Ecce Homo: The Madrid Rediscovery and the Genoa Painting

Ecce Homo: Caravaggio's Madrid Rediscovery and the Genoa Painting

Ecce Homo means “Behold the man”: the words traditionally spoken by Pontius Pilate as he presents the scourged Jesus to a crowd. Two very different seventeenth-century paintings associated with Caravaggio now shape this subject's history. A privately owned canvas that resurfaced at a Madrid auction in 2021 was presented by the Museo Nacional del Prado as a rediscovered Caravaggio in 2024–25. Another Ecce Homo has long been held by Palazzo Bianco in Genoa, inventory PB 1638. Its owning museum catalogues it under Caravaggio but openly records continuing disagreement over who painted it.^[1][2][3]

The two compositions are easy to confuse under the shared title. In the Genoa painting, Christ stands at left, a man with a wrapped head is behind him, and a dark-clothed, bearded Pilate stands at right. The newly found Madrid picture arranges the figures differently. Their separate histories, ownership and attribution records cannot be merged into one “lost Caravaggio.”^[1][2][4]

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

Contents

1. What Does Ecce Homo Show?
2. What Happened in Madrid in 2021?
3. Why Does the Prado Accept the Madrid Painting?
4. What Does the Madrid Painting's Paper Trail Actually Establish?
5. What Did Technical Study and Restoration Reveal?
6. Where Might the Madrid Painting Fit in Caravaggio's Career?
7. How Did the Genoa Painting Become a Caravaggio Candidate?
8. What Does the Genoa Museum Now Say About It?
9. Are Either of These the Massimo Massimi Commission?
10. How to Compare Two Independent Compositions
11. Frequently Asked Questions

What Does Ecce Homo Show?

In the Gospel of John, Pilate presents Jesus after his flogging and mock coronation with thorns. The Latin phrase “Ecce homo” gives the scene its familiar title. Artists have pictured the moment in many ways: Christ may stand alone in pain, be accompanied by a soldier and Pilate, or be placed before an implied crowd. The title identifies a biblical episode, not one unique composition.^[1][5]

In the Genoa painting, Christ stands exposed at left. A man behind him handles the mantle and reed; Pilate turns outward at right and gestures toward the viewer. The pointing hand makes us the crowd receiving his presentation. The wrapped head of the man behind Christ, Pilate's dark clothing and the figures' tight vertical arrangement are distinctive features of this canvas.^[2][4]

The Madrid rediscovery stages its own group of Christ and attendants. Christ's illuminated body occupies the centre. A younger figure behind him lifts the red cloak; Pilate leans toward an architectural parapet and addresses an implied crowd on our side of the picture. Keith Christiansen notes that the moulding at left and projecting ledge make the scene unusually framed for Caravaggio. This arrangement is different enough from Genoa that it cannot be the same canvas shown from a new angle or after cleaning. A page that pairs the two can help readers recognise each image before exploring attribution.^[1][3][9]

The crowd is not painted as a row of extra faces. The viewer occupies its position. Pilate's gesture crosses the narrow space between the canvas and us, so the question of what to do with Christ reaches beyond the three figures. Gianni Papi reads Pilate's face as hesitant rather than triumphant and the younger attendant's expression as hard to settle between aggression and pity. These are readings of depicted expressions, not established identities or the speech of historical people.^[7][9]

The subject's emotional force does not prove its painter. A solemn Christ, deep shadow and ordinary-looking faces are characteristic of Caravaggio's influence across Europe. The object question asks who made each physical canvas, when, and how it travelled. That requires ownership records, technical study, contemporary references and comparison with securely accepted works.^[1][4]

What Happened in Madrid in 2021?

