THE SIR DENIS MAHON ESSAY PRIZE EVERY PAINTER PAINTS HIMSELF: SELF-PORTRAITURE AND MYTH-MAKING IN THE WORKS OF

ANNA MURPHY

The Sir Denis Mahon Essay Prize was estab- Sir Denis’s endeavours in this respect. The Somewhere between 1615 and 1673, the self-portraits reveal an astute and prop- lished by Sir Denis’ friends and colleagues in prize is open to alumni who are 30 years of age Caravaggio became an archetype. agandistic portrayal of the artist and his 2010 in honour and celebration of his 100th or below when submitting their essay and who Mythologised, Caravaggio lost some of his many talents. It is only by deconstructing birthday. Sir Denis was one of the most dis- have completed their highest qualification humanity but gained a signifying power the popular ‘Caravaggio myth’ surrounding tinguished art historians and collectors of the within the past five years (only unpublished as a morally and artistically bad artist. these works that we can fully explore the 20th century, and a determined campaigner essays are eligible for submission. – Philip Sohm, ‘Caravaggio’s Deaths’1 way in which it has been interwoven with, and philanthropist. Sir Denis died on 24 April and imposed on, his self-portraiture, and, 2011 and it is now his Charitable Trust that The author of the prize-winning submission will Caravaggio is an artist whose reputation more significantly, can begin to reappraise runs the Prize. be invited to present his/her essay and attend precedes him. Over the centuries his life these works and consider potential alter- The Sir Denis Mahon Essay Prize comprises an a reception in honour of Sir Denis. This year’s has been sensationalised, fictionalised, native interpretations and motives behind award of £1,000 for an essay of distinction which prize will be presented at the This year’s prize and – perhaps most importantly – impli- Caravaggio’s very particular self-representa- reflects Sir Denis’ life and interests. Sir Denis’ will be presented at the Pinacoteca at Cento in cated in his dark, dramatic and violent tion. area of prime interest was the Seicento (17th November to commemorate Sir Denis’s birth- artworks, in both pop cultural and art his- Caravaggio certainly has a great person- century) paintings, and in particular the work of day wich was on the 8th November. torical discourses. These links constructed al presence in his works, both explicitly , Caravaggio and . The Winner of the Sir Denis Mahon Essay between Caravaggio’s personal life and his and implicitly. He is ‘an artist who enjoys Throughout his life and until his very last days, Prize in 2015, which was held at the Nation- art have, as David M. Stone notes, ‘often reminding us he’s there’,5 not through the Sir Denis devoted a substantial amount of his al Gallery of Ireland, was Anna Murphy. Her gone unchallenged’,2 resulting in the no- use of formal self-portraiture (of which we time to help and encourage young students in essay ‘Every painter paints himself: self-portrai- tion that ‘the man and his paintings were find none) but through more performative the study of the art subjects in which he was ture and myth-making in the works of Caravag- mirror images of one another’.3 Caravaggio’s and suggestive means. There are three cat- most interested. The Prize aims to continue gio’ is published in this catalogue. self-portraiture in particular is often used egories of self-portraiture that I identify in of himself into religious group scenes as a to support these claims, further linking his Caravaggio’s oeuvre. The first is what might player or participant. This becomes particu- rebellious, rule-breaking art with his rebel- be loosely deemed ‘technical self-portrai- larly complex when we consider the roles lious, rule-breaking personality, with Simon ture’; that is, Caravaggio’s use of himself as he chooses for himself. The third notion Schama even going so far as to assert that a model, particularly in the early years of of self-portraiture present in Caravaggio’s ‘every appearance he makes [in his paint- his career, in which he draws from the self works, which will not be discussed here ings] is in the guise of sinner’.4 This essay without necessarily representing the self. but is nonetheless worth acknowledging as aims to look at Caravaggio’s self-portraiture Such use of an artist’s own person – even it clearly informs much of the literature on in its many guises afresh, and to consider as object, not subject – is always fraught, which I draw, is the idea that ‘every paint- the ways in which these paintings in par- however, bringing with it its own set of im- er paints himself’; that is, the Renaissance ticular have been manipulated by critics plicit transactions, and it is interesting to truism that all painting is a reflection of and art historians to reinforce what are by note the way in which these early works the artist’s inner psyche and so, regardless now rather typical and often superficial no- self-referentially imply the artist behind of intention, such tenebrous, brutal scenes tions of the artist as dark, violent, supercili- them even in those instances when his own nakedly reveal Caravaggio’s repressed and ous, and mercurial (fig. 1). While there may visage is not openly cited. The second con- troubled mind. be ample evidence to support such read- ception of self-portraiture that I catalogue It is important to note that though there is ings of Caravaggio the man, Caravaggio’s is that of the artist as character in the paint- a limited catalogue of Caravaggio self-por- self-portraiture is not among it; instead, ing: the intentional, deliberate insertion traits, there is nonetheless significant dis-

