii et Spiritus Sancti, PG 46:568±72; and LouisGinzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Philadelphia,1968, vol. 1, p. 280.

65 Ottavio Paravicino, tra il devoto, et profano; ascited in Gaetano Cozzi, Ìntorno al cardinaleOttavio Paravicino, a monsignor Paolo Gualdo ea Michelangelo da Caravaggio,' Revista storicaitaliana, vol. 73, 1961, p. 44. Mina Gregori,`Saint John the Baptist,' in The Age ofCaravaggio, exhib. cat., Metropolitan Museum ofArt, New York, cat. no. 85, p. 300, notes that`The pose and the somewhat perplexing nudityof the youth . . . are difficult to reconcile with theostensibly religious subject matter. . . .'

66 As recorded by Ginzberg, op. cit. (note 64), vol.1, p. 275; also cited by Barroero, op. cit. (note11), p. 38.

67 Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos 13:20±21, op. cit.(note 60), pp. 1388±9. Origen, Homiliae inGenesim 8:9, PG 12:208±209. Ephraem Syrus,Commentarius in Genesim 20:3, op. cit. (note63), p. 69. Augustine, Civitas Dei 16:32, op. cit.(note 44), p. 537; In Psalmos 30, enar. 2, ser. 2:9,op. cit. (note 60), pp. 208±209; Sermones deVetere Testamento 19:3, op. cit. (note 60),pp. 253±4. Paulinus of Nola, Epistula 29:9, ed. G.de Hartel, Corpus Scriptorum EcclesiasticorumLatinorum 29, Vienna, 1894, pp. 256±7.Chrysostom, Homiliae in Epistolam ad Hebraeos25:1, PG 63:173±4. Isidore of Seville, Quaestionesin Vetus Testamentum, In Genesin 18, PL83:249±51. Rabanus Maurus, Commentaria inGenesim 3:3, PL 107:568±9 (following Isidore).Glossa Ordinaria, Genesis 22:9±11, PL 113±139(following Isidore).

68 Augustine, Sermones de Vetere Testamento 19:3,op. cit. (note 60), pp. 253±4: Èt Isaac Christuserat, et aries Christus erat. . . . Sed in Isaac et inariete Christus.' See also Chrysostom, Homiliaein Epistolam ad Hebraeos 25:1, PG 63:173±4.

69 In light of the equation between Isaac and theram, it is noteworthy that the hair of Isaac isdepicted in a way distinctly different from thatfound in other of Caravaggio's paintings. Themodel used for Isaac is believed to have been anapprentice named Francesco Boneri (also knownas Cecco da Caravaggio), a boy who appears inseveral of Caravaggio's paintings, most notablyin the Odescalchi Conversion of Saint Paul, theVictorious Amor and the Uffizi Sacrifice of Isaac(plate 18). On Boneri, see Gianni Papi,`Caravaggio e Cecco', ed. Mina Gregori, op. cit.(note 44), p. 126. In these works, the boy's hairis treated in what might be called a generallyregular manner: it is fairly long and fairly curly,but within these parameters nothing stands outin its arrangement; attention is drawn to nothingby any pattern. This is not the case with theCapitoline Isaac, who is depicted with a

distinctive curl standing out near the ear on eachside of the head ± an arrangement that mirrorsthe horns of the ram, which curl forward, likethe hair, though it is kept from looking tooawkward or unnatural by a third curl toward thetop of the head. In contrast to this visualparallel, in the Uffizi Sacrifice, where no suchcurling horns are found on the ram, no isolatedlocks of hair curl out at the sides of Isaac's head.While this parallel arrangement in the Capitolinefigures is a type of formal device employed byCaravaggio from time to time, it is possible thatits use here may have been meant to reinforce thestatement made by the juxtaposition of theheads: Ìsaac was Christ and the ram was Christ. . . . Christ was in both Isaac and the ram.'

70 Although this is very widely implied, for specificstatements, see Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem3:18, op. cit. (note 60), pp. 531±2; AdversusJudaeos 10:6, p. 1376; Augustine, Civitas Dei16:32, op. cit. (note 44), p. 536; idem, Sermonesde Vetere Testamento 19:3, op. cit. (note 60),pp. 253±4; Isidore of Seville, Quaestiones inVetus Testamentum, In Genesin 18, PL 83:250;Rabanus Maurus, Commentaria in Genesim 3:3,PL 107:568 (following Isidore).