In April 2021, a painting offered at the Ansorena auction house in Madrid drew the Prado's attention. It had been described as the work of a pupil of Jusepe de Ribera, not as Caravaggio. The museum informed Spain's Ministry of Culture of its potential significance. The painting was withdrawn from that ordinary market context and studied by specialists.^[1][3]

That sequence matters because “rediscovered” is sometimes used as if someone found a lost painting in a cellar and immediately recognised it. Here there was an existing object with a different attribution. Its public identity changed through comparison, investigation, conservation and scholarly publication. The Prado's intervention is a documented part of that process, while the details of every earlier transfer in the painting's history still require careful provenance language.^[1][3]

After its reappearance, the work was cared for by Colnaghi with collaborating galleries. Andrea Cipriani and his team carried out restoration under the supervision of experts from the Comunidad de Madrid. The Prado says Claudio Falcucci performed a diagnostic investigation that informed treatment decisions. These are named people and processes, not a vague claim that “science proved Caravaggio.”^[1][3]

The restored canvas went on public display at the Prado from 28 May 2024; the extended exhibition ended on 23 February 2025. It then travelled to Italy, including a display beside Caravaggio's Flagellation at Capodimonte in Naples from 24 July to 2 November 2025. In November 2025, the Prado announced that the privately owned picture had returned to its galleries on loan, in room 7 near its own David Victorious over Goliath. The museum says the renewed loan is planned until 2027. This is a stated loan term, not a guarantee of daily display or a transfer of ownership. The later owner record supersedes the older exhibition-end date as a statement of the last documented display; visitors should still verify the current room or any further loan before travelling.^[1][12][13]

Why Does the Prado Accept the Madrid Painting?

The Prado identifies the Madrid painting as a Caravaggio made roughly 1605–09. Its 2024 announcement reports a convergence of arguments from specialists Keith Christiansen, Gianni Papi, Giuseppe Porzio and Maria Cristina Terzaghi, whose essays accompanied the exhibition. The museum describes the diagnostic and restoration work as supporting the attribution. Together, these form a strong current institutional case.^[1][3]

The Prado also links the work to Spanish collecting history, including the private collection of Philip IV. The exhibition text presents that historical connection as part of the painting's significance. A provenance chain from an early owner to a modern auction is rarely one continuous line of equally secure documents. An argued identification in an old inventory is different from a modern accession number attached to a publicly owned museum painting.^[1]

The date range is broad for a reason. A painting of the Passion can be compared with Caravaggio's late Roman and first Neapolitan works, but no date painted on the canvas resolves every question. The Prado's 1606–09 object caption and its narrative reference to about 1605–09 should be read as approximate scholarly dating, not two entirely different canvases.^[1][3]

The rediscovery is important even if the reader has seen many Caravaggio pictures online. The painter left a comparatively small accepted corpus, and a newly recognised Passion scene changes how scholars map his commissions, versions and travel. It also makes older identifications of documentary references less automatic, especially those formerly assigned to Genoa's Ecce Homo.^[1][4]

What Does the Madrid Painting's Paper Trail Actually Establish?

The painting did not travel directly from Caravaggio's studio to an auction catalogue. Maria Cristina Terzaghi's archival reconstruction begins with a possible connection to an Ecce Homo listed in 1631 among the possessions of Juan de Lezcano, a Spanish official linked to Sicily and Naples. That inventory calls the picture an original Caravaggio and describes Pilate and a servant. Its dimensions and subject are relevant, but no receipt establishes that the Lezcano canvas passed to the next known collector. The identification is a proposed link, not an unbroken ownership chain.^[6]

The stronger documentary point is a 1657 inventory of García de Avellaneda y Haro, Count of Castrillo, then viceroy of Naples. It describes a Caravaggio Ecce Homo with Pilate and a soldier, including an ebony frame and a height measured in Neapolitan palms. Terzaghi compares that framed measure with the Madrid canvas. The same collection contained a Salome with the Head of Saint John the Baptist identified with the painting later recorded in Spain. An old inventory attribution is not proof of the artist by itself, but the description, measurements and associated painting make this a meaningful point in the Madrid candidate's history.^[6][9]

