Did Caravaggio Make Drawings? What Survives and What Paintings Reveal

Did Caravaggio Make Drawings? What Survives and What Paintings Reveal

No independent drawing can be firmly attributed to Caravaggio today, according to the National Gallery in London. That does not prove he never drew or planned. The paintings themselves contain brushed layout marks, incisions and changes under the visible surface. A careful answer to “Caravaggio drawings” must keep a missing paper catalogue distinct from the evidence of drawing and planning within paint.^[1][2]

The distinction is easy to lose. “There are no secure surviving drawings” is a statement about objects and attribution. “He never drew” is a claim about every act of a working artist. The first is supported by current museum scholarship; the second goes beyond what missing evidence can establish.^[1][3]

Caravaggio in context

Works and career

15901595160016051610

The Cardsharps

c.1595

Calling of Saint Matthew

1599–1600

Supper at Emmaus

1601

Supper at Emmaus, 1606

1606

Beheading of Saint John

1608

Denial of Saint Peter

1610

At a Glance

• Secure independent drawings on papernone firmly attributed to Caravaggio in the National Gallery's account^[1]
• Marks within paintingsbrushed contours, rough painted indications and incisions are documented in named works^[1][2][4]
• Technical methodsinfrared reflectography, X-rays and close examination can reveal some hidden changes, not every step of the process^[2][4][5]
• Meaning for readersdo not invent a sketchbook, labelled “study” or drawing gallery for the artist; examine each proposed work and each painting's material record.

Contents

1. What Does “No Drawings Survive” Mean?
2. A Paper Drawing Versus a Mark on a Canvas
3. The London Supper at Emmaus
4. The Brera Supper and What Infrared Can Miss
5. The Cardsharps and Incised Planning
6. Revisions in the First Conversion of Saul
7. Infrared Findings in Bacchus and Amor Victorious
8. The Vienna Crowning with Thorns : Incisions and a Cartoon Hypothesis
9. The Two Lute Player Versions and Reuse of a Design
10. Why the Myth of No Preparation Persists
11. How to Assess a Proposed Drawing
12. Frequently Asked Questions

What Does “No Drawings Survive” Mean?

The National Gallery writes that not a single drawing firmly attributed to Caravaggio survives. The word “firmly” matters. A sheet may have been proposed, a drawing may once have existed and been lost, or the artist may have worked on materials that did not endure. The present museum statement says none can now be used as a secure autograph corpus. It does not prove an absence of every drawn mark in the studio.^[1]

Drawings by other painters are often important records of how a composition developed. They may be studies of a hand, a figure, an arrangement or a finished design for a patron. Caravaggio has no comparable body of securely accepted sheets that lets us walk from sketch to painting. This is a practical limit on scholarship and on what an illustrated page can truthfully show.

The National Gallery also notes that his pictures were carefully composed despite the lack of surviving sheets. It explicitly points to technical examination revealing brushed outlines within paintings. These findings answer part of the question of planning without supplying a missing paper object.^[1]

A Paper Drawing Versus a Mark on a Canvas

A drawing on paper is a distinct, portable object. It can be catalogued, dated, compared with a painting and potentially attributed to a hand. A line brushed onto a prepared canvas is a stage within a painting. An incision pressed into a wet ground is another kind of placement mark. The word “drawing” can describe all three acts in everyday speech, but they are not interchangeable evidence.^[1][2]

The distinction is important because a painting may have been organised directly on its support. An artist can brush a rough outline, mark a figure's position or adjust an object after painting begins. None of this requires a separate sheet to survive. Conversely, finding one underpainted line does not show exactly how much preparatory thought happened off the canvas.

The National Gallery's technical conference material calls the supposed absence of Caravaggio's underdrawing a research problem. Older biographers and later assumptions encouraged a focus on incisions, while some grounds and pigments complicate what infrared can reveal. The question has to be tested with appropriate methods rather than settled by repeating an anecdote about his working personality.^[3]

The London Supper at Emmaus

The London National Gallery finds traces of dark brown brushed drawing just above the final contour of the wine glass base in The Supper at Emmaus. It also identifies two rapid, thick diagonal strokes around the right disciple's sash as rough indications of form. These marks show that the final-looking image contains stages of placement.^[1]

No incisions are visible in that particular painting, according to the gallery. It adds a caution: faint incisions may be hidden under paint. The correct sentence is therefore “no incisions are visible in the London Supper,” not “Caravaggio never incised.” The same account notes little significant change, apart from moving a disciple's knee to clarify the arm and fruit basket. Planning can coexist with a picture that feels spontaneous.^[1]

This is one of the best examples of why technical findings should be tied to an object. A different painting may have a different ground, more incisions or more substantial revisions. The London work cannot stand as a universal template for the entire career.

