Caravaggio, Honthorst and their realistic paradigms

Fall 2019 Berlage ABC Essay

Caravaggio, Honthorst and their realistic paradigms — Francesca Giudetti

TU Delft University, Fall 2019 Essay A,B,C Supervisor: Hugo Corbett

CARAVAGGIO, HONTHORST AND THEIR REALISTIC PARADIGMS Francesca Giudetti

What begins in the work of Caravaggio is, quite simply, modern painting.

André Berne-Joffroy

This essay compares the impact of the Caravaggesque revolution during the seventeenth century. In particular, the focus of attention will be on a parallelism between Caravaggio (1571-1610) and the Dutch counterpart, Gerard van Honthorst1 (1592-1656). By analyzing their respective characteristics, their historical contexts, education, their mastery of an established technique and their personal flourishes, the primary purpose is showing their different contributions to the definition of a new realism, influenced by their time and place.

1 Gerrit van Honthorst was the first of the Utrecht Caravaggists to have an adequate catalogue raisonné devoted to his work. Published in 1999, Richard Judson and Rudolf Ekkart’s Gerrit van Honthorst (1592–1656) (Doornspijk: Davaco) is a revsed and improved edition of Judson’s 1959 monograph Gerrit van Honthorst: A Discussion of His Position in Dutch Art (The Hague: Nijhoff).

Caravaggio was and is still nowadays a central figure in western art, and Honthorst, his follower, is representative of a particular type of Dutch-Caravaggisti.

Italy and the Netherlands were beginning opposite trajectories between the sixteenth and the seventeenth century: in the Italian case, this was a period of severe demographic crisis following a period prosperity, where trade and industry declined, and poverty was exacerbated by outbreaks of plague2; by contrast, the Dutch were beginning their Golden Age, with colonies and trading posts being established all over the globe3.

2 The Italian Plague (1629-1631) consisted of a series of outbreaks of bubonic plague in the Northern and then Central-South part of Italy.

3 The Dutch Golden Age was a period during the 17th century of great wealth for the Dutch Republic due to the increase of the trade.

Rome, with its wealth of culture, was dominated by the papacy that reacquired supremacy starting from the Holy Year of 1600, by providing 1.2 million of pilgrims. During Caravaggio’s times, Rome was the cultural capital of Europe, thanks to its rich cultural patrons and the next four Popes such as Clement VII Aldobrandini (15921605), Paul V Borghese (1605-21), Gregory XV Boncompagni (1621-1623), and Urban VIII Barberini (1623-1644). But, above all, Pope Sixtus V (papacy 1585-1590) completely changed the fate of the Eternal City. «Sixtus had a genius for things in high regard just now—he was an inspired city planner, urban ecologist, and labor manager.»4 Pope Sixtus, in fact, reinvigorated the city by providing a new circulation for the destinations of the pilgrimage to the seven churches of Rome through visual axis and landmarks along the city.

Moreover, he promoted Art in all its forms. Entrees of painters, sculptors, architects, decorators, gilders, stonemasons, silversmiths, founders of bronze and various metals, masons, carvers of marble shopkeepers were enrolled. The art market in Rome was exponentially increasing. It was the city of which the Flemish writer and painter Karel van Mander noted in 1604, in his Schilder-Boeck: “There is also one Micheal Agnolo from Caravaggio who is doing marvellous things in Rome”. Caravaggio, therefore, operated in this context.

Hendrick ter Brugghen, Dirck van Baburen and Gerard van Honthorst, three painters from Utrecht, travelled to Rome, to the epicentre of art, in the early seventeenth century. The medieval Dutch city was flourishing in that period and the work of these artists connects Caravaggio’s baroque Italian art with the painters of Dutch Golden Age: Rembrandt, Vermeer and Frans Hals.