Terzaghi argues that the picture moved from the viceroy's circle into the Spanish royal collection. She traces likely references through later palace inventories, Manuel Godoy's collection and the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando, proposing that the canvas reached the Academy by 1816. The Academy's own archival report establishes its presence in a published catalogue of 1817 but does not identify a secure date or route of entry. The changing labels matter: a work might be called Caravaggio in one inventory and given to Gerrit van Honthorst, or described as in Caravaggio's style, in another. Those descriptions reveal how the painting was seen at different dates; none can replace study of the surviving canvas.^[6][17]

In 1821, the diplomat Evaristo Pérez de Castro proposed exchanging a Saint John the Baptist attributed to Alonso Cano for a work in the Academy. Terzaghi's reconstruction connects the Ecce Homo to that exchange and then to the Pérez de Castro family's inheritance, which explains its later private ownership and eventual appearance at Ansorena. The Academy's selection was shaped partly by uncertainty over provenance, so this episode is also a reminder that modern confidence can coexist with earlier cataloguing gaps. Readers can follow this chain as a series of documented and proposed links rather than a single continuous certificate.^[6]

The proposal and its approval were separate events. Pérez de Castro used the Academy's 1821 catalogue to identify four possible exchange paintings; the Ecce Homo was fourth on his list. The Academy's 1817 catalogue had called the canvas Ecce Homo with Two Attendants, no. 251; the 1819 catalogue described Pilate and an Attendant, no. 137; and the 1821 catalogue reverted to Two Attendants, no. 155. These are successive entries for the Academy canvas, not evidence of three different pictures. The changes in title and number help explain why searching an inventory for one fixed description can miss a relevant record.^[6][17]

The Academy investigated ownership before agreeing to the trade. On 30 January 1823, its caretaker José Manuel de Arnedo said he could not establish where the Ecce Homo had come from: the known inventory of paintings seized from Godoy contained no Caravaggio of its size. On 2 February, an Academy committee considered the exchange acceptable provided archival records confirmed that the canvas belonged to the Academy, rather than being a royal, corporate or private deposit. Its meeting minutes of 16 February 1823 record approval, calling the picture one believed to be by Caravaggio. The Prado now summarises the event as a 1823 transfer. The documents record a decision made amid uncertainty; they do not demonstrate that the Godoy route was proved at the time.^[1][6][17]

The uncertainty persists in later paperwork. A 1824 Academy inventory says the painting had come from the Godoy confiscations, although Arnedo's earlier check had failed to find it there. It also describes the Saint John the Baptist received in exchange as by Pedro Atanasio Bocanegra, while Pérez de Castro had offered it as an Alonso Cano. Thus, even the other side of the trade changed attribution in Academy records. Researchers have examined several earlier Ecce Homo entries, including one labelled Ribera in an 1804 Academy inventory and pictures in 1813 deposits, but their titles and sizes do not establish an exact match. The later Godoy note remains evidence for a proposed route, not a contemporary receipt tracing the canvas into the Academy.^[17]

After Pérez de Castro died, his 1849 estate inventory listed an Ecce Homo assigned to “Carabaccio”, valued by court painter Vicente López at 16,000 reales. The same inventory contained a different Ecce Homo attributed to Annibale Carracci, valued at 20,000 reales. That second entry is a useful guard against treating every later mention of an Ecce Homo in the family as the Madrid canvas. The inventory anchors the Caravaggio-labelled picture in Pérez de Castro's estate but cannot on its own prove who painted it.^[17]

The old royal descriptions also show how titles and measurements need to be read together. A 1664 inventory apparently called a half-length presentation of Christ the work of “Jerardo”, understood as Gerrit van Honthorst, while a later Casa de Campo entry described an Ecce Homo with two additional figures as in Caravaggio's style. Terzaghi proposes that they refer to the Madrid picture because subject, format and route through the royal collections align. Neither label is an autograph signature; the identification depends on matching a changing object across records, including a canvas whose edges were later folded.^[6][11]

What Did Technical Study and Restoration Reveal?