The Brera Supper and What Infrared Can Miss

The second Supper at Emmaus, painted in 1606 and held by the Pinacoteca di Brera, provides a different answer from the London picture. A study by the Opificio delle Pietre Dure and Italy's National Research Council used multispectral infrared scanning to look below its painted surface. The researchers reported graphic contours for Christ's face, the apostles and their hands, as well as incisions. Those findings belong to the Brera canvas; they should not be silently transferred to the earlier London Supper.^[6]

The apparatus captured 14 infrared wavelengths reaching 2,300 nanometres, beyond the roughly 1,050-nanometre reach of the older equipment described in the research council's report. It could detect a dark line against a dark preparation, a difficult combination for earlier reflectography. Cecilia Frosinini of the Opificio argued that some previous negative results had been mistaken for proof of no underdrawing when the instrument could not reveal it. This is a limit on what a negative examination establishes, not a promise that every Caravaggio painting conceals the same marks.^[6]

The scan also revealed an abandoned window and leafy landscape at the left, replacing the final uninterrupted dark background. X-ray fluorescence supplied corroborating evidence for green landscape material. The investigators interpret the change as a move toward a more concentrated, spiritual setting; the visible revision establishes a changed design, while its meaning remains an interpretation. This unusually substantial pentimento shows why “preparation” can include changes made on the support, not only a lost drawing on paper.^[6]

The Cardsharps and Incised Planning

The Kimbell Art Museum reports a few incisions in the wet ground of The Cardsharps, including around the dupe's fingertips and the edges of the cards. It suggests they may have helped locate forms where a conventional underdrawing does not appear. The museum also says incision became more extensive in later works.^[2]

Infrared images show changes to the composition. A gloved hand was fully painted before an overlapping figure was added; another cheat's hand, cards, belt and striped clothing shifted. These are pentimenti, visible signs of rethinking during execution. They demonstrate that directly painting on a canvas does not mean every arrangement was fixed from the first brushstroke.^[2]

The Kimbell's account describes figures conceived and painted individually, a working process reconstructed from the surviving object. That is stronger evidence than a broad claim that Caravaggio “painted without drawing.” It tells us which marks and revisions the museum actually observed in The Cardsharps.^[2]

Revisions in the First Conversion of Saul

The earlier Odescalchi Conversion of Saint Paul offers another case. The Gallerie Nazionali Barberini Corsini report infrared examination made for the 2006 restoration. It revealed several changes to Paul's face, an initially beardless Christ, and changes in weapons, vegetation and decorative details. The institution's Italian technical account also mentions stylus incisions and brushed drawing.^[4]

This evidence belongs to the cypress-panel first version, not automatically to the later Cerasi Chapel canvas. The two paintings share a subject but differ in support and composition. Any account of their preparatory marks must identify which version was examined.

The revised face is a useful reminder that one cannot infer intent from an image alone. Infrared reveals a different state; it does not disclose why Caravaggio altered it. The strongest conclusion is modest: he modified significant parts of this panel while making it.^[4]

Infrared Findings in Bacchus and Amor Victorious

An abstract by Roberto Bellucci, Cecilia Frosinini and colleagues, published by the National Gallery for a technical conference, describes infrared studies of further Caravaggio paintings. The Uffizi Bacchus and Berlin Amor Victorious are among the named cases in which marks below the surface complicate the idea that Caravaggio always proceeded without preliminary lines. A conference abstract is a concise report of research, so its findings should be identified as such rather than treated as a complete published catalogue of every mark.^[3]