64 65 1. Artist unknown, Portrait 2. Caravaggio, , 3. Caravaggio, The Musicians, of Caravaggio from Bellori’s Lives oil on canvas, 95 x 85 cm, c. 1595, oil on canvas, 92 x 118.5 cm. of the Artists, c. 1672 c. 1597. Florence, Uffizi Gallery New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art

agreement among scholars as to which paintings are, or are not, representations of the artist. This is perhaps most prominent in discussions of Caravaggio’s early works, where debates linger about the identities of the men painted in Bacchus (fig. 2),The Musicians (fig. 3), andBoy Bitten by a Lizard (fig. 4), to name but a few. These ‘soft boys’, as they are sometimes known,6 are often thought to be drawn from a fellow artist and friend of Caravaggio, , rather than from Caravaggio himself.7 However, such accounts give little in the way of justi- fication as to why these paintings are, or are not, bestowed with the status of self-por- trait; ultimately, their inclusion in the realm of self-portraiture is dependent on the par- ticular art historical theory being proposed. Such implicit agendas have had – and continue to have – a remarkable effect on the discourse surrounding these works and their assumptive assimilation into, or exclu- sion from, the canon of self-portraiture. With this disclaimer in mind, I wish to turn first to the category of technical self-por- traiture, the best exemplar of which is . This work is one of the most divisive of Caravaggio’s paintings with regard to traditional self-portraiture: some critics, such as Walter Friedlander and Ru- dolf Wittkower, believe Giovanni Baglione’s remark that Caravaggio used a mirror when painting to mean that the resulting works are facsimiles of the artist’s features; oth- ers, such as Roberto Longhi, argue that this same use of a mirror was instead just ‘a means of isolating “pieces” or “blocks” of