Claudio Falcucci's investigation and Andrea Cipriani's restoration give the Madrid painting a material history independent of newspaper enthusiasm. Falcucci reports a single piece of plain-weave canvas, two preparation layers, infrared evidence of broad preparatory brush marks and incisions used to place faces, hands and the figure of Christ. The reddish-brown upper ground remains visible in some shadows, where it acts as a middle tone rather than being covered by a smooth, uniform finish. These findings show how the composition was built, and permit comparisons with documented habits in other Caravaggio pictures. They are supporting evidence, not a mechanical test that outputs an artist's name.^[10][11]

The image changed during its making. Incised guides for the young attendant's face differ from the final painted head; Christ's right wrist was first marked higher; Pilate's hand and clothing underwent adjustments. X-rays and close examination reveal thick, rapid light strokes beneath parts of Christ's chest and shoulder. Papi compares that way of laying in light with other Caravaggio works, while Falcucci treats each mark in the context of the painting's layers. A photograph of the finished surface alone would not show all of these decisions.^[7][11]

The support also had an eventful later life. Falcucci's edge analysis indicates that the canvas was at one stage folded and nailed to a narrower stretcher, then opened out again. The surviving format is 111 × 86 cm, although the original extent of the left margin is still debated. This matters when testing historical inventory dimensions: a framed measurement, a painting's present size and its earlier stretched size are three different things. Measurements can support an identification without establishing it beyond dispute.^[6][10][11]

Cipriani found multiple old varnish and restoration layers. Earlier cleaning had favoured faces and flesh, leaving the dark clothing less legible. Selective treatment recovered the folds of Pilate's black robe, the green earth in the younger figure's garment, the far edge of the red cloak and sharper thorns against the background. The team also addressed the weakened lining and documented new retouching. The resulting image should be read as a conserved historical object: its greater clarity comes from carefully differentiated treatment, not from inventing missing figures or repainting a lost composition.^[10]

Pigment findings make the red and dark passages more exact than the general phrase “dramatic chiaroscuro.” Falcucci identifies lead white and earth pigments across much of the palette, with vermilion and a red lake contributing to the cloak and blood. He finds the exposed ground and glazes important to shadow construction. The viewer sees light emerging from materials and choices made on the canvas, not merely an abstract lighting effect applied at the end.^[11]

A further record preserves how the painting's surface changed during conservation. Factum Foundation reports that it recorded the Madrid canvas in high-resolution colour and three-dimensional surface data before, during and after restoration. That sequence is valuable because a single post-treatment photograph can obscure what a conservator uncovered, retained or retouched. The digital layers allow future researchers to compare topography and condition at each stage. They document a physical object; the resulting “digital passport” is not a substitute for the attribution arguments built from the canvas, archival records and specialist comparisons.^[14][10][11]

Where Might the Madrid Painting Fit in Caravaggio's Career?

The Prado's c.1605–09 range allows for more than one moment in Caravaggio's last decade. The scholars whose essays accompanied the exhibition agree on the attribution but do not date and locate every stage in precisely the same way. Papi argues for a narrower c.1605–07 window and considers Roman as well as early Neapolitan possibilities. Terzaghi uses the Spanish-Naples paper trail and a possible visual echo in Battistello Caracciolo's work to favour an early Neapolitan context, while acknowledging that the echo is an art-historical argument rather than a dated commission receipt. Giuseppe Porzio instead weighs stylistic comparisons with very late works such as the Denial of Saint Peter and sees a possible place in Caravaggio's second Neapolitan period. Christiansen places the work in relation to the stylistic experiments Caravaggio made after leaving Rome. Capodimonte's 2025 caption leaves open c.1606–07 or c.1609. The differences should remain visible to a reader rather than disappear behind one artificially precise date.^{[1][6][7][8][9][13]}

There is useful cross-work comparison within those disagreements. The Madrid composition puts a parapet between Pilate and the implied crowd; Christiansen compares how a ledge or threshold activates the viewer's space in the Entombment of Christ and other works. Papi compares the quick underpainting of Christ's illuminated flesh with technical evidence in paintings such as the Corsini Saint John the Baptist and the Montserrat Saint Jerome. Such analogies can strengthen a reading of method, but they cannot by themselves decide whether the Madrid picture was painted before or after the 1606 flight.^[7][9][11]

How Did the Genoa Painting Become a Caravaggio Candidate?