‘Caravaggio mania’ raged across Europe in the early decades of the 17th Century, as wealthy patrons competed to buy his pictures, and artists emulated — or simply ripped off — his distinctive style. While copies and reproductions of Caravaggio’s paintings circulated freely, the Grand Tour trend brought wealthy young people, including van Honthorst, to Italy. However, even though similarities are present in two distinct works, they are both art works per se. This argument could be extended to any couple of art pieces, in which the “indirect pupil” was not simply influenced by the

4 Garry Wills, “The City-Planner Pope”, The New York Review of Books, no. 2 (June 1993).

master in the emulating process. In fact, the two painters differed among each other, depending on their painting qualities, realism and light properties, and, nevertheless, on their cultural background.

The lives of the two painters will never cross. The Dutchman arrived in Rome in 16105, the same year during which Caravaggio died while on his way from Naples to Rome. The Dutch artist was affected by his journey and stay in the Italian city and as soon as he came back to the Netherlands, he established a studio at Dom Square, with lots of pupils. The unseen source of light depicted by van Honthorst, in fact, attracted the new-found Dutch wealth and patrons.

Honthorst has stayed for ten years in the company of many other Dutch artists living in the city of Rome and he was a leading figure in introducing Caravaggio’s tenebrist style of painting into Dutch art through this association. Honthorst could not have seen the way in which Caravaggio captured models —choosing people from the streets whom he then painted directly from life in the studio but saw his canvases in public churches scattered around Rome. These were an epiphany to the Dutch painter: he spent hours in front of the Conversion of St. Paul (1601) and was struck by the Naturalism of the Italian, the force and the rawness of his paintings. As demonstrated by the sudden transformation of his technique, Van Honthorst appreciated the luministic effects, the endless forms that light and darkness, the dramatic lighting, known as chiaroscuro, assume in Caravaggio’s paintings. In Italy he acquired thenickname Gherardo delle Notti (Gerrit of the Nights) because he painted plenty of night scenes illuminated by torches or candles. Once he came back to his native country, Honthorst will receive commissions by Dutch and English royalty.

The Flagellation of Christ by Caravaggio (1607) is considered ‘one of the great works of the Italian painter’s maturity’6.

5 Over the years, the scholars, such as Brown (Brown, Christopher, Utrecht Painters of the Dutch Golden Age, London: National Gallery, 1997, p. 62), have supposed that van Honthorst’s Roman stay had to date back to 1616, because of the first certain chronological information related to that precise year. Actually, although the lack of data regarding his arrival in Rome, it is right to exclude the possibility that Honthorst could reach the city only in 1616.

6 Sebastian Schutze, Caravaggio. L’opera completa (Cologne: Taschen, 2017), 415.

stand straight, the other one is lower left and he is bent over to tie a bundle of branches to make a lash. The shadowy silhouette of the kneeling man is shown in profile against the left thigh of Christ and the luminous white of his thong. To the right of Christ, instead, there is one torturer who tightens the ropes that tie his arms. Among the three torturers one has his face completely covered by the shadow, another half-hidden, the last one has an almost animalistic expression and seems to growl bestially.

Sebastiano is suffering in the frame of a charming chapel supported by marble columns with Corinthian capitals.

Caravaggio, however, makes the painting his own, as Graham-Dixon underlines, «giving more emphasis to cruelty and suffering»8. Characteristically, he reduced both the spectators and the architecture itself to the single central column.

The space is dark and undefined. Caravaggio enlarged the figures of the three torturers and Christ and took away the grace of the sixteenthcentury prototypes, giving them greater robustness.

