© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Conversion of Mary Magdalen
Page 2 of 11

Conversion of Mary Magdalen

1700

Godefridus Schalcken(Made 1643 – 1706 The Hague)

oil on canvas
94.5 x 69.2 cm
signed and dated in brown paint, lower left
corner: “G Schalcken 1700.”
GS-114

How To Cite
Jansen, Guido. "Conversion of Mary Magdalen." In The Leiden Collection Catalogue. Edited by Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017.
https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/.
This page is available on the site's Archive. PDF of every version of this page is available on the Archive,
and the Archive is managed by a permanent URL. Archival copies will never be deleted. New versions areadded only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Conversion of Mary Magdalen
Page 3 of 11

When Godefridus Schalcken moved to London in 1692 and began

Comparative Figures

painting portraits of the stadholder-king William III, he enjoyed thepatronage of one of the most powerful men in Europe. Possibly because ofthat patronage, his work was also held in high esteem at other royalcourts.[1] In 1694, while Schalcken was still in London, Cosimo III de’
Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, requested through his agent Thomas
Platt that the artist send him a candlelit self-portrait, for which he would
pay 25 pounds sterling. After Schalcken’s return to The Hague in 1696,
this purchase was followed by several others and, as a result, four
paintings of the master are still to be found in Florence.[2]This contact with Cosimo probably led to commissions from the court in
Düsseldorf, the residence of Cosimo’s son-in-law, Johann Wilhelm, Elector

Fig 1. Godefridus
Schalcken, Wise and FoolishVirgins, 1700, oil on canvas, 94 x
114 cm, Bayerische
Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Alte
Pinakothek, Munich, inv. no.
296, bpk, Berlin / Alte Pinakothek/ Art Resource, NY

Palatine.[3] In 1700 Schalcken painted for the elector two rather large
canvases (compared to his usual small format), both of which aremagnificent demonstrations of his skill in portraying artificial lighting.
Schalcken came from a family of Protestant clergymen, so the religious
subjects portrayed in these paintings were most likely stipulated by thestrict Catholic court. The elector and his Florentine wife would certainly nothave appreciated the racy, candlelight illuminated scenes Schalcken often
painted for other clients.
The more famous of the two paintings that Schalcken painted in 1700 for
the court in Düsseldorf is his ingenious portrayal of the Parable of the Wiseand Foolish Virgins (Matthew 25:1–13). This biblical story was the perfectvehicle for a display of the artist’s complete repertoire of nocturnal lighting
effects, to which the painting owes its well-deserved reputation (fig1).[4] Conversion of Mary Magdalene in the Leiden Collection is the otherpainting that Schalcken made for the elector that year. This story derives
not from the Bible, but from the highly popularLegenda Aurea, or Golden
Legend, a thirteenth-century collection of hagiographies by Jacobus deVoragine. The figure of Mary Magdalene was still particularly topical in
Schalcken’s day, for the proponents of the Counter-Reformation saw her
as the penitent sinner par excellence.[5]Schalcken portrayed Mary Magdalene with delicate brushwork andrendered her surroundings with an exacting eye for detail. We see her
seated beside a sarcophagus; on it lies a thick book and on top of that aburning oil lamp, which she grips with her right hand. The light from this© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Conversion of Mary Magdalen
Page 4 of 11