The researchers consider more than one way the marks could have been made, including freehand drawing and possible transfer from a cartoon. Neither possibility supplies a securely surviving cartoon on paper. The paintings instead preserve traces of practical preparation on their own supports. In Amor Victorious, X-ray evidence of a changed arrangement beneath the final objects is a separate form of evidence for revision. Infrared and X-ray results should not be collapsed into a single claim that a finished paper design has been found.^[3]

Together with the London Supper, the Kimbell Cardsharps and the Odescalchi panel, these examples widen the sample across subjects and years. They also warn against a single formula. Some passages show brushed indications, others incisions or alterations. A more precise question than “Did Caravaggio draw?” is which marks are visible in which painting, through which examination, and what those marks can establish.^[1][2][3][4]

The Vienna Crowning with Thorns: Incisions and a Cartoon Hypothesis

Conservator Robert Wald describes incisions in the upper ground of the Vienna Crowning with Thorns, concentrated around the complicated figure group at the upper right. He found no corresponding incisions in the armoured figure at left. Broadly brushed dark paint reinforces some of the incised lines. Their uneven distribution matters: the marks helped position particular forms, but this canvas does not show a uniform incised grid beneath every figure.^[9]

Wald explicitly leaves open whether the grooves were made freehand or by transferring a design. His proposal that Caravaggio may have cut selected lines through a full-size paper cartoon into the prepared surface is a conservator's reconstruction of the process, not an identified surviving cartoon. The observation is the incision; the paper design and means of transfer remain hypotheses. X-ray and infrared evidence for passages of figures continuing beneath later garments adds another layer of work directly on the canvas.^[9]

Wald also points out a useful caution about historical language. Bellori praised Federico Barocci for working from life while describing Barocci's use of drawings and cartoons. Consequently, praise of Caravaggio for painting from life cannot, by itself, settle whether he ever drew beforehand.^[9]

The Two Lute Player Versions and Reuse of a Design

The relationship between the Giustiniani Lute Player in the Hermitage and the version identified in the Metropolitan Museum's 1990 catalogue with Cardinal del Monte provides a different kind of evidence. Keith Christiansen compared a tracing of the Hermitage composition with an X-ray of the del Monte version. The original layout beneath the latter painting closely matched the former, although the finished pictures diverge in still-life details and handling. Linda Bauer and Steve Colton subsequently cited this correspondence in their study of tracing, alongside a close comparison of two Saint John the Baptist compositions.^[10][11]

That alignment supports the reuse or transfer of a design more strongly than a general resemblance would. It does not identify the exact transfer tool, prove the survival of a paper intermediate or turn either finished painting into a preparatory drawing. The changed still life also shows that repetition need not mean mechanical duplication of a completed image.^[10][11]

Why the Myth of No Preparation Persists

Caravaggio's close figures and abrupt light can make a scene feel as if it were captured in one instant. Early stories of painting from life and the absence of a secure drawing corpus have encouraged the idea of pure improvisation. But appearance and process are different. The National Gallery's Supper was carefully composed; the Kimbell's Cardsharps shows revisions; the Odescalchi panel shows both drawn marks and changes.^[1][2][4]

A Metropolitan Museum publication describes an evolving combination of incisions, brush drawing and white blocking-in, used to locate posed figures directly on a support. It relates some of these methods to Caravaggio's training rather than presenting him as a painter without precedent. The broad pattern is useful, but the evidence for any specific painting still needs an object-level record.^[5]

Francesca Cappelletti places the training question against the 1584 apprenticeship contract: Simone Peterzano undertook to teach the young Merisi his profession over four years. The contract does not itemise Caravaggio's drawing exercises, and no work can now be assigned securely to his Milanese apprenticeship. Cappelletti explains that copying a master's drawings was ordinary workshop practice and argues that Caravaggio probably learned traditional preparatory methods before developing ways of marking a design directly on canvas. This is a historically grounded inference about training, not a newly attributed sheet.^[12]

The question of optical aids is separate. No securely attributed sheet does not prove a camera obscura, just as a camera hypothesis would not prove the absence of drawing. Claims about mirrors, lenses or a single fixed studio lighting setup need their own evidence. The painting technique guide explores those material and visual questions more fully.