Gerrit van Honthorst, The Mocking of Christ, 1617, 146.05 × of 207.01 cm, Four people, therefore, animate the scene: in the Gerrit van Honthorst, Thea. Mocking Christ, oil on canvas, collection: The Los Angeles County Museum of Art. middle, Christ, with his head reclined, totally naa. 1617, 146.05 × 207.01 cm, oil on canvas, colked if the loincloth wasn’t there. Moreover Christ A precise archival lection: The Los Angeles County Museum of Art. documentation concerning the painting by the Dutch artist is missing. Some wears a crown made of thorns and he stands out scholars have supposed, due to the small size of the painting under discussion, that it was a public commission. It was thought perhaps for a church in the proximity of Rome. both for its sculptural body and for the expression The precedent in this case, instead, was the “Mocking of Christ” (about 1510) by Hieronymus Bosch, nowHere stored atthe the National in London. of resignation that characterizes his face. sceneGallery is populated by six people, Christ The historian Andrew Graham-Dixon describes included. In the middle of the painting, a torch ilChrist as «too tired to keep straight, he is lurched luminates both Christ, on the right with one solAndrew Graham-Dixon, Caravaggio. Vita sacra e profana. (Milano: Oscar Mondadori, 2014), 329. forward from the base of the column»9. ibidem dier, and the four figures on the left side. On the right, in fact, one of them is pushing a crown of To the left of Christ, there are two torturers: one is 4 standing and tugs him from the hair to make him thorns on his head, while another one on the right has a fire iron that he is pushing into Jesus’ right Caravaggio, The Flagellation of Christ, 1607stand straight, the other one is lower left and he 1608, 266 x 213 cm, oil on canvas, collection: hand. The contrast between the laughing face of is bent over to tie a bundle of branches to make a Napoli. Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte. a soldier on the left and the vulnerable Christ is The shadowy silhouette of the kneeling man Caravaggio, The Flagellation of Christ, 1607 - 1608, 266lash. x 213 cm, fascinating. Quoting John A. Coleman, «in the is shown in profile against the left thigh of Christ oil on canvas, collection: Napoli. Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte. and the luminous white of his thong. To the right of Honthorst painting the taunting guards look like ordinary twenty-something Dutch males today.

This case is a prime example not only due to the Christ, instead, there is one torturer who tightens work itself but due to the manner of its painting. the ropes that tie his arms. Among the three tortuThe artist resisted demonizing the guards or making them brutish buffoons or grotesque caricatuArchive documents allow us to reconstruct the rers one has his face completely covered by the events that led to the realization of the altarpiece shadow, another half-hidden, the last one has an res (…)»10. gellation of Christ by Caravaggio (1607) is considered ‘one of the great works of the Italian for San Domenico Maggiore church in Naples. almost animalistic expression and seems to growl work itself but due to the s maturity’6. This case is a prime example not only due to the bestially.

As concerns the similarities between the two of its painting.

Archive documents allow us to reconstruct the events that led to the Based on these documents, Caravaggio is thoupaintings, it is important to underline that both Caght tofor have the monumental altarpiece ravaggio and van Honthorst have chosen to emon of the altarpiece Sanpainted Domenico Maggiore church in Naples.A precise archival documentation concerning over seven weeks7. It is one of seven works that the painting by the Dutch artist is missing. Some phasize the figure of Christ. It affects the beauty Caravaggio painted in Naples, and was finished scholars have supposed, due to the small size of of the body of Christ: in the Flagellation of Christ, n these documents, Caravaggio is thought to have painted the monumental altarpiece over 7 the painting under discussion, on of 11th Marchworks 1607 when the artist received thein Naples, Caravaggio is not limited to anatomical beauty. weeks. It is one seven that Caravaggio painted and was finished on that it was a public final payment of 250 ducats. commission.

It was thought perhaps for a church The power is expressed by the body of Christ whirch 1607 when the artist received the final payment of 250 ducats. in the proximity of Rome. ch here appears muscular, clearly inspired by the The precedent in this case, instead, was the nudes of Michelangelo Buonarroti of the Sistine In his work, as many Italian baroque painters, ork, as many Caravaggio Italian baroque painters, Caravaggio used previous models that “Mocking of Christ” (about 1510) by Hieronymus used to choose previous models thatto choose Chapel11. Even the Christ painted by the Dutch e same topic. share the same topic.