lamp falls mainly on the saint’s nearly naked bosom. The Magdalen raises
her left arm and turns her head upward in the direction of a number ofangels, who hold a palm branch and a wreath and are bathed in aheavenly light. This supernatural illumination also falls on her head. Aroundher neck she wears a broken pearl necklace, and at her feet lie two costly
pieces of cloth in purple and blue. Arrayed on these fabrics are gold andsilver plates, cups and other precious objects, including a string of pearls
and a gold medal hanging from a blue ribbon. The saint’s left foot treads
on an imperial crown, next to which lies a gold scepter, another symbol ofworldly power. The left side of the composition is closed off by a large, reddrapery decorated with fringe, which catches the light coming from the leftfrom a source outside the picture. A round column on a high base stands
behind Mary Magdalene, and visible at the right is a nocturnal view of arough sea, with several ships in distress. This last scene refers to the
Legenda Aurea, which tells how the Magdalen boarded an unnavigableboat in Palestine and finally disembarked in the south of France, near
Marseille.[6]Schalcken’s discerning portrayal of the conversion of Mary Magdalene isan excellent illustration of the way in which she was viewed andinterpreted at the time of the Counter-Reformation, when she was thought
to embody the union of the sensual, profane life and the spiritual life of the
Church. It was in the Magdalen that the feminine beauty prized in antiquity
was united with the Christian ideals of conversion and atonement.
Schalcken took great pains to portray her gracefulness: she wears only awhite chemise, unfastened at the top, and has an ample blue cloth draped
over her legs. No offense could be taken at the Magdalen’s partial
nakedness, because penance and nakedness were interrelated in postTridentine religious thought. The beautiful and scarcely concealed body ofthe converted woman was considered a “heroic nude,” in which the figure
was placed at a distance and surrounded by a spiritual glow. Schalcken
heightened this effect with the radiant light of heaven shining on theChristian sinner.[7]As a subject, Mary Magdalene was certainly no novelty in Schalcken’s
oeuvre. At least ten paintings feature the penitent Magdalen, though all ofthem are characterized by simple iconography, showing the saint praying
by the light of a lamp or candle, with a skull or the Holy Scripture close athand.[8] None of his other works portraying Mary Magdalene can compare© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Conversion of Mary Magdalen
Page 5 of 11

with the present painting in its wealth of pictorial elements, a feature thatundoubtedly reflects the wishes of the elector’s court. Here, too, the artist
succeeded in producing a variety of light sources, just as he did inWise
and Foolish Virgins. In addition to natural light from the left, there is thelight of an oil lamp—as is to be expected in the work of Schalcken—next tothe protagonist. The third and most important light source (and not only in
the iconographic sense) evokes divine intervention. Heavenly light shines
mainly on the Magdalen’s forehead, an indication that she is now about toembark on a spiritual life that demands the rejection of all earthly splendor.
Striking in this supernatural setting are the angels, for they are portrayedhere in a way not found in any other of Schalcken’s works. Rather, theyreflect his intentional study of the work of Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641),
in whose Amaryllis and Mirtillo we find a closely related putto. In
Schalcken’s day, Van Dyck’s painting was in the collection of William III
until it was transferred to Het Loo Palace near Apeldoorn in 1694–95. The
canvas had been on display in the Stadholder’s Quarters in the Binnenhof
in The Hague, which means that Schalcken certainly knew it.[9]Given the quality of the two paintings sent to him in 1700, Johann Wilhelm,
Elector Palatine, understandably became a great admirer of Schalcken’s
work. The shipment of 1700 contained the earliest known purchases, but
the elector eventually acquired eight paintings by the artist. In December
1702, Heinrich von Wiser, the elector’s ambassador in The Hague,reported to Johann Wilhelm that Schalcken had a piece in stock for which
he was asking 1,000 guilders: “And as Your Electoral Highness probably
knows, he would not be willing to go much below that.” [10] The work
represented the Holy Family with John the Baptist and Elizabeth. It is notknown if the elector decided to purchase this painting in spite of its highprice, but it is a fact that in 1703 Schalcken spent some time in Düsseldorf,
where he lived in the house called “In the Golden Helmet” (Im gold’nenHelm) on the Flingerstrasse.[11] It was probably at this time that Schalcken
received the large gold medal from the elector that he displays in his lastself-portrait of 1706.[12]-Guido Jansen© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Conversion of Mary Magdalen
Page 6 of 11

