(Cento 1591–1666 Bologna)
The Incredulity of Saint Thomas,
oil on canvas, 122 x 143 cm, framed

Provenance:
art market;
where acquired by the present owner

We are grateful to Nicholas Turner for confirming the attribution of the present painting on the basis of a photograph and for his help in cataloguing this lot.

Guercino’s practice of making autograph replicas in the early part of his career, often with variations as here, has long been recognised. The most celebrated examples are the autograph versions of Saint Francis, of circa 1620, conserved in the Louvre, Paris; National Museum, Warsaw and the Gemäldegalerie, Dresden, each published recently by Turner, and also recognised as autograph by the late Sir Denis Mahon. Other notable examples of autograph replicas or variants in museums include the Virgin, Child and Saint John of circa 1615, and the versions conserved in the Gallaria Pallavicini, Rome, and the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, along with Christ and the Samarian Woman of circa 1619-20 with versions conserved in the Detroit Institute of Arts, and the Kimble Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas. In the present painting, it is interesting to compare the figure of Saint Thomas in particular, with the version in the Vatican. In the present version, the saint’s right hand shows adjustments to the contours and is noticeably more naturalistic. Similarly, as Turner notes, the folds of Thomas’s gown beneath his right arm have, in the Vatican version, an “unsightly kink”, which is rendered more harmoniously in the present painting and the contrasts of chiaroscuro are softened. At the top of the present composition, the pentimenti in the tongues of the white banner develop the outline of a simpler flag depicted in the other two known autograph treatments of this subject., one in the Pinacoteca Vaticana, Rome and the other in the National Gallery, London (see fig. 1).

The present version of The Incredulity of Saint Thomas, an important discovery in terms of understanding Guercino’s evolution in the earlier part of his career, shows distinctive fluid handling, and choice of colour harmonies and the paint textures are characteristic of his work. There is no record of such a painting in the sources, though it would have been painted before 1629, the year in which the artist began a record of the pictures he had sold.

Several instances of Guercino’s reiterations of contour are to be found, for example in the line of Christ’s white garment, immediately above the knuckle of Saint Thomas’s right hand as he presses it into Christ’s side. Continuous slight adjustments to contour are a consistent feature of Guercino’s work and reveal his desire, even late in a picture’s execution, to make changes and improvements, where possible. Of significance, too, is the painting of Christ’s robe in ultramarine, an expensive pigment, indicating a commission for a wealthy patron.

The critical issue posed by the picture is how does it fit chronologically and stylistically with two previously known, nearly identical treatments of the subject – one in the Pinacoteca Vaticana, Rome and the other in the National Gallery, London. Before his departure for Rome in 1621, Guercino painted a pair of pictures for Cavaliere Bartolomeo Fabri, The Betrayal of Christ, in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, and The Incredulity of Thomas in the National Gallery, London (see L. Salerno, I dipinti del Guercino, Rome 1988, nos. 73–74; N. Turner, The paintings of Guercino, a revised and expanded catalogue raisonné, Rome 2017, nos. 103.I and II). The Rome and London canvases of The Incredulity of Saint Thomas are virtually the same size (Vatican: 120 x 143 cm; National Gallery: 115.6 x 142.5 cm). In Turner’s opinion, the more freely and thinly painted Vatican picture is the actual-sized sketch for the canvas in the National Gallery. Despite the differences of finish between the two, they are inseparably linked in style and date.

While the recently discovered picture of The Incredulity of Saint Thomas is of roughly the same width as the other two canvases, it is moderately extended in height. Moreover, its style seems more ‘classical’ and mature and, in Turner’s view, may well have been painted after Guercino returned to Cento from Rome in 1623. It is not only the extra height that distinguishes this newly discovered canvas from the Vatican and National Gallery pictures. The most significant other difference is the change to the billowing standard, symbolising the Resurrection, blown, as if by a divine wind behind Christ. In the new canvas, the pointed tongues of the flag’s swallow tail shape twist and turn in the breeze in the upper left corner of the picture, giving greater emphasis to this key Christian symbol than the simpler rendition of the banner in the Vatican and National Gallery pictures. The pentimento in the flag’s lower tongue seems to repeat the outline of the abbreviated flag in the other two treatments of the subject, its tip stopping well short of the revised and more extended tip. The correction to the shape of the flag as first painted suggests that Guercino was working from one of his earlier versions of the composition, presumably that now in the Vatican, and wished to give greater emphasis to this detail, so ‘improving’ his earlier treatment.

Besides giving greater life to Christ’s flag of the Resurrection, Guercino corrected other less conspicuous passages in the figures and their drapery. Among these is the alteration to contour of part of St Thomas’s cloak that descends from his right forearm as his arm rests against his body. The line of the right edge to this overhanging part of the garment abruptly alters direction, creating an “unsightly kink”, seen most conspicuously in the experimental Vatican picture. It is slightly softened in the version in the National Gallery, while here it can be seen that Guercino has filled this awkward angular valley with brushstrokes of matching colour. As compared with the National Gallery picture, the drapery folds seem smoother and the contrasts of chiaroscuro softened. In Turner’s opinion, the brushwork in the flesh of the figures, for example in Saint Thomas’s neck and right hand, is softer and less assertive. It is not impossible that this new version of the picture was painted shortly after Guercino’s return from Rome, perhaps at the same time and for the same patron as another version of the Betrayal of Christ. If so, it has yet to come to light.

The figure of Christ in Guercino’s Incredulity of Saint Thomas composition, his right arm swept back theatrically as he removes his cloak to reveal the wound in his side, would be the origin of the poses of several important figures in the following years. They include the Christ in his 1623 altarpiece of Saint Petronilla (Pinacoteca Capitolina, Rome); his fresco of The Prophet Micah of 1626–27 (Piacenza Cathedral); and finally, the figure of Christ in The Resurrected Christ Appearing to his Mother of 1628–30 (Pinacoteca Civica, Cento). The Christ in the Cento painting is an imposing and much modified successor to its prototype in the Incredulity of Saint Thomas painted some seven years earlier. It should not be overlooked how closely Christ’s fluttering banner in the Cento painting resembles, in reverse, that in the present canvas. The version presented here, with it sensitive chiaroscuro tempered by dramatic narrative effect, is an important testament to the artistic evolution of Guercino in the 1620s, and a significant addition to the master’s oeuvre.