Bosch, now stored at the National Gallery in Lonartist is brawny and his body evokes sympathy: st influential precedent this caseprecedent was the one painted for the Roman The mostininfluential in this case was don. church of San Pietro there is nothing about him that conveys divinity. orio by Sebastiano del Piombo in 1516, based on preparatory drawings by Michelangelo. the one painted for the Roman church of San PieCaravaggio achieved levels of realism for which model,del above all for the laying The of the head,ofthe arms, ggio took this fresco as his general Mocking Christ by the Gerrit van Honthorst (c. tro in Montorio

by Sebastiano Piombo in 1516, the word “photographic” seems inevitable.

1617 1620)ofportrays the moment in which Jebased on preparatory drawings

by Michelangelo.

Christ. The High Renaissance Christ

by Sebastiano is suffering in the –frame a charming 10 Amy Martin (2015), Brief Thoughts on the Passion Caravaggio took with this fresco as his capitals. general model, sus was beaten and mocked by Roman soldiers. supported by marble columns Corinthian of Christ through Honthorst’s Eyes. Available at http:// above all for the laying of the head, the arms, the caravaggista.com/2015/04/brief-thoughts-on-the-pasof Christ.

The Highhis Renaissance Christ by ggio, however,bust makes the painting own, as Graham-Dixon underlines, «giving more 8 9

8 Andrew Graham-Dixon, Caravaggio. Vita sacra e

8 is to cruelty and suffering» . Characteristically, he sacra reduced both the spectators and the profana.

(Milano: Oscar Mondadori, 2014), 329.

7 Andrew Graham-Dixon, Caravaggio. Vita e 9 ibidem profana (Milano: Oscar Mondadori, 2014), 328.

tian Schutze, Caravaggio. L’opera completa (Cologne: Taschen, 2017), 415. w Graham-Dixon, Caravaggio. Vita sacra e profana (Milano: Oscar Mondadori, 2014), 328.

sion-of-christ-through-honthorstseyes/.

11 Rodolfo Papa, Caravaggio. Gli ultimi anni (Firenze: Giunti Editore, 2004).

Therefore, the actuality and sordid reality of both the analyzed paintings are stunning. The choice of this type of realism is undoubtedly attributable to their beliefs, to their historical contexts.

Admiring the Italian painting of the Counter-Reformation, Gerard van Honthorst, on the tail of Caravaggio, paints real people, commoners, who become protagonist of the whole setting. For this reason, some have described the taunting guards depicted by van Honthorst as «ordinary twentysomething Dutch males today»12. We could even dare that the persecutors’ clothes are an effect of the society of that time. In fact, Caravaggio has to be inserted in the Neapolitan reality. «With just under three hundred thousand inhabitants, Naples was at the time a great three times more than Rome. An economy based above all on trade maritime made it the first port of the Mediterranean and the main city Southern Europe»13–Andrea Dusio (2010) argues. But Naples was also a great theater of poverty staged at every hour of both day and night, due to the unstoppable flow of people coming from the countryside of the Southern Italy. Hence, Naples was an enormous and Babelian city. Delinquency, smuggling, prostitution, extortion were spread in the city: there were committed «endless murders and assassinations, and we could not talk»14. The Caravaggio characters come from here: others have described the three tortures as «longshoreman»15.

The context in which Gerard van Honthorst painted his art work is Utrecht, an unusual Dutch city at that time, crowded of rural nobility, gentry and still about 40% Catholics16. In the Netherlands the genre paintings provided until the late 18th century many insights into the daily life of citizens, common people of all classes.

12 John A. Coleman, “Jesus the Prisoner”, America Magazine, vol. 200, issue 11 (March 2009): 26.

13 Andrea Dusio, “La Flagellazione di Cristo e il primo soggiorno napoletano del Caravaggio” in Caravaggio timeline (Roma: Cooper Press, 2010), 100–139.

14 Silvana D’Alessio, Masaniello (Salerno: Salerno Publisher, 2008).

15 “Caravaggio, “La flagellazione di Gesù” nel museo di Capodimonte a Napoli,” Cultural Society Palazzo Tenta 39, accessed December 28, 2018, http:// www.gennarocucciniello.it/gc/caravaggiola-flagellazione-di-gesu-nel-museo-di-capodimonte-a-napoli/.