Endnotes
1. King Christian V of Denmark (1646–99), for example, shortly before his death,commissioned Schalcken to paint Holy Family, which arrived in Copenhagen in 1700 and is
still preserved there; Thierry Beherman, Godfried Schalcken (Paris,1988), no. 5. It was notknown until recently that the king also had his portrait painted, as emerges from Samuel
Sylvius, Gedigten (‘s-Gravenhage, 1729), 2:183, in which the portrait is honored with a fourline verse: “Christianus de Vijfde, Koning van Denemarken en Norwegen, Door den
Hofschilder G. Schalke. Dus maalt een Schalke hand den Koning Christiaan, / Wijs,
deugdzaam, dapper, kloek en goed, tot heil der Noren. / Euroope en Asië zien ’t beeld
verwondert aan. / Geen vorst op aarde is zo bestendig ’t rijk beschoren” (Christian V, King ofDenmark and Norway, by the court painter G. Schalcken. So an impish hand paints King
Christian / Wise, virtuous, brave, strong, and good, to the benefit of the Norwegians. /Europe and Asia look at his image with wonder. / No king on earth is blessed with so solid anempire). It was no doubt these commissions that led the painter’s widow to refer to him
incorrectly as the Danish court painter in her will of 6 July 1742 (with a codicil of 13 October
1743): “Francoisia van Diemen, weduwe van Godefridus Schalcken, in leven kunstschilder
en hofschilder van Z. K. H. van Denemarken” (Francoisia van Diemen, widow of Godefridus
Schalcken, in life an artist and court painter to His Royal Highness of Denmark). The Hague,
Gemeentearchief, Protocol book of the notary Jacob Spex, inv. 2654.
2. Marco Chiarini, I dipinti olandesi del Seicento e del Settecento (Rome, 1989), 511–23, inv.
nos. 76.248, 76.250, 76.252, and 76.253 with illustrations; the inv. nos. 76.249 (copy after
the painting in Dresden) and 76.251 are not by the master’s hand.
3. See Karla Langedijk, Die Selbstbildnisse der holländischen und flämischen Künstler in derGalleria degli autoritratti der Uffizien in Florenz (Florence, 1992), 167. In 1692 Johann
Wilhelm had purchased his first Schalcken at an auction for 121 guilders; T. Levin, “Geiträge
zur Geschichte der Kunstbestrebungen in dem Hause Pfalz-Neuburg,” in Beiträge zur
Geschichte des Niederrheins: Jahrbuch des Düsseldorfer Geschichtsvereins 22 (1910):
143. Coincidentally, in 1690 the artist had painted the portrait of the elector’s sister, Maria
Anna von der Pfalz-Neuburg (1667–1740); Thierry Beherman, Godfried Schalcken (Paris,
1988), 407, no. 314 and 379 (oil on canvas, 50 x 39.5 cm). With regard to this portrait, see
my entry in Sabine Craft-Giepmans and Annette de Vries, eds., Portret in portret in de
Nederlandse Kunst 1550–2012 (Exh. cat. Dordrechts Museum ) (Dordrecht, 2012).
4. See my entry in Ekkehard Mai, Sander Paarlberg, and Gregor J. M. Weber, eds.,Vom Adelder Malerei: Holland um 1700 (Exh. cat. Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum) (Cologne,2006), 264, no. 75. Also Reinhold Baumstark, Oliver Kase, and Christian Quaeitzsch, eds.,
Kurfürst Johann Wilhelms Bilder, 3 vols. (Munich, 2009), 1:400.
5. John B. Knipping, De iconografie van de contra-reformatie in de Nederlanden, 2 vols.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Conversion of Mary Magdalen
Page 7 of 11(Hilversum, 1939–40), 2:96–109. At this time, in fact, the influence of the CounterReformation was overpowering in the Palatinate. Until 1685 the Electors Palatine had beenamong the leaders of the Protestant faction in Germany, but Charles II’s death without issue
in that year meant the extinction of the Protestant branch of the Wittelsbach-Simmern family.
A dispute erupted over the succession, which was settled in favor of the Catholic branch ofWittelsbach-Neuburg. The new Catholic Elector Palatine was Johann Wilhelm’s father, who
did his best to make his largely Protestant subjects return to the fold of the mother Church, a
policy that his son and successor pursued with increased zeal after 1690.
6. Engelbert Kirschbaum and Günter Bandmann, Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, 7vols. (Rome, 1968–76), 7: coll. 516–41, esp. 534.
7. John B. Knipping, De iconografie van de contra-reformatie in de Nederlanden, 2 vols.
(Hilversum, 1939–40), 1:62 and 80.
8. Thierry Beherman, Godfried Schalcken (Paris,1988), nos. 15–24. Remarkably enough, it
was a representation of Mary Magdalene in the collection of Diego Duarte in Antwerp thatushered in Schalcken’s international reputation. As early as 1687, the Swede Nicodemus
Tessin the Younger (1654–1728) observed, during his visit to the collection: “aber sonderlichschön wahr die Sta Magdalena, so von dem reflex einer Lampen gantz eclairiret wurde,dessent gleichen ich nimmer artiger gemahlet gesehen, der es gemacht hat heisst
Schalcken undt wohnet in Dort” (but the Saint Mary Magadalene was exceptionally beautiful,as she was completely lit by the reflection of a lamp, something I have never seen painted
more felicitously; the one who did it is called Schalcken and lives in Dordrecht); Gustaf
Upmark, “Ein Besuch in Holland 1687,” Oud Holland 18, no. 1 (1900): 202. For the inventoryof Duarte’s paintings, see Erik Duverger, Antwerpse kunstinventarissen uit de zeventiende
eeuw (Brussels, 1984–2009), 9:154–64; for the Mary Magdalene by Schalcken, see 9:164,
no. 192.
9. Susan J. Barnes, Nora De Poorter, Oliver Millar, and Horst Vey, Van Dyck: A Complete
Catalogue of the Paintings (New Haven, 2004), 294, no. III.60; Peter van der Ploeg,
Benjamin P. J. Broos, and Carola Vermeeren, Princely Patrons: The Collection of Frederick
Henry of Orange and Amalia of Solms in the Hague (Exh. cat. The Hague, Mauritshuis)(Zwolle, 1997), 114, no. 5. The painting had been acquired by William III’s grandfather,
Prince Frederik Hendrik.
10. “Und wie E. Ch. D. ihne wohl kennen, würdt er davon nicht vil nachlassen.” For the letterfrom Von Wiser, see T. Levin, “Geiträge zur Geschichte der Kunstbestrebungen in dem
Hause Pfalz-Neuburg,” in Beiträge zur Geschichte des Niederrheins: Jahrbuch desDüsseldorfer Geschichtsvereins 22 (1910): 34. Just how high this amount was emerges
from the fact that in those days 800 guilders was the highest price fetched at auction by awork of Schalcken. Jonckheere states that the average price for a work by Schalcken was
188 guilders, as evidenced by his database of 41 works. The mean was 130 guilders. Of all© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Conversion of Mary Magdalen
Page 8 of 11