71 For example, Honorius Augustodunensis,Speculum Ecclesiae, Dominica de PassioneDomini, PL 172:911. Nicolaus of Lyra, PostillaSuper Totam Biblam, Genesis 22:6, Straûburg,1492, repr. Frankfurt am Main, 1971, n.p. Andcf. The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ed. JohnPlummer, New York, n. d., p. 97, fig. 82, wherethe site of the sacrifice of Isaac is associated withthe tomb of Adam, which is the site of thecoming crucifixion of Christ.

72 This is not a beech tree, as has been stated byGilbert, op. cit. (note 2), p. 22.

73 Genesis 17:17±19 and 18:12±15. Although theseparticular quotes±risus, risus vel gaudium, risusautem insigne laetitiae est±are from Ambrose andJerome (cited below), they are repeatedeverywhere, with risus being the virtuallystandard interpretation of Isaac in Latin. Thesupport for this is endless; we cite only a few:Philo Judaeus, De Abrahamo 36, ed. and trans.F.H. Colson, Cambridge, Mass., 1959, p. 98.Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1:5, PG8:276-277. Ambrose, De Isaac vel Anima 1:1, op.cit. (note 59), p. 641. Augustine, Civitas Dei16:31, op. cit. (note 44), pp. 535±6, and cf. 16:32,p. 536. Jerome, Liber InterpretationisHebraicorum Nominum, Genesis, ed. Paul deLagarde, CC 72, Turnhout 1959, p. 67;Hebraicae Quaestiones, Genesis 17:17±19, ed.Paul de Lagarde, CC 72, Turnhout, 1959, p. 22.Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job 9:106, ed. M.Adriaen, CC 143, Turnhout, 1979, p. 532. GlossaOrdinaria, Genesis 17:17±18, PL 113:124(following Jerome). Other authors influential indisseminating this exegesis were Isidore of Seville,Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum, In Genesin



14:13, PL 83:244±5; and Rabanus Maurus,Commentaria in Genesim 2:21, PL 107:552(following Isidore).

74 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1:5, PG8:276±7, we translate from the Latin: Ìsaac risusexponitur. . . . Mystice autem risit, praedicensfore ut Dominus nos risu impleret, qui sanguineDominu ab interitu et corruptione redemptisumus. . . . Surrexit enim post justa facta funerisJesus non passus, quemadmodum Isaac dimissusest e sacrificio.'

75 John 1:29, 36.76 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1:13, trans. H.

Thackeray, Loeb Classical Library, London,1956, vol. 4, p. 116.

77 Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesin 47:2, PG54:430±1; we translate from the Latin: `Qualibusoculis spectabat puerum ligna afferentem, superquae non multo post illum immolaturus erat?Quomodo manus ferre potuit ignem et gladium?Et manus quidem ferebat ignem, sensibilem, igniaautem interior accendebat ipsius mentem, etrationem absumebat. . . . Dixit autem, inquit,Isaac ad Abraham patrem suum, `Pater. . . . Ubiest ovis ad holocaustum?' Considera, obsecro, hicjusti viri cruciatum, quomodo tulit auribus,quomodo potuit respondere puero, quomodo nonest confusus mente, quomodo filio occultarepotuit id quod futurum erat, sed inquit generosospiritu et forti anima, 'Deus videbit sibimetipsiovem ad holocaustum, fili'.' This psychologicalapproach is an undercurrent throughout thehomily. Nor was Chrysostom alone inrecognizing the dramatic potential of thesacrifice; cf. also Origen, Homiliae in Genesim 8,esp. 8:1 and 8:6, PG 12:203±10, esp. cols. 203±204 and 206; and Gregory of Nyssa, De DeitateFilii et Spiritus Sancti, PG 46:568±72.

78 Augustine, Sermones de Vetere Testamento 2:1,op. cit. (note 60), p. 9: `Nescio quomodo,quotiescumque legitur, quasi tunc fiat, ita afficitmentes audientium.' Similarly, cf. Origen,Homiliae in Genesim 8:6, PG 12:206.