16 The situation is well described in Franits Wayne, Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting (London: Yale University Press, 2004).

Moreover, in both the paintings, that is “The Flagellation of Christ” by Caravaggio and “The mocking of Christ” by Gerard van Honthorst the realism is also supported by the life-size of the figures, real and not idealized. In other words, extreme close-ups of life-size figures encourage the beholder’s mimetic identification with painted figures17.

Another common aspect that can be counted is the attention towards the draperies, made with long and synthetic brush strokes, seem inspired by examples of classical Roman sculpture.

Caravaggio paints the drapery with a realistic accuracy and the latter are more limpid, more defined. On the other hand, the details of the drapery are almost hidden by the Dutch painter and better recognizable through its Retinex filtered image18.

Admittedly, the Italian and the Dutch painter are, indeed, associated with the Chiaroscuro technique, characterized by a strong tonal contrast between light and dark. Caravaggio is the central artist for the development of this approach.

The Tenebrism technique, in fact, «was popular during the Baroque period»19. In the “Flagellation of Christ”, in particular, the figures are in the foreground and the Chiaroscuro effect projects them directly towards the viewer. The characters don’t draw shadows on the painting since –as someone said– «scientific investigations have shown that Caravaggio started to adopt here a very dark, almost black background, a different preparation from that of Roman works»20.

In both the paintings a strong chiaroscuro illuminates Christ and casts the mockers in shadow.

The monochrome background is another distinctive feature that characterizes both paintings.

Relative to the dissimilarities, instead, in addition 17 Gabriele Klein, “Image, Body and Performativity: The Constitution of Subcultural Practice in the Globalized World of Pop” in David Muggleton and Rupert Weinzierl, eds., The PostSubcultures Reader (Oxford: Berg, 2003), 46–47 argues for a similar appeal to viewers in the context of modern art.

18 Amelia Sparavigna, “GIMP Retinex filter applied to arts: Gerrit van Honthorst and his Chiaroscuro”, Philica Magazine, issue 928 (2017): 6.

19 Genevieve Warwick, Caravaggio: Realism, Rebellion, Reception (USA: University of Delaware Press, 2006), 23.

20 Stefano Zuffi (ed.), Caravaggio (Milano: Mondadori Electa, 2007), 120.

to the geographical context in which the two painters worked (The Netherlands and especially Utrecht in the case of van Honthorst, Italy and especially Naples in the case of Caravaggio), the attention towards the anecdote, the satire of the Dutch painter should be definitely listed. Compared to the Caravaggio painting, despite the much higher number of people who inhabit the scene, in the “Mocking of Christ” the action is petrified and does not transmit the same drama of the Italian painter. Therefore, on one hand the drama (expressed by Caravaggio), on the other hand the picturesque (Gerard van Honthorst). «In fact, the chiaroscuro of the Utrecht school will eventually lead to paintings of genre costumes, street scenes of everyday life, set in the taverns, etc.»21 The importance of the spatial definition in Caravaggio has already been mentioned: following the traditional iconography, the column of the painting vertically cuts the scene and occupies a decentralized position. Initially, in reality, Caravaggio left a portion of the canvas on the right side in reserve so that the column occupied the exact center of the composition; only at a later time, with the extension of the support, the placement was decentralized. Anyway the column is the symbol of architecture and gives depth. The column, moreover, is useful to increase the interplay of light and shadow. After all those years saw the birth of the Baroque architecture, dominated by architects such as Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1598-1680) and Francesco Borromini (1599-1667). The presence of the columns remembers the composition of the “Flagellation of Christ” by Piero della Francesca (1455-65), where the element is yet drowned in a geometric space.

Unlike the Italian tenebrists, in which the light had an uncertain origin, Van Honthorst and the painters of the school of Utrecht were luministas: they introduced a spotlight of artificial light perfectly identified in the painting (a candle, a lamp or a torch) that was used as an obvious illumination of the whole scene. In “The Mocking of Christ”, in fact, the torch is in a favored position. The light source can be seen in this object and is used dramatically, highlighting the intensity of the picture.