the artists whose work was sold at auction, Schalcken is thus the 36th most expensive
painter on the list; Koenraad Jonckheere, The Auction of King William’s Paintings, 1713:
Elite International Art Trade at the End of the Dutch Golden Age (Philadelphia, 2008), 215,
217.
11. On his stay in Düsseldorf, see K. Strauven, Ueber künstlerisches Leben und Wirken in
Düsseldorf bis zur Düsseldorfer Maler-Schule unter Direktor Schadow (Düsseldorf, 1862),
20. Schalcken had gone to Düsseldorf to work. While there he painted at least three
portraits, including the portrait of Anna Maria Louisa de’ Medici (1667–1743), second wife ofElector Johann Wilhelm, and the portrait of Theresia Catharina Lubomirska (1683–1712),
the wife of his younger brother and successor, Karl Philipp of the Palatinate; Thierry
Beherman, Godfried Schalcken (Paris, 1988), 406, no. 289 (dated 1703, oil on canvas, 131
x 98 cm) and 407, no. 330a (dated 1703, oil on canvas, 118.8 x 88.4 cm). Another portrait
painted at that time was a likeness of a Count of Bylandt, which E. W. Moes reported in 1892
as being in the possession of a descendant, along with the curious correspondence between
the artist and the patron; see Gerrardys H. Veth “Aanteekeningen omtrent eenige
Dordrechtsche schilders. XXXII. Godefridus Schalcken,” Oud Holland, 10 (1892): 5. It is notknown if either the portrait or the letters are still extant. The only heir and grandson of theowner, Willem Frederik Lodewijk, Count of Bylandt (1896–1990), informed me in writing in
1986 that he had never heard of an ancestral portrait by Schalcken in his family’s
possession.
12. The self-portrait is discussed in Thierry Beherman, Godfried Schalcken (Paris, 1988), 156,
no. 58, and figured in a sale at Christie’s in London on 10 July 1998, lot 36, with color
illustration. See also Roland, Browse, and Delbanco, Old and Modern Paintings 19 Cork
Street, Old Bond Street, London, W1 Regent 7984, cat. 1963, 10–11. The medal Schalcken
wears features a younger image of the elector than the medal Adriaen van der Werff(1659–1722) proudly displays in his Self-Portrait of 1699 in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam,
inv. no. Sk-A-465 (oil on canvas, 81 x 65.5 cm); P. J. J. van Thiel, ed.,All the Paintings of
the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam: A Completely Illustrated Catalogue (Amsterdam, 1976),
599, with illustration. See also Guido Jansen, “Selbstporträt mit der goldenen Medaille vonJohann Wilhelm von der Pfalz, 1706,” in Schalcken–Gemalte Verführung, ed. Anja K.
Sevcik. (Exh. cat. Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum; Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum.
Stuttgart, 2015), 106–9, no. 7 and Annelise Stemper, Die Medaillen der Pfalzgrafen und
Kurfursten bei Rhein (Worms, 1997): S. 378, Nr. 372 for the medal in Van Der Werff’sSelfPortrait and S. 390, Nr. 379A for the medal in Schalcken’s Self-Portrait.