Art historian Alessandro Zuccari argues that the twentieth-century account of a painter who never made preliminary plans rested partly on a mistaken reading of early literary sources. In his published abstract, he distinguishes the first biographers from later classicist critics such as Bellori and Scannelli, and cites graphic traces in Boy with a Basket of Fruit and designs associated with versions of The Martyrdom of Saint Matthew. This is Zuccari's synthesis of textual and technical evidence, not the discovery of autograph paper sheets. His point reinforces the need to ask which kind of drawing a historical writer meant.^[7]

How to Assess a Proposed Drawing

If a sheet is labelled “drawing by Caravaggio,” start with the collecting institution's present attribution, inventory and provenance. Ask whether it is called autograph, attributed, workshop, follower or merely “after Caravaggio.” Then ask what connects it to a specific painting: a compositional relationship, old documentation, material study or only stylistic similarity. The absence of a secure corpus makes loose visual resemblance particularly weak as proof.^[1][3]

Images of drawings circulated online can also be misleading. A print after a Caravaggio painting, a preparatory study by another artist, and a modern copy may all resemble his compositions. They are historically interesting but not autograph drawings by him. The prints page distinguishes reproductions and reception from the painter's own working process.

The lack of secure paper drawings is why this subject is best approached through close examination of surviving paintings. Their brushed and incised marks are evidence of planning, while uncertain sheets cannot be offered as a substitute corpus.

The much publicised 2012 proposal of roughly 100 youthful Caravaggio drawings from material associated with Simone Peterzano's Milanese workshop illustrates the problem. Scholar Francesca Cappelletti noted that the collection comprised about 1,300 sheets from the workshop or its circle. With no accepted group of Caravaggio drawings for comparison, she questioned arguments based on low-resolution images and resemblance to paintings made much later than the sheets. Similarity could also reflect the training shared with Peterzano and his circle.^[8]

Cappelletti called for close study and cataloguing of the workshop material, its chronology and documentation. She described a sheet she had discussed but cautiously retained under Peterzano's name. Her objection does not prove that no young Caravaggio drawing could ever be identified there; it explains why the 2012 headline was insufficient to establish 100 autograph works. An attribution must be tested against the particular sheet and historical context, not against the hope of filling a missing catalogue.^[8]

One catalogued example makes that distinction tangible. Italy's national cultural-property record assigns a Persian Sibyl study at Milan's Castello Sforzesco to Peterzano and dates it about 1578–82. Its black drawing and white highlights on grey-blue paper prepare a figure for the Certosa di Garegnano frescoes. The record also notes a pose resembling Caravaggio's later Young Sick Bacchus. Cappelletti likewise discusses this visual connection. A plausible memory of a teacher's design is significant for understanding training, but the surviving sheet remains catalogued under the teacher's name; likeness to Caravaggio's painting does not make it a drawing by Caravaggio.^[12][13]