21 J. Rosenberg, S. Slyve and H. ter Kuile, Dutch Art and Architecture: 1600-1800 (London: Penguin, 1981), 36-47.

Sixteenth-century Dutch and Flemish art was replete with examples using “the limited frame of the half-figure painting to display as closely and shockingly as possible, the facial expressions and significant gestures of low-class figure types, mostly two or three figures of money changers, drunkards, lecherous old men and whores,” notes Walter Friedlaender22. In fact, the people (working-class figures) of the Dutch painting analyzed in this essay are connoted by theatrical dress and some of them even wear plumed hats23. Their expressivity is mainly characterized by hand gestures and could be described as «quiet, internalized»24 if compared to Caravaggio’s interpretation. The torturers painted by van Honthorst are dressed in colorful clothes, and bearing pleased expressions, while in “The Flagellation” by Caravaggio they stand out for their musculature, which is why they are represented by naked torso and legs. This factor gives the painting greater tension and drama, next to bestial expression of the left-torturer. As has been stressed by several speakers, Caravaggio’s realism is more «intense and disturbing»25. Precisely as a result of its rawness, the canvas by Caravaggio «Exposed to the public drew to himself all the eyes of the concerning, and although the figure of Christ is taken by a natural ignoble and not kind, as was necessary, to represent the figure of a God who for us became Man; In any case the new way of that terrible way of shading, the truth of those nudes, the resentful light without many reflexes, made surprised, not only amateurs but Professors themselves in large part …»26.

Finally, the work of van Honthorst recalls a Mannerist palette, because of the iridescent greens, reds and blues. In contrast, Caravaggio palette is composed of simple, nearly monochromatic array of dark earth tones and silvery whites.

22 Walter Friedlaender, Caravaggio Studies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), 82.

23 Detail visible in fig. 8, Amelia Sparavigna, “GIMP Retinex filter applied to arts: Gerrit van Honthorst and his Chiaroscuro”, Philica Magazine, issue 928 (2017): 6.

24 Sheila D. Muller, Dutch Art: An Encyclopedia (London: Routledge, 1997), 197.

25 Andrew Graham-Dixon, op. cit., 330.

26 Bernardo De Dominici, “Vite de’ Pittori, Scultori ed Architetti napoletani”, Napoli 1742/45, II (1743), 275.

The ability of the Dutch painter, Gerard van Honthorst, is not comparable to mere imitation of the Roman and Italian models. Rather, it is part of building «a collective identity for Utrecht’s artistic community as well as their active shaping of their own distinct artistic personae»27. In the early sixteenth century there was a long-standing practice whereby artists working in Utrecht cultivated artistic connections to Rome. Thanks to Roman patrons of Caravaggism (Grand Duke of Tuscany, Scipione Borghese Cardinal, Marquis Vincenzo Giustiniani) and various associations, Honthorst’s success was spread also in Florence28.

For the first time, Caravaggio and van Honthorst’ paintings were put together for the exhibition titled “Gerrit van Honthorst. Most bizarre paintings and merry suppers”, held at the Uffizi Museum of Florence in 2015.

Although Caravaggio and van Honthorst are both united by the Chiaroscuro technique, the paintings by the Dutch must be given credit for taking Caravaggio’s realism one step further. The painting of the Utrecht School, in fact, are typically Dutch for the following reasons: when looking at other paintings by the Dutch Caravaggist, it appears that the Caravaggesque religiosity is missing, in favour of painting grotesque sides of reality. Van Honthorst paintings, therefore, after his return to his country of origin, depict «merry companies eating, drinking, playing games, and flirting, bathed in the golden light of one or more obscured candles»29.

In many respects, one could therefore say that the student did not pass the teacher. It is undeniable that the paintings of van Honthorst do not reach the same striking drama of Caravaggio.

27 Sonia Loredana Del Re, “Re-forming Images: Utrecht, Caravaggio, and the Body” (PhD diss., McGill University, Montreal, 2013), 55.