66 67 reality, thereby making them available for intense optical investi- provocatively seek to titillate. In fact, it is quite the contrary, as it is like Bacchus would be were he a real person), leering unsettlingly We see, then, that as more and more hypotheses converge, Sick gation’ and was thus used to study, not recreate, the features of essentially a prescriptive vanitas picture with its eroticism belied by at the viewer. While readings like this emphasise the shock value of Bacchus becomes a conglomerate mass of thoughts, theories and the artist.8 Regardless of whether or not this work contains a di- ‘the sourest of morals’.15 What we see, then, is Caravaggio placing such a painting, however, they often overlook the underlying meaning ideas about the painting itself and the artist behind it. Nonetheless, rect transcript of the artist’s appearance, however, Michael Fried himself centrally, subtly emphasising the importance and ubiqui- implied by it, as, like Boy Bitten by a Lizard, this also has a moralising what remains apparent in all is that this painting, in all its layered reminds us that physical resemblance ‘hardly begins to capture the ty of the artist through pose (if not through facial representation), tone, warning against Bacchic or sensual excess in what is ultimately and multifaceted complexity, is a prime example of the many ways complexities of the painting’s relation to its maker’.9 Fried argues while also carefully constructing an image that flaunts drama, the- a rather Christian and pious way. in which Caravaggio’s self-portraiture revolves around emphasising that what we actually have in Boy Bitten by a Lizard is a disguised atricality, and sex appeal even as it simultaneously contains these Other readings of this work, such as David M. Stone’s, focus on the importance and distinction of the artist. Perhaps more perti- ‘analogous mirror-representation of the painter in the act of paint- traits within a strict moral code. As Andrew Graham-Dixon notes, the brazenness of Caravaggio’s self-representation here, insisting nently still, however, it also highlights the way in which such works ing his own self-portrait’.10 Once noted, the similarities in gesture this is just the ‘alibi’ necessary for the ‘higher Roman clergy [...] to that he was purposefully responding, tongue firmly in cheek, to his can be manipulated and reinterpreted depending on the viewer’s and positioning are striking; the same case can also be made for enjoy – let alone purchase – a picture such as this’.16 In this way, critics who ‘could not have failed to hiss with glee at seeing Car- critical stance. a number of his other figures (such as those inBacchus and The Boy Bitten by a Lizard is a particularly pertinent example of Car- avaggio […] portrayed as the god of self-gratification and drunken There is a more direct manifesto to be found in (fig. 6). Taking of Christ). Furthermore, that the artifice of this painting is avaggio’s very calculated self-fashioning at work, as it shows him excess’.18 This, too, seeks to dramatise Caravaggio, not as the inso- Again, its status as a literal self-portrait is somewhat dubious – like constructed around the pose of the artist is not only ingenious as taking into account not only his own representation but also ensur- lent rule-breaker but as the rebellious, untameable artist: contrary Boy Bitten by a Lizard, it is another of the paintings Baglione claims a technique, but also emphasises – as Caravaggio was wont to do ing that it conforms to the moral values of his audience – a far cry and inflammatory, but ultimately very self-aware and very much were made with the use of a mirror – but there can be no doubt – the utmost importance and centrality of the painter at all times, from the ‘devil may care’ attitude usually attributed to the artist in in control of his purposeful self-fashioning. Andrew Graham-Dix- about its psychic and thematic (if not physical) link to its maker. alluding to his omnipresence within the work. Another example of popular mythology. on, on the other hand, challenges the typical stance by suggesting This is Caravaggio’s ultimate statement of realism, skill and artistic this – and of technical self-portraiture in general – can be found in Somewhere between the categories of technical self-portraiture and that the Caravaggio figure is not sick at all but is merely bathed merit; so much so that Graham-Dixon considers it ‘his own emblem, the Bacchus. Caravaggio paints a tiny self-portrait in the reflections character self-portraiture lies another of Caravaggio’s early works, in moonlight, the typical atmospheric conditions for Bacchic cel- or impresa’.24 It is a painting that ‘[transcends] painting [to] become on the glass of the carafe, again calling attention to the artifice of Sick Bacchus (fig. 5), sometimes known asSelf-Portrait as Bacchus. ebrations. He proposes instead that the self-dramatisation here is the very thing that it depicts’;25 not a fiction but the mirrored shield the painting, and to the presence of its maker behind it. Both titles link the work to a biography of the artist: the latter does so not retaliatory but self-promotional, noting that ‘Bacchus is an apt itself, used by to kill the Medusa. This spectacular feat Caravaggio’s use of himself as a model in Boy Bitten by a Lizard explicitly, of course, but even the concept of the ‘sick’ Bacchus, seem- alter ego for an artist, because according to his legend he is subject of workmanship makes the audacious statement that Caravaggio’s and other early works certainly may have stemmed from mone- ingly divorced from Caravaggio himself and originating from a de- to fits of divine inspiration’;19 at the same time, ‘he also stands for art is so realistic as to be, like the shield of the legend, a mirror, a tary necessity (that is, relative poverty),11 but that it continued by scription of the figure’s uneasy pallor, derives from Roberto Longhi’s disorder, anarchy, [and] an unruly surrender to the senses’,20 traits direct and exact transcription from life. As well as highlighting his choice suggests Caravaggio’s desire for control over his paintings suggestion that the painting was made as an ‘allegorical self-portrait which could be inferred as being further relevant to Caravaggio in incredible realism and technical skill, the work also cites and chal- and his self-publicisation through art. While this is already appar- just after [Caravaggio’s] discharge from the hospital’.17 Here, we can particular. Graham-Dixon also suggests that Caravaggio is drawing lenges Leonardo da Vinci, who had previously painted the figure of ent in the way he subliminally suggests his own status as creator see the full and somewhat insidious extent of the insertion of biogra- on earlier precedents of artists representing themselves as Bac- Medusa and whose resulting work was in Florence in the collection in these works, if we are to assume that this is a self-portrait in the phy into Caravaggio’s paintings, as whether or not the Bacchus is sick chus;21 in this way, we can see Caravaggio’s use of the Bacchus mo- of the Medicis, just as Caravaggio’s would be.26 This painting is traditional sense, brief mention should also be given to the per- completely affects our interpretation of the painting and the artist tif as a method of inserting himself into an art historical tradition, yet another example of not only Caravaggio’s shrewd self-fashion- ceived self-fashioning present in this painting in particular. Several within it. There are a number of different readings of this complex kindling a spirit of comparison and competition with other artists ing and foregrounding of his artistic skill (particularly in relation interpretations of the narrative exist, but the most prominent and work, each seemingly stemming from a different construction of Car- and traditions. Overall, Graham-Dixon believes that Sick Bacchus to other artistic greats), but also of his aforementioned awareness convincing reading posits this painting as an analogy for sexual de- avaggio. A stereotypical and not particularly nuanced reading, prone has something of the ‘personal manifesto’ about it, ‘[announcing] – and flattery – of hisaudience. The Medusa shield both displays viance: the fruits stand for sexual temptation, the bitten finger rep- to sensationalism, might see this work as an affront to classicism: Caravaggio’s spirit of unruly unpredictability, and [showing] for the his own skills and compliments its owner by transforming him into resents the wounded phallus,12 the lizard becomes a sort of vagina disobedient, dirty, unidealising, controversial, uncompromising, and first time the face of a man quite capable of overthrowing the tired the hero Perseus.27 Caravaggio’s identification and association with dentata,13 and the whole can be read as a warning against venereal difficult. Not surprisingly, these are all traits attributed to Caravaggio artistic conventions of his time’.22 Finally, this painting also contains the figure of Medusa, therefore, is not an identification with the disease.14 But Caravaggio’s presence here as the bitten boy does himself. By painting the Bacchus as sick, Caravaggio removes any another instance of Fried’s ‘painter’s pose’, subtly echoing the art- monstrous or with a sinner, and it is certainly not a ‘self-identifica- not, as Schama supposes, necessarily implicate him as a ‘sinner’. traces of divinity and yet again strips the idealising artifice to reveal ist’s twisted body as he turns from mirror to canvas with both hands tion with decapitation [as] the sign of a self-destructive personality The painting does not just languorously condone promiscuity or not a god, but a pallid, debauched youth, hungover or still drunk (just raised as though to paint.23 or a castration complex’,28 all theories which highlight the desire to