Explore the Caravaggio collection

94 pages

Search pagesTypeAll typesArtworkGuideReset

Name	Date	Type
Adoration of the Shepherds by Caravaggio: The Messina Nativity	1608–09; precise order relative to Resurrection of Lazarus remains unresolved	Artwork
Amor Victorious by Caravaggio	1601–02 in the Berlin owner record	Artwork
Bacchus by Caravaggio: The Uffizi Painting	about 1598, according to the Uffizi	Artwork
Basket of Fruit by Caravaggio	after 1597, probably around the turn of the seventeenth century, according to the Ambrosiana	Artwork
Boy Bitten by a Lizard: Caravaggio's London Painting	about 1594–95 in the National Gallery's current catalogue; URL suffix “1596” is inherited	Artwork
Boy Bitten by a Lizard: The Florence Version Attributed to Caravaggio	disputed; Longhi's catalogue record preserves historical 1592–93 and other proposed ranges, including c.1597	Artwork
Boy Peeling Fruit by Caravaggio: The Royal Collection Painting	about 1592–93 in the owner's current exhibition record	Artwork
Boy Peeling Fruit in Florence: A Derivation from Caravaggio	—	Artwork
Boy with a Basket of Fruit by Caravaggio	about 1595 in the Galleria Borghese catalogue	Artwork
Caravaggio Paintings in Rome: Churches, Museums and a Practical Route	—	Guide
Caravaggio Quotes: What the Documents Actually Record	—	Guide
Caravaggio's Lute Player: The Del Monte Painting Once Shown at the Met	about 1596–97 in the Met catalogue	Artwork
Caravaggio's Painting Technique: Grounds, Incisions, Revisions and Light	—	Guide
Christ at the Column by Caravaggio: The Rouen Flagellation	c.1606 in the owner caption; owner prose gives 1606–07	Artwork
Christ on the Mount of Olives by Caravaggio: The Lost Berlin Painting	—	Artwork
Conversion on the Way to Damascus by Caravaggio	about 1601 in the Roma Capitale church record	Artwork
Crowning with Thorns by Caravaggio: The Vienna Painting	about 1603 in the 2019 KHM record; “1607” is an inherited URL suffix	Artwork
Crowning with Thorns in Prato: Attributed to Caravaggio	about 1602–03 in the collection presentation	Artwork
David with the Head of Goliath by Caravaggio: The Borghese Painting	1606–07 or 1609–10 in the Galleria Borghese catalogue; the later Naples period is favoured by many scholars, while the owner keeps the question open	Artwork
David with the Head of Goliath by Caravaggio: The Prado Painting	about 1600 in Prado material; “1599” survives only in the legacy URL	Artwork
David with the Head of Goliath by Caravaggio: The Vienna Painting	about 1600–01 in the KHM's 2019 exhibition record; “1607” is a legacy route label	Artwork
Did Caravaggio Make Drawings? What Survives and What Paintings Reveal	—	Guide
Ecce Homo: Caravaggio's Madrid Rediscovery and the Genoa Painting	—	Artwork
John the Baptist in Caravaggio's Paintings: A Guide to the Different Versions	—	Artwork
Judith Beheading Holofernes by Caravaggio	beginning of the seventeenth century in the owning museum's account; about 1599–1600 in the Kimbell's 2025 loan label; around 1602 in one specialist catalogue	Artwork
Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto: Caravaggio's Ludovisi Ceiling	about 1597; the archive connects the work with Cardinal del Monte's 1597 commission	Artwork
Madonna and Child with Saint Anne by Caravaggio: The Palafrenieri Altarpiece	1605 in the Galleria Borghese object field; completed and delivered by 8 April 1606	Artwork
Madonna of Loreto by Caravaggio: The Pilgrims at Sant'Agostino	broadly c.1604–06; institutional records differ slightly in their starting year	Artwork
Madonna of the Rosary by Caravaggio: The Vienna Altarpiece	around 1603 in the Kunsthistorisches Museum's object record	Artwork
Martha and Mary Magdalene by Caravaggio: The Detroit Painting	about 1598 in the Detroit Institute of Arts record	Artwork
Medusa by Caravaggio: The Uffizi Painted Shield	1596–98 in the Uffizi's virtual exhibition; specialist research reports the shield delivered to the Medici wardrobe by 7 September 1598	Artwork
Narcissus, Attributed to Caravaggio	dependent on attribution; the Zeri catalogue gives a broad 1610–50 range under Spadarino	Artwork
Nativity with Saint Francis and Saint Lawrence: Caravaggio's Missing Painting	somewhere in 1600–09 in the parliamentary report; a specific 1609 execution and place remain debated	Artwork
Penitent Mary Magdalene by Caravaggio	1597 in the owner's catalogue, during Caravaggio's early Roman activity	Artwork
Portrait of a Courtesan: Caravaggio's Lost Berlin Portrait	Berlin's data field says c.1590, while its own text compares a Caravaggio work of c.1598; precise date unresolved	Artwork
Portrait of Alof de Wignacourt and His Page by Caravaggio	—	Artwork
Portrait of Fra Antonio Martelli? Caravaggio's Pitti Knight of Malta	1608 in the Restituzioni object heading; within Caravaggio's Malta period	Artwork
Portrait of Maffeo Barberini: The Seated Corsini Painting	c.1596–97 in the national catalogue	Artwork
Portrait of Monsignor Maffeo Barberini: Caravaggio's Newly Acquired Painting	around the late 1590s / age thirty; “1598” in the inherited address is approximate, not an exact document date	Artwork
Portrait of Pope Paul V: A Caravaggio Attribution and a Borghese Copy	—	Artwork
Prints After Caravaggio: Who Made Them and What They Show	—	Guide
Reclining Saint John the Baptist: A Disputed Caravaggio Attribution	often proposed for the artist's final years; the later museum list does not give a precise year.	Artwork
Rest on the Flight into Egypt by Caravaggio	about 1597 in the owner's catalogue	Artwork