28 Papi, Honthorst in Italia, 15, 15n42. Two letters written by the secretary Cioli, and initially published in Godefridus Joannes Hoogewerff. De Nederlandsche kunstenaars te Rome in de 17e eeuw en hun conflict met de Academie van St. Lucas (Amsterdam: Akad, 1926), 286–87), document the Granduke’s interest in purchasing six canvases by Honthorst in Rome.

29 Sheila D. Muller, Dutch Art: An Encyclopedia (London: Routledge, 1997), 197.

The use of light and the Chiaroscuro technique remain the most learned and applied heritage.

Yet without the contribution of Honthorst, maybe great masterpieces by Rubens, van Dyck, Rembrandt and Vermeer would not have existed.

The marquis Vincenzo Giustiniani, a learned patron and educated collector among the main artists of the seventeenth-century Rome, in his “Discourse on Painting” lists in order of increasing importance the twelve main ways of painting of his time, cites Honthorst to the eleventh position, placing him among those artists “they can paint with having natural objects in front”.30 The modernity of the life-like realism of which Caravaggio and van Honthorst became promoters is undoubtedly a consequence of the Baroque art.

They both broke the barrier between painting’s space and the observer space. The observer can thus feel a real sense of the illustrated moment.

The painted figures by both these modern artists are not perfect as the ones of the High Renaissance, but, on the contrary, they are ordinary.

Ordinary, yes, but brilliantly, passionately and innovatively modern.

30 Vincenzo Giustiniani and Anna Banti, Discorsi sulle arti e sui mestieri (Firenze: Sansoni, 1981), 4145.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berger, John. Ways of seeing. London: Penguin, 1972.

Bologna, F. (ed.). Caravaggio. L’ultimo tempo 1606-1610.

Napoli: Electa, 2004.

Del Re, Sonia Loredana. “Re-forming Images: Utrecht, Caravaggio, and the Body” (PhD diss., McGill University, Montreal, 2013).

Dusio, Andrea. “La Flagellazione di Cristo e il primo soggiorno napoletano del Caravaggio” in Caravaggio timeline.

Roma: Cooper Press, 2010.

Haskel, Francis. Patrons and Painters: A Study in the Relations Between Italian Art and Society in the Age of the Baroque. Revised and Enlarged Edition. New York: Yale University Press, 1986.

Friedlaender, Walter. Caravaggio Studies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955.

Graham-Dixon Andrew, Caravaggio. Vita sacra e profana.

Milano: Oscar Mondadori, 2014.

Muller, Sheila D. Dutch Art: An Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, 1997.

Schama, Simon. The Embarrassment of Riches: An interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. New York: Knopf, 1997.

Norberg Schulz, Christian. Architettura barocca. Milano: Mondadori Electa, 1979.

Pagano, M. (ed.). La Flagellazione di Caravaggio, Il restauro. Napoli: Electa, 1999.

Papa, Rodolfo. Caravaggio. Gli ultimi anni. Firenze: Giunti Editore, 2004.

Papi, Gianni. Gherardo delle Notti : Gerrit Honthorst in Italia. Florence: Galleria degli Uffizi, 2015.

Ragozzino, Marta. Caravaggio. Firenze: Giunti, 1997.

Schutze, Sebastian. Caravaggio. L’opera completa. Cologne: Taschen, 2017.

Spinosa, N. (ed.). Dipinti del XVII sec. Il Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte: La scuola napoletana. Le collezioni borboniche e postunitarie. Napoli: Electa, 2008.

Vodret, Rossella. Dentro Caravaggio. Milano: Skira, 2010.

Warwick, Genevieve. Caravaggio: Realism, Rebellion, Reception. USA: University of Delaware Press, 2006.

Wayne, Franits. Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting. London: Yale University Press, 2004.

Wittkower, Rudolf. Art and Architecture in Italy, 1600-1750.

Torino: Einaudi, 2017.

Zuffi, Stefano (ed.), Caravaggio. Milano: Mondadori Electa, 2007.