68 69 4. Caravaggio, Boy Bitten by a 5. Caravaggio, Sick Bacchus, 6. Caravaggio, Medusa, c. 1597, Lizard, c. 1595-7, oil on canvas, c. 1593-94, oil on canvas, 67 x 53 cm. oil on canvas, 60 x 55 cm. 66 x 49.5 cm. London, National Rome, Galleria Borghese Florence, Uffizi Gallery Gallery

his later works, however; while the afore- mentioned paintings were all portraits of individuals (therefore allowing for a greater prioritisation of the self), a different set of transactions and meanings comes into play – and is adeptly obeyed by the artist – when we consider Caravaggio’s presence in these religious group scenes. The first of these religious scenes isThe Martyrdom of St. Matthew (fig. 7). Caravag- gio’s presence here is frequently described as the artist portraying himself fleeing self- ishly from the scene at hand, ‘[s]weaty, dishevelled, [with his] hair matted [and] brows knitted’.30 The impetus in Cara- vaggio criticism seems to be to read these ‘witness’ pictures – amongst which we can also count The Taking of Christ (fig. 8) and The Martyrdom of St. Ursula (fig. 9) –as the manifestation of Caravaggio’s own per- sonal guilt and shame, an atonement for the way he lived and the many crimes he committed. This is, I assert, merely wishful thinking, for as Stone remarks, ‘the more we know about Caravaggio from documen- tary sources, the less penitent an individual he appears to have been’.31 The desire to read in these self-portraits the remorse of a guilty man also seems to work backwards read Caravaggio as self-destructive, guilty, then, places emphasis on the artist above seem to wish they were, and all have intel- from the murder he would later commit, and even psychologically or sexually dam- all, echoing his presence and importance ligent self-promotional links to the artist, as though hoping to find traces of expia- others, leaving the martyr to his fate’.32 Any betray the deep sorrow stirred in him by the aged. In actuality, this alignment is a care- through pose and association with related, espousing his religious morals, his artistic tion even before the crime. Rather, I argue cowardice he dramatises here is a form of martyr’s fate (rather than a guilty contem- fully crafted artistic statement: Caravaggio revealing characters from mythology. His temperament and his compelling realism that these witness-portraits portray not a Christian repentance regarding his help- plation of his own). By portraying himself is declaring that he, like the Medusa, ‘takes incognito appearances as tempted youth, respectively. There is a significant shift be- personal guilt, but a more mundane Chris- lessness to prevent St. Matthew’s death, leaving the scene, and not in a more gran- a moment and makes it last for all time. [...] chaotic god and beheaded are tween these early works and the category tian guilt. Caravaggio is contrasting himself not the manifestation of his own personal diose guise, Caravaggio relegates himself to Her magic is his magic, a petrifying art’.29 perhaps eyebrow-raising but never as un- of ‘character’ self-portraiture, which is how modestly with the saints, aware that he too and biographical shame, and Caravaggio’s the appropriate penitent and humble po- Caravaggio’s presence in these early works, abashedly controversial as popular critics Caravaggio appears to us in the majority of would have done nothing and ‘fled like the regretful expression and outstretched hand sition, validating his Christianity in a way