Saint Catherine of Alexandria by Caravaggio: The Thyssen Painting	about 1598–99 in the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza catalogue	Artwork
Saint Francis in Meditation by Caravaggio: The Cremona Painting	1603–06 in the owner account; c.1605–06 in a KHM exhibition caption	Artwork
Saint Francis in Prayer: Caravaggio's Carpineto Painting	1606 in a 2016–17 exhibition work list	Artwork
Saint Francis of Assisi in Ecstasy by Caravaggio	c.1595–96 in the owner wall text	Artwork
Saint Jerome in Meditation: Caravaggio's Montserrat Painting	1605 in the owner record; an owner publication reports scholarship placing it about 1605–06	Artwork
Saint Jerome Writing by Caravaggio: The Borghese Painting	c.1606 in the owner catalogue; the “1605” URL suffix is inherited	Artwork
Saint Jerome Writing by Caravaggio: The Malta Painting	around 1607–08; foundation dates Malaspina's commission to 1608	Artwork
Saint John in the Wilderness at Toledo Cathedral	exact 1598 not established by the cited cathedral account.	Artwork
Saint John the Baptist at Galleria Corsini, Rome	about 1606 in the national record; older proposals ranged from the late 1590s onward.	Artwork
Saint John the Baptist at the Capitoline Museums, Rome	1602.	Artwork
Saint John the Baptist at the Galleria Borghese	1609–10 in the current Borghese record.	Artwork
Saint John the Baptist at the Spring: The Bonello Painting in Malta	early seventeenth century in the institutional account; a precise 1608 is not established there.	Artwork
Saint Matthew and the Angel: Caravaggio's Lost First Altarpiece	—	Artwork
Salome Receives the Head of John the Baptist: Caravaggio's London Painting	about 1609–10, likely late Naples period in the Gallery's account	Artwork
Salome with the Head of John the Baptist: Caravaggio's Madrid Painting	—	Artwork
Sleeping Cupid by Caravaggio: The Painting Made in Malta	about 1608, Malta period	Artwork
Still Life with Fruit on a Stone Ledge: Is It by Caravaggio?	—	Artwork
Supper at Emmaus (1606): Caravaggio's Brera Painting	—	Artwork
The Annunciation by Caravaggio in Nancy	c.1607–10 in the collection record; 1608–10 in the museum's restoration account	Artwork
The Basel Saint John the Baptist: Once Labelled Caravaggio, Now Maíno	about 1608–10 in that schedule, rather than the legacy URL's 1600.	Artwork
The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist by Caravaggio	about 1608; installed in the Oratory on 29 August 1608	Artwork
The Burial of Saint Lucy by Caravaggio in Syracuse	1608, during Caravaggio's Syracuse stay	Artwork
The Calling of Saint Matthew by Caravaggio	about 1599–1600	Artwork
The Calling of Saints Peter and Andrew by Caravaggio	about 1602–04 in the Trust's object text	Artwork
The Cardsharps by Caravaggio	about 1596–97 in the Kimbell's current object record	Artwork
The Conversion of Saint Paul: Caravaggio's Odescalchi Panel	commissioned in 1600; painted around 1600–01	Artwork
The Crucifixion of Saint Andrew by Caravaggio	1606–07	Artwork
The Crucifixion of Saint Peter by Caravaggio	about 1601	Artwork
The Death of the Virgin by Caravaggio	commissioned 1601; completed late 1605 or early 1606, according to the Louvre	Artwork
The Denial of Saint Peter by Caravaggio	1610	Artwork
The Doria Pamphilj Saint John the Baptist: A Second Youth with a Ram	linked compositionally to the Capitoline 1602 picture; an exact production year for this canvas is not established by the owner pages used here.	Artwork
The Entombment of Christ by Caravaggio: The Vatican Deposition	about 1600–04 in Vatican Museums publication material	Artwork
The Flagellation of Christ by Caravaggio: The Capodimonte Altarpiece	around 1607, in the first Naples period	Artwork
The Fortune Teller by Caravaggio: The Louvre Version and Its Roman Counterpart	—	Artwork
The Holy Family with the Infant Saint John the Baptist by Caravaggio	early 1600s in the Met catalogue; no more exact owner date asserted here	Artwork
The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio	about 1601 in the SPSG presentation	Artwork
The Inspiration of Saint Matthew by Caravaggio	usually 1602; also catalogued 1602–03, for the installed final altarpiece	Artwork
The Lute Player by Caravaggio: The Hermitage Painting	about 1596 in the Hermitage collection publication; the Hermitage Friends restoration page gives about 1595–96	Artwork
The Magdalen in Ecstasy: Caravaggio, Copies and a Disputed Original	—	Artwork
The Martyrdom of Saint Matthew by Caravaggio	1599–1600; unveiled with The Calling in 1600	Artwork
The Martyrdom of Saint Ursula by Caravaggio	—	Artwork
The Musicians by Caravaggio	1597	Artwork
The Resurrection of Lazarus by Caravaggio in Messina	1609; delivered 10 June 1609 in the owner account	Artwork
The Sacrifice of Isaac by Bartolomeo Cavarozzi: A Former Caravaggio Attribution	about 1615–17 in the Nicholas Hall catalogue; “1598” is an inherited URL label, not the accepted date	Artwork
The Sacrifice of Isaac by Caravaggio: The Uffizi Painting	about 1603 in the Uffizi catalogue	Artwork
The Seven Works of Mercy by Caravaggio	1606–07, according to the Pio Monte	Artwork
The Supper at Emmaus by Caravaggio: The London Painting	1601	Artwork
The Taking of Christ by Caravaggio	1602	Artwork
The Toulouse *Judith Beheading Holofernes*: A Caravaggio Attribution Debate	c.1606–07 if identified with the recorded Naples work; that identification is debated	Artwork
Young Sick Bacchus by Caravaggio	about 1595 in the Galleria Borghese catalogue	Artwork
Youth with a Ram: Why Caravaggio's Saint John Looks So Unusual	—	Artwork