The Genoa canvas has its own modern history. Palazzo Bianco's catalogue says an early twentieth-century inventory described it in relation to Lionello Spada. It was moved to a municipal property, Villa Cambiaso, and suffered serious damage during the Second World War. For years it received little attention.^[2][4]

In the early 1950s, the scholar Roberto Longhi discussed a version of the same subject in Messina, regarded by him as a copy after a lost Caravaggio original. Caterina Marcenaro identified the Genoa painting as a possible original. After substantial restoration by Pico Cellini in 1953–54, Longhi published the Genoa canvas as a Caravaggio in 1954. That influential argument brought it into the modern Caravaggio literature.^[2][4]

The Genoa museum has since revisited its early inventory. Its fuller record discusses a 1908 purchase proposal that labelled a Christ-presentation painting as a work by Lionello Spada, and how “copy by” and “copy after” were read differently in later inventories. Such wording is not a minor clerical curiosity: if a historical label refers to a copy after Spada, it implies a different relationship than an autograph Spada work copied after Caravaggio. The exact interpretation still has to be combined with the canvas's physical evidence.^[4]

The object has travelled in major exhibitions and appears in the municipal catalogue under Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. This makes it a serious candidate, not a forgotten internet claim. Yet the same owner record explicitly says its attribution has not achieved unanimous recognition. That caveat belongs in captions and structured data even if a museum display label uses the artist's name.^[2][4]

What Does the Genoa Museum Now Say About It?

The Genoa catalogue gives PB 1638, 128 × 103 cm, oil on canvas, about 1605. It reports technical studies that found pentimenti, changes made during the painting process. Those changes argue against a mechanical copy of a finished composition and support the canvas as a first invention of this particular design. But, as the museum itself asks, that still leaves the question: whose invention?^[2][4]

The conservation history complicates close comparison. Wartime damage altered the painting, and the 1950s treatment used the Messina version as a model in parts. Later campaigns added information. A photograph of the current surface therefore needs to be read with that history in mind. It would be irresponsible to treat every visible passage as untouched Caravaggio brushwork.^[4]

The museum's detailed object record names Cristina Bonavera-Parodi among the restorers and lists a further 2023 conservation intervention under E. Latini. It does not, in that entry, describe new findings from this treatment that would settle authorship. The date is useful when reading an older photograph or restoration report, but it should not be converted into an attribution claim.^[4]

The owner catalogue notes that the Genoa painting's dimensions do not simply fit a historically documented Ecce Homo associated with Massimo Massimi. It also says the appearance of the separate Madrid canvas, a different composition, may offer a more persuasive connection to some documents previously invoked for Genoa. The Genoa museum has not erased its traditional attribution; it has made the competing evidence visible. The editorial label here should follow that honesty.^[4]

The Genoa picture, PB 1638, is sometimes reproduced alongside accounts of the Madrid rediscovery because both share the title Ecce Homo. A viewer can distinguish them by Pilate's position, the arrangement of Christ and the attendant, and each collection's object record.^[1][2][4]

The Genoa museum also sets out other proposed beginnings for its own canvas. One possibility is a group of Passion subjects associated with the Messinese Niccolò di Giacomo in 1609; the museum says a Christ Carrying the Cross was made, while the execution and subjects of the other proposed works are uncertain. Suggestions that Caravaggio painted the Ecce Homo during a 1605 visit to Genoa, or that Marcantonio Doria first owned it, are described by the museum as lacking documentary support. None of these possibilities supplies the missing early provenance. They should remain separate from the Madrid painting's Spanish inventory trail.^[15]

Are Either of These the Massimo Massimi Commission?