70 71 8. Caravaggio, The Taking of Christ, 9. Caravaggio, The Martyrdom c. 1602, oil on canvas, of St. Ursula, c. 1610, oil on canvas, 133.5 x 169.5 cm. Dublin, 154 x 178 cm. Stigliano, Naples, of Ireland Galleria di Palazzo Zevallos

72 73 10. Caravaggio, David with the 11. Caravaggio, St Francis in Head of Goliath, c. 1606-1610, Ecstasy, c. 1595, oil on canvas, oil on canvas, 125 x 101 cm. 92.5 x 127.8 cm. Connecticut, Rome, Galleria Borghese Wadsworth Atheneum

74 75 that presenting himself as noble bystander ‘Caravaggio might be seen as casting himself dicative of a tortured interiority. While this ist’s self-portraits. When noted, the resem- gious, and even saintly, the absolute antith- biography and criticism inflect our identifi- or hero would not. Nonetheless, it is worth ...as a latter-day Diogenes seeking redemp- makes for an unarguably compelling reading, blance is indeed striking; so striking, in esis of the myth. This is the complete op- cation and, of course, interpretation of Car- bearing in mind that his self-fashioning as a tion and casting light on a deceptive and it seems just as likely that these paintings fact, that it seems remarkable that it has posite of how many viewers, including art avaggio’s self-portraits. When faced with devout, albeit flawed, Christian is just that: morally dark world. In this reading, however were made as more calculated, self-aware not been suggested as such before. Argu- historians, see (and want to see) the sensa- the paintings themselves, however, it is not self-fashioning, a construct that attempts to hypothetical it may be, Caravaggio presents manipulations. Stone interprets it as Cara- ably, this is because such self-fashioning tionalised figure of Caravaggio, and so they so easy to reduce Caravaggio to the myth; promote the image of Caravaggio as pious himself not as the dark painter who came vaggio ‘openly [mocking] his detractors by problematically disrupts the typical image remain blind to it. Ultimately, this reinforc- tempting though it may be to see him as and religious. into the world to “destroy painting” but as this outrageous gesture of casting himself as of Caravaggio and reasserts the artist’s pow- es my earlier point that the designation of tempestuous, penitent, and a victim of his Caravaggio – or rather, the character he another Carracci, saviour of art, who shines a grimacing, screaming, bleeding, and bodi- er over his own depiction. Instead of por- ‘self-portrait’ is not objective, or even based melodramatic life, his works reveal more. plays – has a more active presence in The the light of truth into Mannerist obscurity.’35 less Goliath’,39 similar to his self-portrayal as traying himself as a guilty, repentant sinner on physical resemblance, but thoroughly Caravaggio the artist may have been reap- Taking of Christ. Some critics have noticed The artist is depicting himself as the illumi- Bacchus, whereas Graham-Dixon believes – or at least in some guise that allows such dictated by the motives of the art historian propriated by his biography, but his strong how he is twinned with Judas, composi- nator of history and truth, a faithful scribe it was a ‘darkly ingenious plea to the one a reading to be imposed on it – Caravaggio wielding the picture. St. Francis in Ecstasy is self-fashioning still declaims his assertive, tionally and functionally, with ‘both seeking of the life of Christ. More audaciously, he man who could save him: his way of saying can be seen to show himself as devout, reli- yet another example of the extent to which manipulative, and self-aware presence. to “light up” the figure of Christ’ and both could even be seen to be comparing himself that [Cardinal Scipione] Borghese was wel- featured in profile facing the left.33 He is to Christ himself, ‘the Light of the World’. come to have his head in a painting, if only part of the movement from the right to Perhaps the most prominent and loaded of he would let him keep it in real life’.40 The capture Christ, with the lamp he holds no all Caravaggio’s self-portraits is David with ‘Caravaggio myth’ seeks to foreclose such a doubt helping to achieve this; in this way, the Head of Goliath (fig. 10), in which he ap- possibility that the remorse depicted here it is easily possible to read him as being a pears in the guise of the ogre. Often dated to could be a fiction, preferring to regard it guilty sinner, implicated in the treacherous the end of the artist’s life, it seems more con- as somehow ‘“bubbling up” from some re- act. However, in another and more signifi- vincing that the painting was actually made pressed area of his personality’41 and thus ei- cant sense, Caravaggio’s light is analogous in 1606, as argued by both Graham-Dixon ther a sign of some internal criminal justice to his act of painting. Indeed, as though to and Stone, though Stone believes that it being served or an indicator of the humanity reinforce this, the lamp that his character was made even before Caravaggio’s murder previously disavowed by the act of murder. holds is purely compositional and symbol- of Ranuccio Tomassoni.36 Those interpre- All that is really achieved by this, however, ic, rather than functional, as it is not a true tations that date it to the end of the artist’s is a mass denial of Caravaggio’s own agen- light source in the painting. Furthermore, life, or otherwise ally it with his act of mur- cy and control over his self-representation, 1 P. Sohm: ‘Caravaggio’s Deaths’, The Art Bulletin Vol. ment on the slang. 27 Ibid., p.158. 13 28 to return to Fried’s aforementioned theory, der, often read, as Stone says, ‘Caravaggio’s ironically making the viewer more suscepti- 84, No. 3 (2002), p.454. A. Graham-Dixon: Caravaggio: A Life Sacred and Pro- Stone, op. cit. (note 2), p.38. 2 D. M. Stone: ‘Self and Myth in Caravaggio’s David and fane, London 2010, p.96. 29 Graham-Dixon, op. cit. (note 13), p.159. Caravaggio’s pose clearly seems to imply self-mutilation in the Borghese David as an ble to Caravaggio’s beautifully crafted – and Goliath’, in G. Warwick, ed.: Caravaggio: Realism, Rebel- 14 Ibid., p.97. 30 Schama, op. cit. (note 4), p.47. the act of painting, and his hand could just act of contrition for his crime, a final humil- crafty – manipulations. Regardless of how lion, Reception, United States 2006, p.36. 15 Ibid., p.97. 31 Stone, op. cit. (note 2), p.39. 3 16 32 37 Ibid., p.36. Ibid., p.97. Graham-Dixon, op. cit. (note 13), p.201. as easily be imagined with a paintbrush as iation and submission to divine judgment’. unsavoury such an idea might appear to an 4 S. Schama: The Power of Art, Great Britain 2006, p.20. 17 Ibid., p.83. 33 Leo Bersani and Ulysse Dutoit: ‘Beauty’s Light’, Octo- with a lamp. In this way, his witnessing is a Similarly, Simon Schama sees in the David audience seeking emotional closure, the 5 Ibid., p.20. 18 Stone, op. cit. (note 2), p.37. ber 82 (1997), p.19. testament to his artistic vision and realism, ‘a bid for understanding – not just from the prospect remains that he is not penitent, but 6 M. Fried, ‘Thoughts on Caravaggio’, Critical Inquiry 24, 19 Graham-Dixon, op. cit. (note 13), p.84. 34 Graham-Dixon, op. cit. (note 13), p.201. no. 1 (1997), p.30. 20 Ibid., p.84. 35 Sohm, op. cit. (note 1), p.459. ‘his way of proclaiming that he really did cardinals and the Pope, but from us, and performing. 7 Ibid., p.30. 21 Ibid., p.84. 36 Stone, op. cit. (note 2), p.39. see it all unfold, just like this, in his mind’s perhaps from himself’.38 Again, we can see By way of conclusion, I wish to remark 8 Ibid., p.17. 22 Ibid., p.90. 37 Ibid., p.41. eye’.34 Philip Sohm also reads this painting the seemingly overwhelming desire to read briefly on Caravaggio’s tender painting, 9 Ibid., p.18. 23 Fried, op. cit. (note 6), p.33. 38 Schama, op. cit. (note 4), p.72. 10 Ibid., p.19. 24 Graham-Dixon, op. cit. (note 13), p.156. 39 Stone, op. cit. (note 2), p.38. as a statement of self-importance on the these works as soul-searchingly introspec- St Francis in Ecstasy (fig. 11), which Gra- 11 Schama, op. cit. (note 4), p.20. 25 Ibid., p.158. 40 Graham-Dixon, op. cit. (note 13), p.333. part of the artist, remarking that: tive, doubtful, penitent, and somehow in- ham-Dixon proposes is another of the art- 12 Simon Schama and Andrew Graham-Dixon (96) com- 26 Ibid., p.157. 41 Stone, op. cit. (note 2), p.38.

76 77