79 Sydney J. Freedberg, Circa 1600: A Revolution ofStyle in Italian Painting, Cambridge, Mass. andLondon, 1983, p. 54.

80 ibid. See also Leo Bersani and Ulysse Dutoit,Caravaggio's Secrets, Cambridge, Mass. andLondon, 1998, pp. 46, 82±3.

81 Hibbard, op. cit. (note 7), p. 307.82 See Mina Gregori, `The Sacrifice of Isaac,' in

The Age of Caravaggio, exhib. cat., MetropolitanMuseum of Art, New York, 1985, cat. no. 80,282, who discusses the painting's ùnprecedentediconography'.

83 Luigi Scaramuccia, Le finezze de' pennelliitaliani, Pavia, 1674, pp. 75±6: `Christo, noncome d'ordinario far si suole, agile, e trionfanteper l'aria; ma con quella fierissima maniera . . .,con un piede dentro, e l'altro fuori del Sepolcro

posando in terra', as cited and translated inFriedlaender, op. cit. (note 9), p. 224. Further onthe iconographic novelty of the painting, seeCinotti, op. cit. (note 1), p. 572, with additionalbibliography.

84 Puglisi, op. cit. (note 1), p. 354. For anillustration, see her fig. 178.

85 On Ciriaco Mattei as a patron, see n. 12, above,and Gilbert, op. cit. (note 2), passim.

86 See Gilbert, op. cit. (note 2), pp. 99±103, 135±58,and Franco Mormando, `̀ Just as Your LipsApproach the Lips of Your Brothers''': JudasAscariot and the Kiss of Betrayal', in Saints &Sinners. Caravaggio and the Baroque Image, ed.Franco Mormando, exhib. cat., McMullenMuseum of Art, Boston College, Boston, 1999,pp. 179±90.

87 See Panofsky-Soergel, op. cit. (note 18), p. 138and fig. 139.

88 AAM, Mazzo 90, fol. 32v: Ùn quadro grandecon cornice indorato di Abraham che voleasacrificare Isahac'; and AAM, Mazzo 105, fol.22v: Ùn altro quardo simile, del sacrificio diAbramo, di mano dell'istesso Giovannino'.Cappelletti and Testa, 1994, op. cit. (note 12),pp. 167 and 175 respectively, and, on the latterwork, see also p. 119.

89 AAM, Mazzo 90, fol. 95v: Ìl Sacrificiod'Abraham. Oratio Senese'. Cappelletti andTesta, 1994, op. cit. (note 12), p. 195. OnRiminaldi's painting, today in the GalleriaNazionale, Rome, see Cappelletti and Testa,1994, op. cit. (note 12), pp. 119±20; RossellaVodret, `Sacrifice of Isaac', in Caravaggio andHis Italian Followers from the Collections of theGalleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica di Roma, exhib.cat., Wadsworth Antheneum, Hartford, Venice,1998, cat. no. 13, pp. 89±92.

90 Francesca Cappelletti, `The documentaryevidence of the early history of Caravaggio's`̀ Taking of Christ'' ', Burlington Magazine, vol.135, 1993, pp. 743±4.

91 In contrast, the Mattei owned only two paintingsof Saint John the Baptist (not countingCaravaggio's work). See Cappelletti and Testa,1994, op. cit. (note 12), pp. 171 and 196.

92 Ernst Gombrich, Art and Illusion: A Study in thePsychology of Pictorial Representation, 1960, rev.edn., Princeton, 1969, p. 204.

93 See Patricia Rubin, Giorgio Vasari: Art andHistory, New Haven and London, 1995, p. 126,who discusses Vasari's misidentification ofFrancia's Marriage of S. Cecilia in the Oratory ofS. Cecilia, Bologna as a Marriage of the Virgin.

94 See Alfred Moir, Caravaggio and His Copyists,New York, 1976, pp. 125±6, figs. 62 and 64. Thefirst is a painting in the Glasgow Art Gallery andMuseum (our plate 32), the second a drawing,attributed to Matthias Stomer, in the OppeÂCollection, London.



Date post:	28-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	umn
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Isaac laughing: Caravaggio, non-traditional imagery and traditional identification

Documents