Discussion

Share a close observation about Did Caravaggio Make Drawings? What Survives and What Paintings Reveal or a source that clarifies its history.

Close looking

Which detail changes your reading?

Evidence

Is there a collection record or document worth comparing?

Open question

What remains uncertain?

Join the Conversation

Frequently Asked Questions

References

1. National Gallery, London, The Supper at Emmaus, discussion of drawings and technical marks.
2. Kimbell Art Museum, The Cardsharps, conservation and infrared findings.
3. National Gallery, London, Studying Old Master Paintings: Technology and Practice, “Caravaggio's underdrawing” abstract.
4. Gallerie Nazionali Barberini Corsini, technical account of the first Conversion of Saul.
5. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Valentin de Boulogne: Beyond Caravaggio, technical discussion.
6. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche and Opificio delle Pietre Dure, multispectral infrared study of the Brera Supper at Emmaus (2010).
7. Alessandro Zuccari, “Caravaggio e la questione del disegno,” Atti e Memorie dell’Arcadia abstract (2013).
8. Francesca Cappelletti, interview on attributing proposed Peterzano workshop drawings, Finestre sull'Arte (2012).
9. Robert Wald, “Caravaggio: Crowning with Thorns. Condition, Technique, Restoration,” conservator's lecture summary, Freie Universität Berlin.
10. Keith Christiansen, A Caravaggio Rediscovered: The Lute Player, Metropolitan Museum of Art (1990), especially the X-ray and tracing comparison.
11. Linda Bauer and Steve Colton, “Tracing in Some Works by Caravaggio,” The Burlington Magazine 142 (July 2000), opening text.
12. Francesca Cappelletti, “La nascita a Milano e l'apprendistato,” in Caravaggio: l'opera oltre la leggenda, Treccani.
13. Italian national cultural-property catalogue, Simone Peterzano, Sibilla Persica, Castello Sforzesco.

More CARAVAGGIO Artworks

The Calling of Saint Matthew

The Cardsharps

The Supper at Emmaus

The Taking of Christ

The Seven Works of Mercy

The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist

Adoration of the Shepherds

Amor Victorious