A documented 1605 relationship between Caravaggio and the Roman nobleman Massimo Massimi has long been central to discussion of an Ecce Homo. The most direct surviving record is a 25 June 1605 undertaking signed by Caravaggio: he promises a painting of the same size and value as a Crowning with Thorns he had already made for Massimi. It does not say that the new picture was finished. A 2 March 1607 receipt records an advance to Ludovico Cigoli for a large companion picture to a work by Caravaggio. A story written by Cigoli's nephew in 1628 turns the commissions into a contest among Cigoli, Caravaggio and Passignano. Terzaghi points out that the dated documents refer to different moments and to Massimo, whereas the later story names Innocenzo Massimi. The colourful contest is a valuable historical account, but its details cannot be treated as a contemporary contract.^[5][6]

For much of the twentieth century, the Genoa picture was linked with that commission. Genoa's present catalogue explains why the documentary fit has been questioned, including measurement differences and uncertain early ownership. It suggests that the Madrid rediscovery offers a different possible match. Terzaghi's analysis reaches a stricter conclusion: neither surviving canvas matches the large format implied by the Cigoli pendant, and it is not established that Caravaggio completed the promised Ecce Homo at all. Papi considers other possibilities, including a Roman or early Neapolitan date for the Madrid work. This is a real scholarly disagreement, not a gap that can be closed by selecting whichever canvas is newest.^[4][6][7]

The companion picture has a material anchor of its own. The Louvre holds a drawing by Lodovico Cigoli (inv. 915 recto) identified as a preparation for his Ecce Homo in the Palazzo Pitti. Its catalogue places the finished painting between March and September 1607, on the basis of archival research, and states that Massimo already owned a Caravaggio Crowning with Thorns. The Uffizi records Cigoli's finished canvas at 175 × 135 cm, compared with the Madrid canvas's 111 × 86 cm and Genoa's 128 × 103 cm. That scale difference helps explain the pendant objection, although altered edges and historical measuring practices limit what dimensions alone can prove. The Louvre drawing documents Cigoli's process; it is not a drawing for either surviving Caravaggio candidate. A tiny separate sketch on the sheet has been tentatively associated with the disputed Prato Crowning, which the Louvre records as a scholarly suggestion rather than an identification.^{[5][11][2][18]}

The Crowning with Thorns named in Caravaggio's undertaking may itself be identified with a painting now at Prato, but that attribution is not unanimous. It would be especially unsafe to reason backwards from an assumed Prato size, to an assumed Massimi Ecce Homo, and then to declare either Madrid or Genoa certain. The 1644 Massimi household inventory describes two large Passion pictures, while a later Caravaggio biographer said an Ecce Homo painted for the family had gone to Spain. Those records sustain the question, but the objects and transfers they refer to are still being reconstructed.^[6][7]

It is also possible for an artist to paint more than one Ecce Homo or for another artist to create an original variation on a Caravaggesque design. The question is not a simple tournament in which the acceptance of Madrid automatically forces Genoa to be a copy. The two canvases should be investigated independently; the secure claim is that they are distinct compositions and that their historical identifications remain under study.^[1][4]

The 1644 Massimi inventory makes that restraint necessary. It lists a large Crowning with Thorns and a large Ecce Homo in the household. Terzaghi notes that Cigoli's Ecce Homo had already left Rome and that Bellori later described a Caravaggio Ecce Homo as having gone to Spain. She therefore considers whether the Massimi household retained a copy of one of the pictures. This is an explanation for the documents, not evidence that a newly discovered third autograph painting must exist. The Madrid and Genoa canvases are each substantially smaller than the large pendant format implied by the Cigoli comparison.^[6]

A 2026 scholarly volume shows why the traditional story of a single three-painter contest remains open. Its publisher's synopsis says Marcantonio Massimi, using family-archive documents, proposes two distinct commissions by two different members of the Massimi family: the lay patron Massimo and his relative Innocenzo, the churchman. He does not rule out Caravaggio making two Ecce Homo paintings, one for each. That is a hypothesis about commissions and possible objects, not proof that a second surviving canvas is autograph. In the same volume, Gianni Papi questions whether the competition happened as later narrated and whether the relevant paintings ever stood together in Palazzo Massimo. The volume also studies a recently rediscovered Flagellation attributed to Passignano as a possible part of the family's wider Passion-picture history. Its technical study concerns that Passignano painting, not either Caravaggio candidate. The publisher gives summaries of these essays; without the full arguments, the page cannot resolve their disagreements.^[16]

The Crowning with Thorns and Flagellation of Christ provide adjacent Passion subjects in the cluster. They can illuminate Caravaggio's treatment of vulnerable bodies without supplying a shortcut to resolve either Ecce Homo attribution.^[5]

How to Compare Two Independent Compositions

Start with Pilate. In Genoa, he is the striking bearded figure on the right, looking outward and presenting Christ with an open hand. Then look at the man behind Christ and the way his turban and mantle build a vertical group. This is the image familiar from the legacy page. Its arrangement should be identified as Genoa PB 1638 in any thumbnail or alt text.^[2][4]

Next open the Prado's own Madrid exhibition page to see the rediscovered work. Compare where Christ stands, how the other figures surround him, and where the presentation gesture falls. The object is privately owned and has a different modern provenance. A viewer should be able to tell in a few seconds that the compositions are not interchangeable.^[1]

Then compare evidence types, not just darkness. Madrid's case includes a 2021 re-identification, diagnostic study, restoration and a named group of scholarly essays. Genoa's case includes an early museum inventory, wartime damage, Longhi's 1954 argument, later conservation and an owner catalogue that retains doubt. Both records matter, but they answer different questions about different canvases.^[1][3][4]

The two institutions’ records allow a comparison without confusing the canvases. The paintings directory places Madrid and Genoa separately and qualifies the Genoa attribution. Their different compositions and histories matter more than the shared subject title.^[1][4]

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 Ecce Homo 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. Museo Nacional del Prado, Ecce Homo: The Lost Caravaggio, 2024–25 exhibition.
2. Musei di Genova, Ecce Homo, Palazzo Bianco, PB 1638.
3. Museo Nacional del Prado, English announcement of the Madrid painting, research and restoration, 2024.
4. Musei di Genova, full catalogue record for Palazzo Bianco Ecce Homo, PB 1638.
5. Gallerie degli Uffizi, Cigoli, Ecce Homo and the Massimi commission account.
6. Maria Cristina Terzaghi, “Caravaggio’s Ecce Homo: Follow Up to a Discovery,” chapter one of The Ecce Homo Unveiled, 2024.
7. Gianni Papi, “Caravaggio’s Ecce Homo Rediscovered in Madrid,” chapter two, 2024.
8. Giuseppe Porzio, “Caravaggio in Naples and the Madrid Ecce Homo,” chapter three, 2024.
9. Keith Christiansen, “Thoughts on the Ecce Homo and Caravaggio’s Post-Roman Paintings,” chapter four, 2024.
10. Andrea Cipriani, “Ecce Homo: The Restoration,” chapter five, 2024.
11. Claudio Falcucci, “The Diagnostic Investigations and the Study of the Painting Technique,” chapter six, 2024.
12. Museo Nacional del Prado, announcement of the Ecce Homo returning to display on loan, 11 November 2025.
13. Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte, Capodimonte Doppio Caravaggio display notice, 24 July–2 November 2025.
14. Factum Foundation, 2026 Contarelli Chapel project note describing three-stage digital recording of the Madrid Ecce Homo.
15. Musei di Genova, “I caravaggeschi,” Palazzo Bianco context and competing hypotheses for the Genoa Ecce Homo.
16. IRSA, Passignano e il Concorso Massimi (2026), publisher's summaries of essays by Marcantonio Massimi, Gianni Papi, Rossella Vodret and others.
17. Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando, 2021 archival report on the Ecce Homo formerly in its collection, including the 1823 exchange and 1849 estate inventory, pp. 6–7, 10–17, 19; the report expressly reserves final attribution for fuller technical study.
18. Musée du Louvre, Lodovico Cigoli, preparatory drawing for Ecce Homo, INV 915 recto, collection record.

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