Provenance© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Conversion of Mary Magdalen
Page 9 of 11

Johann Wilhelm (1658–1716), Elector Palatine of the Rhine, Count Palatine of Neuburg,
Düsseldorf, ca. 1700–16; by descent to his brother Karl Philipp (1661–1742), Elector
Palatine of the Rhine, Count Palatine of Neuburg, Düsseldorf, until 1742; by descent to his
nephew Karl Theodor (1724–99), Elector Palatine of the Rhine, Count Palatine of Neuburg,and, later Elector of Bavaria, until 1799; by descent to his successor, Maximilian IV Joseph(1756–1829), Elector of both the Palatine and Bavaria, and from 1806 King of Bavaria, until
1806; by descent to the Bavarian Royal collections.
Recorded in the “Munich Gallery” in 1833.
Moved to the Landauerbrüderhaus, Nuremberg, possibly by 1834 and certainly by 1840.
Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg, possibly in 1876 and certainly by 1893.
(Sale, Parke-Bernet, New York, 5 March 1952, no. 64).
(Sale, Parke-Bernet, New York, 6 October 1971, no. 75; [Spencer A. Samuels & Co., by1972]).
(Sale, Christie’s, New York, 9 January, 1981, no. 11 [Christopher Janet, New York, by
1984]).
Martin Pomp, New York [Lawrence Steigrad Fine Arts, New York, by 1996; Jack Kilgore,
New York, 1997; Johnny van Haeften, London, 2004].
From whom acquired by the present owner.

Exhibition History
New York, Spencer A. Samuels & Co., “Recent Acquisitions,” 8–29 April 1972.
New York, Christophe Janet, “The Intimate Vision,” 19–21 April 1984, no. 11.
New York, Otto Naumann Ltd., “Lawrence Steigrad Fine Art Exhibiting at Otto Naumann,” 5
December 1996–4 January 1997, no. 51.
Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, “Schalcken—Painted Seduction,” 25 September
2015–24 January 2016; Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum, 21 February–26 June 2016 [lent by
the present owner].

References
Karsch, Gerard Joseph. Ausführliche und gründliche Specification derer vortrefflichen undunschätzbaren Gemählden, welche in der Galerie der Churfürstlichen Residentz zu© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Conversion of Mary Magdalen
Page 10 of 11

