Saint Praxedis

1655
oil on canvas
101.6 x 82.6 cm.(40 x 32 1/2 in.)
The Barbara Piasecka The Johnson Collection Foundation
Princeton, N. J.

left-click once to fix the slide-in information box - left-click again to retire it

St Praxedes, Johannes Vermeer

critical excerpt

signed and dated 1655 in the lower left, and it also carries an additional inscription in the lower right corner: Meer N ... R ... o... o, which has been interpreted as Meer N[aar] R[ip]o[s]o (Vermeer after Riposo), the latter being Ficherelli's nickname

1655
Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. Vermeer: The Complete Works, New York, (1997)

The plain-weave canvas support has a regular weft of ten threads to centimeter. The painting has been relined.

The light brown ground consists primarily of lead white, iron oxides and calcium. A darker brown imprimatura layer exists under the sky, which is painted with natural ultramarine. The gown, lips and blood are painted with red lakes of lead white. The pigments in the yellow paint on the brim of the urn are lead white and yellow ochre. Many different textural effects have been created with the use of glazing, scumbling, impasto, and dry brushstrokes.

The painting is in excellent condition, with only a few small losses along the right side and bottom.

* Johannes Vermeer (exh. cat., National Gallery of Art and Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis - Washington and The Hague, 1995, edited by Arthur Wheelock)

literature

  • Erna and Jacob Reder, New York, 1932 [Spencer Samuels & Company, New York, 1969-1987];
  • Barbara Piasecka Johnson Collection Foundation; 1987

exhibitions

According to legend, St. Praxedis was a 2nd-century daughter of a disciple of St Paul living in Rome, and sister of St. Pudentiana. When the Emperor Marcus Antoninus was hunting down Christians, S.t Praxedis sought them out to relieve them with money, care and comfort. Some she hid in her house, others she encouraged to keep firm in the faith. She likewise cared for the severed bodies of those martyred for their faith.

St. Praxedis was at first venerated as a martyr in connection with the Ecclesia Pudentiana, but afterwards a separate church was built in her honor, on the alleged site of her house, to which, when it was rebuilt by Pope St. Paschal I (the present Santa Prassede), her relics were taken.

By the late 16th century she was especially revered by the Jesuits, an order which lived next door to Vermeer's mother-in-law, Maria Thins, along the Oude Langendijk in Delft.

In the two paintings by Vermeer and Ficherelli, St. Praxedis is shown kneeling in front of an ornate twin-handed jug into which she is squeezing a sponge soaked full with blood of a decapitated martyr.

Her effigy appears on a mosaic of the Catholic Church of St. Praxedis in Rome (see image above).

The Death of Cleopatra
Felice Ficherelli
1650s
71 x 78 cm
National Gallery of Slovenia, Ljubljana

The Saint Praxedis by Vermeer is indisputably a copy of a painting by Felice Ficherelli which is presently in a private collection in Ferarra, Italy.

Felice Ficherelli (1605 - 1660) was an Italian painter of the Baroque period, active mainly in Tuscany. In contrast with his nickname, il Riposo, derived from his peaceful nature, his most original works were easel paintings often of cruel and violent subjects, which he interpreted with a morbid sensuality and ambiguous tenderness. He specialized in martyrdom and famous murders of the past.

Ficherelli was brought to Florence when very young by the influential collector Conte Alberto Bardi, who arranged for him to study with Jacopo da Empoli and to copy works by Andrea del Sarto. Ficherelli's clear compositions and luminous drapery, which remain evident throughout his career, reflect his studies.

How Vermeer came across the Saint Praxedis, which has never left Italy and is now in a private collection in Ferrara, remains a mystery.

A Young Boy Copying a Painting
Wallerant Vaillant
1660

The present painting is presumed to be a copy of a painting by the Italian painter Felice Ficherelli by Vermeer.

Although copying the works of other painters is disdained by mainstream art educational systems today, in Vermeer's age people were far more opened to modeling themselves on great predecessors, who they took for their yardsticks.. Apprentices drew from casts of classical sculptures, copied drawings and paintings of their own teachers as well as those of the venerated Masters of the past. In addition, copying was correlated with the broader concept of emulation which was for centuries the pilaster of pictorial tradition and progress. It was then held to be impossible to rival and surpass the Masters of the past until one had acquired the same technical tools to successfully compete. Thus, for a painter in his early years, even the most talented, to copy a work of another was hardly a sign of weakness. Copying also presented a financial opportunity for many painters since collectors were not always able to acquire the great originals of the past.

Although it is not easy to understand why Vermeer would have made a replica of a relatively obscure Italian painting, the subject of this Catholic Saint may have appealed to the young painter who was just married into a staunch Catholic family and likely converted thereafter. Other writers creatively envision Vermeer rendering homage to the enormous loss of life, including one of Delft's most promising painters Carel Fabritius, caused only a few years earlier by the infamous explosion of the Delft powder magazine.

One may also speculate that he found some affinity with the picture's coloring or paint handling.

This painting, a close copy of a painting by the Florentine master Felice Ficherelli curiously, displays two signatures. The fist to be noticed was "Meer 1655" in the lower left. It also carries an additional inscription which had escaped the experts' eyes for some time in the lower right corner: Meer N ... R ... o... o, which has been interpreted as Meer N[aar] R[ip]o[s]o (Vermeer after Riposo), the latter being Ficherelli's nickname.

Arthur Wheelock, after consulting the results of laboratory examination, claimed that both "signatures and the date are integral to the paint surface" but is at a loss as to why the work bears two signatures.

Conservator Jørgen Wadum, on the other hand, states that the signature to the lower left is clearly not part of the original paint layer. He argues that the paint layer directly beneath it is visibly abraded (which means it has undergone some wear and tear) while the signature above seems relatively fresh and clear. Wadum remarks that the second signature to the lower right "is so rudimentary that any interpretation would be factitous." Furthermore, two signatures on the same painting would be a rarity for a 17th-century copy.

The present work is perhaps Vermeer's most debated painting in regards to authenticity. Since it is a very faithful copy of an extant painting by Felice Ficherelli, which had almost certainly never left the country, some Vermeer scholars believe this fact alone is sufficient to disqualify it from Vermeer's oeuvre.

However, there are various hypotheses that, while not proving Vermeer did make the copy himself, show that it is not out of the question. First of all, Vermeer could have made his copy from another copy which had somehow reached the Netherlands. Copies of Italian paintings were highly regarded in the Netherlands and were a part of an active market. In Delft, various paintings of Italian masters where known to have been part of private collections. When John Montias, Vermeer’s biographer, made a scrupulous examination of Delft archival records, only five turned up, of which only three were probably copies. It is far likelier that originals and copies by Italian masters could be found in Amsterdam.

One Amsterdam art dealer, Johannes de Renialme, owned ten. Curiously, De Renialme also had in his collection a now-lost Grave Visitation by Vermeer, presumably an early work. De Renialme was also in contact with Vermeer through his family's notary, Willem de Langue. The fact that Vermeer was summoned to The Hague to judge the authenticity of a group of disputed "Italian masterpieces" his knowledge of Italian painting must have been known.

A second, but less convincing explanation regards a hypothetical visit of Vermeer to Italy in his formative years. Another Dutch painter called Johannes Vermeer is in fact documented to have been in Italy in the 1650s, but scholars firmly believe that it was Johannes Vermeer of Utrecht, who, coincidentally, worked in the Italian manner.

SPECIAL TOPICS SIX

SPECIAL TOPICS SEVEN

SPECIAL TOPICS EIGHT

SPECIAL TOPICS NINE

SPECIAL TOPICS TEN