Düsseldorf. Düsseldorf, 1719, no. 21. Translated to Désignation exacte des peintures
précieuses, qui sont en grand nombre dans la Galerie de la Résidence de son Altesse
Sérme: Electorale Palatine à Dusseldorff. Dusseldorf, 1720, no. 21.
Van Gool, Johan. De nieuwe schouburg der Nederlantsche kunstschilders en schilderessen
waer in de levens- en kunstbedryven der tans levende en reets overleedene schilders, dievan Houbraken, noch eenig ander schryver, zyn aengeteekend, verhaelt worde. 2 vols. The
Hague, 1750–51, 2:533.
De Pigage, Nicolas and De Mechel, Chrétien. La Galerie Electorale de Dusseldorff ou
catalogue raisonné et figuré de ses tableaux: Dans lequel on donne une connoissanceexacte de cette fameuse Collection, & de son local, par des descriptions détaillées, & parune suite de 30. planches, contenant 365. petites estampes. Basel, 1778, no. 322, fig. 24.
Catalogue de la Galerie de Mannheim actuellement au Chateau de Nymphenbourg . . . 19
novembre 1799. Archiv der Bayerischen Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. Ma A 799/1.
Churfürstl Gemaelde-Sammlung von Mannheim, den 26. October. 1802 . Archiv derBayerischen Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. Ma A 802/1.
Verzeichniß der Gemälde der Churfl: Bilder-Galerie von Mannheim, verfasst den 22ten July
1802. in München. Archiv der Bayerischen Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. Ma A 802/2.
Verzeichniß derjenigen Gemälde, welche aus der Churfürstl. Mannheimer Gemäldesammlungen nach den Churfürstlichen Schloß Schleissheim abgeschiket worden sind.
Archiv der Bayerischen Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. Ma A 802/4.
Smith, John. Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch, Flemish, andFrench Painters. 9 vols. London, 1829–42, 6:282, no. 75.
Verzeichnis der Königlichen und städtischen Gemälde welch in der Königlichen
Gemäldegalerie in Nürnberg im Landauerbrüderhause Ausgestellt sind . Nuremberg, 1840,
no. 154.
Blanc, Charles. Histoire des peintres de toutes les écoles: Ecole hollandaise . 2 vols. Paris,
1861, 2:6.
Katalog der im germanischen Museum befindlichen Gemälde. Nuremberg, 1882.
Katalog der im germanischen Museum befindlichen Gemälde . Nuremberg, 1893, no. 342(326) (Stadt Nürnberg 39).
Katalog der Gemälde Sammlung des Germanischen Nationalmuseum . Nuremberg, 1909,
no. 410 (342) (Stadt Nürnberg 39), Gal. 86.
Hofstede de Groot, Cornelis. A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent
Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth Century. Translated from Beschreibendes und kritisches
Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten höllandischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts .
10 vols. Esslingen and Paris, 1907–28, 5:336–37, no. 49.
Beherman, Thierry. Godfried Schalcken. Paris, 1988, no. 19.
© 2017 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Conversion of Mary Magdalen
Page 11 of 11

Möhlig, Kornelia. Die Gemäldegalerie des Kurfürsten Johann Wilhelm von Pfalz-Neuburg(1658–1716) in Düsseldorf. Cologne, 1993, 140.
Baumstark, Reinhold, et al. Kurfürst Johann Wilhelms Bilder. 3 vols. Munich, 2009, 2:106,
no. 257; 3:332.

Technical Summary
The support, a single piece of a fine, plain-weave fabric, has been lined. All four tacking margins
have been almost entirely removed. Narrow tacking margin remnants and cusping along all fouredges indicate the original dimensions have been retained. Remnants of paper tape are present
along the right side of the lower edge only. There are two canvas stamps, two labels and one
inscription, but no wax collection seals along the lining or stretcher.
A light gray ground has been thinly and evenly applied and extends onto the right tacking margin.
A red underlayer is visible along the right tacking margin and can be seen below much of thecomposition. The paint has been applied with loose fluid brushstrokes in thin, smooth glazes,
with no use of impasto. Details along the gold objects in the foreground and tassels hanging fromthe red fabric have been applied with fine dabs and strokes of color.
No underdrawing is readily apparent in infrared images captured at 780–1000 nanometers.
Compositional changes visible in the images include the following: the stars along the edge of theblue drapery over the figure’s proper right knee were originally smaller; and the toes along thefigure’s proper right foot have been shifted downward closer to the edge of the crown. A
pentimento along the pink drapery wrapped around the waist of the putti in the upper right cornerindicates a change to the fabric’s contour.
The painting is signed and dated in brown paint along the lower left corner.
The painting has not undergone conservation treatment since its acquisition in 2004 and remains
in a good state of preservation despite areas of thinness along the blue drapery, the locks of hairdraped over the figure’s shoulder, the rays emanating from the putti, and the area where thewhite clouds meet the red drapery.[1]Technical Summary Endnotes

The painting was examined on-site without the use of a stereomicroscope.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection