Judith beheading Holofernes: Caravaggio and Artemisia Gentileschi

Both Caravaggio and Artemisia Gentileschi (twice) executed paintings of the biblical story of Judith beheading the Assyrian general Holofernes. I will compare these representations but will first document why this particular comparison is especially interesting.

Artemisia Gentileschi was a Caravaggisti. Caravaggio had been too busy getting into trouble and running from the law -- and developing phenomenal works of art during the dead periods --to establish a school or to take on students. Rather, subsequent adherence to his style was organic.

According to worldatlas.com, "Caravaggisti art refers to an artistic movement that resulted in a new Baroque painting style" based on the work of Caravaggio and characterized by the use of tenebrism ("the use of profound shadowing and high contrast between areas of light and dark") and chiaroscuro (use of "light and shadows to create a three-dimensional appearance").

The painters who adopted Caravaggio's techniques were called Caravaggisti. Some adopted his techniques for a portion of their careers while others devoted their entire lives to modeling his style. 

The chart below shows the elements of Caravaggio's style in the southwestern quadrant and its further spread along the bottom portion. Style adherents are shown in the upper portions of the chart.

Orazio Gentileschi, the father of Artemisia, became a close associate of Caravaggio after seeing the latter’s 1600 paintings. Gentileschi’s paintings post-1600 began to incorporate elements of the Caravaggio approach (NGA, Christiansen and Mann):

• Use of models
• Dramatic lighting
• Simplified compositional structures with a restricted number of figures close to the picture plane
• Use of dramatic, unconventional gestures and monumental composition
• Uncompromising realism and contemporary representation of figure types.

Even though Orazio backslid, he still enjoys special prominence when discussions arise re Caravaggisti active in the first two decades of the 17th century. He was the first to respond to the shift but he also influenced others, notably Bartolomeo Lavarozzi (1590 - 1625), Orazio Riminaldi (1593 - 1630), and Giovann Francesco Guerreiri (1589 - 1655/1659), Italians all. He also influenced Hendrik Terbruggen who the took the style back to Utrecht. But, by far, his most prominent student was his daughter Artemisia.

The Story behind the Paintings

Holofernes, an Assyrian general, had been sent by King Nebuchadnezzar to “teach the Israelites a lesson” after they failed to lend assistance in one of his recent wars. Holofernes laid siege to the city of Bethulia, compromising its water sources. The inhabitants were in favor of yielding to the general but the leaders asked for five days, hoping that assistance would materialize.

During this waiting period the widow Judith entered Holofernes’ camp, along with her maid, under the pretext of being able to provide information that would aid his efforts. Holofernes became enamored with Judith — her intent — and prepared a sumptuous meal that, he hoped, would be a seduction vehicle. He drank too much at the dinner, however and fell asleep. Judith took the opportunity to use his sword to behead him and took his head back to the leaders of Bethulia. The shock of losing their leader in this manner eventually led to the defeat of the Assyrians.

The Paintings

Judith beheading Holofernes was Caravaggio’s first historical work. It was commissioned by Ottavia Costa, a Genoese banker. Costa was so enamored with the painting that he stipulated its inalienability in his will. It was lost to public view for several centuries until the restorer Pico Cettini reported in 1951 that he had seen it in a home. A little over 20 years later the Italian state bought the piece and exhibited it in Palazzo Barberini.

According to barberinicorsini.org, the light in the scene falls from the top left, “striking Judith’s figure in full.” Unlike the story relayed in the book of Judith, Caravaggio has Abra, Judith’s maidservant, in the room and as a wrinkled old woman. This “haggard attendant merely looks on, her eyes wide with disbelief.” Judith appears to “gracefully” recoil from her gruesome task.

Artemisia painted two versions of this story: 1611 - 1612 and 1629. As a young woman she had been raped by her teacher Agostino Tasi and, while it is believed that she was influenced by Caravaggio’s version, the cold brutality exhibited in these paintings gives a sense that she is calling on something deeper: the cold rage of the violated.

Smart History calls this “… one of the bloodiest and most vivid depictions of the scene … surpassing the version by Caravaggio … in its immediacy and striking realism.” While Judith is a shrinking violet in Caravaggio’s version — and Abra is barely there — Artemisia’s versions depict two strong young women working cooperatively to defeat an opposing force.

While the flow of blood from Caravaggio is insipid to the point of ridicule, Artemisia’s blood flow is vivid, plentiful, and explosive, flowing in multiple rivulets down the face of the mattress.

In the Gentileschi paintings the figures are directly in front of us — great for dramatic effect — and appear as though highlighted by a spotlight.

In a funny kind of way, if one can get funny about a beheading, Caravaggio’s painting is somewhat more sensitive and “feminine” in its portrayal of the scene while Gentileschi’s is much more hunter-like.

Caravaggio: "Invigorating the dark shades"

My most recent post showcased paintings that the Caravaggio 2025 exhibition grouped under the heading "Making a name for himself." I took the liberty of including Boy bitten by a Lizard and The Musicians, Caravaggio paintings both, under this same banner even though I had viewed them at their home institutions, rather than at the exhibition. The key reasons for their inclusions were (i) I had seen them in person and (ii) their completion dates fell within the same timeframes as the other paintings in this group.

The second grouping of paintings at Caravaggio 2025 was called "Invigorating the dark shades." I will come back to the meaning of this in a bit but at this point I would argue that this grouping is a subset of the first grouping, based on completion dates, because Caravaggio did not "arrive" until after the introduction of the Contarelli paintings.

The first painting in this grouping is Portrait of Monsignor Maffeo Barberini as Promontory Apostolic. According to the accompanying literature, this portrait of the future Pope Urban VIII has always had its attribution to Caravaggio "debated by scholars."

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
Portrait of Monsignor Maffeo Barberini as
Protonotary Apostolic, 1598 - 99
(Private collection, Firenze; viewed at
the Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, 7/18/2025)

According to Caravaggio 2025, Saint Catherine of Alexander "represents a major turning point in Caravaggio's artistic production." According to painter and biographer Giovanni Pietro Bellori, "... with this piece, Merisi begins to invigorate the dark shades," initiating a process which culminates in the Contarelli Chapel paintings.

This painting utilizes the interplay between light and dark, a technique called chiarascuro, which, when applied to Caravaggio, is called Tenebrism. Chiarascuro is "the sharp contrast between light and shadow." Tenebrism is characterized by "a type of violent illumination" -- usually artificial -- with "greater prominence to the illuminated area on which is placed a powerful focus of directed light." This was generally used in scenes of a religious nature and added a strong sense of drama to the depiction.

The model used in this painting is the same person used in Martha and Mary Magdalene and Judith beheading Holofernes.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
Saint Catherine of Alexandria, 1598 - 99
(Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza,
Madrid; viewed at the Caravaggio 2025
exhibition, 7/18/2025)

The second Barberini portrait in the Carvaggio 2025 exhibition is broadly attributed to the painter (not the case for the first one) and is one of the few surviving portraits done by his hand. In his left hand Barberini is clutching (probably) the piece of parchment which "bears the decree appointing him Cleric of the Apostolic Chamber  in 1597..." This was the first time that the painting had ever been shown publicly and, according to Caravaggio 2025, "represents a benchmark for all seventeenth-century portraiture and one of the finest examples of this painting genre."

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
Portrait of Maffeo Barberini, 1598 - 99
(private collection; viewed at the
Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, 7/18/2025)

While the two preceding paintings both have very dark backgrounds, the background of Martha and Mary Magdalene begins with a blue-brown to the left and then gets progressively darker as you move rightward. Nonetheless, subjects are brightly illuminated and stand in stark contrast to their surroundings.

The Caravaggio organizers speculate that this painting may heve been done for Olimpia Aldobrandini, a rich and powerful Italian noblewoman. It shows the conversion of Mary Magdalene "sealed by symbols of marriage such as an orange flower and and a golden ring" with Martha onlooking. The reflection of the light source is captured in the very dark convex mirror.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Martha and
Mary Magdalene, 1598 - 99
(Gallerie Nazionale di Arte Antica, Palazzo Barberini,
Rome; viewed at the Caravaggio 2025
exhibition, 7/18/2025)

Judith beheading Holofernes is a raw, violent painting which captures the fear and horror of impending death on the one hand and clinical calmness from Judith on the other. The light defines the bulging muscles, upturned eyes, and gurgly scream of the victim while the maid clutches a bag, the waiting repository for the head. According to Carravagio 2025, "the focal point of the scene and Caravaggio's point of interest is Holofernes' blood-curdling cry, making it one of the first paintings to inaugurate the artist's tragic style, resonating with the question as to the line between life and death."

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Judith Beheading
Holofernes, 1599 - 1600 (Gallerie Nazionale di Arte Antica,
Palazzo Barberini, Rome; viewed at the Caravaggio 2025
exhibition, 7/18/2025)

The Sacred and the tragic between Naples and Rome will be the next category covered.

Caravaggio: Making a name for himself in Rome

The recent Caravaggio 2025 Exhibition at Palazzo Barberini in Rome curated the offerings on show into four major categories:(i) Making a Name in Rome; (ii) Invigorating the Dark Shadows; (iii) The Sacred and the Tragic Between Rome and Naples; and (iv) Endgame. I will arrange the Caravaggio paintings that I have personally seen over the course of the past year accordingly, beginning (in this post) with the first category.

Caravaggio was born in Milan but his family moved to Caravaggio, a little town in the north of Italy, to escape the plague (At this time the commune of Caravaggio was considered Venetian territory.). Caravaggio studied painting during his youth and his teacher was Simone Peterzano, one of the last students of the Venetian great Titian.

Caravaggio left his hometown in 1592 and made his way to Milan. Once there, he found it to be a "dog-eat-dog" environment and he got off to a quite rocky start. He was, like many other aspiring painters, forced to parade around the Piazza Navona with his works hung around him -- in sandwich-board fashion -- hoping that someone would notice his work and favor him with their patronage. 

According to Caravaggio 2025, starting in the summer of his arrival, Caravaggio moved to the workshop of the painter Guiseppe Cesari d'Arpino where he was "engaged in painting flowers and fruits." The partnership ended abruptly after 8 months. The work he did at d'Arpino's shop is reflected in the prominence of fruits and/or leaves in many of Caravaggio's early paintings.

Caravaggio's hunt for a patron bore fruit when he was "discovered" by Cardinal Francisco Maria del Monte, a close ally of the Medici family and, at that time, residing in the nearby Medici Palace. Based on the Cardinal's invitation, Caravaggio moved into the upper floors of the palace and produced most of his early works therein.

Now onto some of those early works.

One of Caravaggio's earliest paintings from his time in Rome is Boy Peeling Fruit. According to sources cited by the Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, this piece was painted during the time that Caravaggio stayed with Monsignor Pandolfo Pucci, a prelate from Recanati. The first reliable record of this piece's provenance was its mention in the inventory of James II of England.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
Boy Peeling Fruit, c. 1592 - 93
(Royal Collection Trust, UK; viewed at
Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, 7/18/25)

According to Dr Ruggiero (a Renaissance expert), Caravaggio fell ill and did a self-portrait (Sick Bacchus) to pass the time. While the grapes and laurel conjures up Bacchus to one's senses, Dr. Ruggiero points out that the laurel is made from Ivy -- rather than  grape -- leaves. In the ancient world, poets were pale (because of the time they spent indoors) and wore ivy crowns. This, then, could have been Caravaggio depicting himself as a visual poet (painter).

Most art at this time still looked like the art of Michelangelo -- bright colors of superhuman forms -- but the art in Sick Bacchus was markedly different. As Dr. Ruggiero described it, the composition was right in your face with the table in the foreground, the subject in the mid-ground, and no background to speak of. Caravaggio learned this compositional style from Venetian artists.

There is some confusion around this painting. According to Caravaggio.com, the painter completed this work in 1593 while he was working in d'Arpino's studio. According to one source he was recovering from a bout of malaria while another says that he was a victim of a kick from a horse. The Journal of the Royal Society attributes the painter's pallor to the effects of jaundice. Dr. Ruggiero agrees with the 1593 date. Villa Borghese, the home of the painting, lists the date as 1595 while the Caravaggio 2025 exhibit lists it as 1595 - 96. 

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
Self portrait as Bacchus (known as Sick Bacchus),
c. 1593 (Galleria Borghese, Rome; viewed at
Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, 7/18/25)

While Boy Bitten by a Lizard does not yet manifest Caravaggio's signature chiaroscuoro, it does capture his ability to register a single point in time and centers flowers and leaves in a prominent still life. 

This painting was, according to Caravaggio's biographers, most certainly made for the open market, rather than for a specific patron. Many early 17th century copies of this painting exist "including a high-quality replica" at the Fondazione Longhi (Florence) which is thought to some to be from the hands of Caravaggio himself.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
Boy Bitten by a Lizard, c. 1594 - 95
(National Gallery, London; viewed in situ
12/5/24)

The model for Baccus (1595 - 1597) is Mario Minniti, a young Sicilian painter with whom Caravaggio, according to Dr. Ruggerio, had an amorous relationship. We see a bed sheet spread over the model’s shoulder Toga-like, and the folded-over mattress for his repose. We see the flush in his cheeks from the drinking and bubbles in the decanter from the freshly poured wine. We see ripe fruits with brilliant colors and the waves in the wine glass showing either recently poured wine or liquid movement after a recent swirl.The folds of the model’s shirt sleeve can be seen through the glass stem which the model is holding in the approved manner.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
Baccus, C. 1595 - 1597
(Uffizi, Florence; viewed in situ
10/2/25)

Cardinal Del Monte gifted the painting to Ferdinand I de Medici. It was found in the storage of the Uffizi in 1916.

The Fortune Teller "portrays a cunning Gypsy as she reads the palm of a naive young fellow, who, gazing into the woman's face, fails to realize that she is about to steal his precious ring." This light, bright painting is almost the antithesis of the Caravaggio works that we have come to know and love. This painting was part of Cardinal Monte's collection and was subsequently acquired by Carlo Emanuele Pio (along with St John the Baptist) in 1628.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Fortune Teller,
 c. 1596 - 97 (Musei Capitolini - Pinacoteca Capitolina,
Rome; viewed at Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, 7/18/25)

Similar to Fortune Teller in both airiness and underlying lack of morals, The Cardsharps was one of the first Caravaggio's to be purchased by Cardinal Monte. Referred to as The Game in early sources, this painting was acquired by Cardinal Antonio Barberini upon Monte's death.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, The Cardsharps, 
c. 1596 - 97 (Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, TX;
viewed at Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, 7/18/25)

Caravaggio painted from live models; he did not do any drawings or other preparatory work. If he was dissatisfied with a painting, or a part of a painting, he simply painted over the offending area. His backgrounds at this time were mostly neutral.

The model in The Musicians (called Concert at the Caravaggio 2025 exhibition) is, again, Mario Minniti. This painting was done for Cardinal Monte, the first of a number. Caravaggio is the figure in the background. 

This painting was also acquired by Cardinal Barberini upon Monte's death.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
The Musicians, 1597
(National Gallery, Washington, DC; viewed in situ
8/5/25)

“This parade shield was given to Grand Duke Ferdinando I by Cardinal Francesco Maria del Monte, a Medici agent at the papal court in Rome, in 1598. It was intended for the new armoury, where it was part of the knightly accoutrements of a dummy on horseback wearing Persian armour. The subject, based on the Classical myths on which Caravaggio had trained in his youth, is reinterpreted here in a naturalistic vein, the eyes open wide in horror, the mouth frozen in a cry of revulsion, the writhing tangle of serpents (paralleled in the scientific plates commissioned by the Medici from Jacopo Ligozzi) semingly at odds with the drastically severed neck.”

This painting was restored in 2002 with funding from

the Gruppo Maggiore.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
Testa di Medusa,  c.  1597
(Uffizi, Florence; viewed in situ
10/2/25)

Narcissus breaks from the other paintings in this section with its dark background and, with reflection, foreground. According to Caravaggio 2025, this is "one of the most debated paintings in the Caravaggio catalogue." Those who initially attributed the painting to Caravaggio, gave a date of 1590 - 95 but, more recently, persons willing to attribute will give a date from 1597 - 99 while others question whether this is even a Caravaggio at all.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
Narcissus, 1597 - 99
(Gallerie Nazionale di Arte Antica,
Palazzo Barberini, Rome; viewed at
Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, 7/18/25)

**********************************************************************************************************

Up until this time, all of Caravaggio's commissions had been small and from private sources. His first major contract was in 1602 with the family of Cardinal Mateo Contarelli. The contract called for Caravaggio to paint the walls of the family chapel at San Luigi Dei Francesi. Carravagio was not supposed to paint the altarpiece (it was supposed to be a sculpture) but the family was so impressed with the work that he did on the walls that they asked him to do that also.

By this time Carravaggio had gained critical and popular acclaim. He followed up the Contrarelli Chapel with a commission for the Cerasi Chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome.

I will continue this series with the works falling into the category Invigorating the Dark Shadows.

©EverythingElse238

A survey of the most renowned Supper at Emmaus works

My recent exploration of the two versions of Caravaggio's Supper at Emmaus launched me on a quest for other treatments of the same subject. And boy did I find a bounty of material from historically famous painters. Herein I present some of the more notable treatments.

Titian

I was able to locate three separate Supper at Emmaus paintings by this world-famous artist: a 1534 version resident in the Walker Art Gallery; a 1533 - 34 version resident in the Louvre: and a 1545 version resident in the National Gallery of Ireland. As shown below, the compositions of the first two are fairly similar with differences restricted to color schemes, tablescape, deployment of the rightmost disciple, and background construct.

Titian, Supper at Emmaus, 1534 (Walker Art Gallery)

Titian, Supper at Emmaus, 1533 - 1534 (Louvre)

In the Walker painting, broad bean pods and bright blue borage flowers are scattered across the table.. At the time broad beans were considered peasant food and was typically served to poor pilgrims on their travels. This combination, though, may reflect a Venetian custom of eating candied broad beans at the Feast of the Dead on All Saints Day. Broad beans were thought to possess the souls of the dead while the borage , which was traditionally used to freshen wine, was believed to drive away sadness and usher in joy.

The 1545 version of the painting is positioned within a closer, darker space with a setting sun as a backdrop. The Innkeeper is omitted from this version. The smaller table makes for a more intimate environment.

Titian, Supper at Emmaus, 1545
(National Gallery of Ireland)

Veronese

Veronese has two versions of the painting on offer. His 1559 version is one of the most populated that I have encountered on this journey. The painting has a flashback to the preceding journey in the left panel and adults and children dressed in contemporary clothing arrayed around the central players. This is most likely a family portrait. The 1565 - 70 version is much less populated but still has seven adults, one kid, and a dog.

Paolo Veronese, Supper at Emmaus, 1559 (Louvre)

Paolo Veronese, Supper at Emmaus, 1565 - 1570
(Museum Boijmans van Beuningen)

Velázquez

One of the more claustrophobic renditions with tight quarters and no extraneous material. According to one source, Velázquez has followed Caravaggio in that his models are presented with "rustic, unidealized features.” This painting explores contrasts in reactions through "gesture, expression, and dramatic lighting." The tablecloth shows the artists still-life skills.

Velázquez, The Supper at Emmaus, 1622 - 1623
(The Met)

Rembrandt

A total of four Rembrandts covering the subject topic are presented in this survey. The 1628 effort (immediately below) has a strong contra-jure effect with the light source placed behind the subject turning it into a silhouette and undelining Jesus' divinity.

Rembrandt, The Supper at Emmaus, c. 1628
(Musée Jacquemart André)

The 1654 version is a print.

Rembrandt, The Supper at Emmaus, c. 1654
(Print, Metropolitan Museum of Art)

The 1648 version is one of the best of the lot, suffused as it is with serenity. The waiter has a contemporary look. This, the most famous of Rembrandt's efforts on the topic, has the second disciple kneeling at Jesus' feet and the white tablecloth serving as a partial overlay to a more extensive tablecloth.

Rembrandt, The Supper at Emmaus, 1648
(Musée du Louvre)

The 1649 version is very dramatic with a radiant light source emanating from Jesus himself. The limited color palette ensured that the viewer focused on the narrative and emotional resonance rather than color schemes.

Rembrandt, The Supper at Emmaus, 1649
(Fitzwilliam Museum)

Pontorno

This painting utilizes the chiaroscuoro effect and a high light source for visual impact. A beam of light illuminating Jesus' face indicates the moment of the revelation. 

This piece was inspired by Dürer's treatment (discussed later) and was originally commissioned by prior Leonardo Buonafede of the Charterhouse in Certosa del Galluzzo for placement in its guest quarters. In addition to Jesus and the Disciples, the monks of the Charterhouse are seen emerging from the dark background to bear witness to the event. It is thought that the figure to the right of Jesus is the Prior.

Pontorno, Supper at Emmaus, 1525
(Uffizi)

Rubens

Typical full-figured Rubens bodies. Open architecture and background landscape lends an Italianate look to the painting. This was acquired for Felipe IV at the 1640 auction of Rubens' belongings.

Peter Paul Rubens, The Supper at Emmaus, c. 1638
(Prado)

Albrecht Durer

Durer's Emmaus print was one of 36 woodcuts which comprised a series called Small Passions. By far the most flamboyant portrayal of Cleopas who is dressed as a Renaissance traveler. As in the case of Rembrandt's 1649 effort, Jesus is backlit but not so much as to provide the contra-jure effect that is present in the same painter's 1628 effort. Other persons are inserted into the background, a la Pontorno, and Dürer's monogram is visible on the side of the bench facing the viewer.

Albrecht Dürer, Supper at Emmaus, 1511
(National Museum of American History)

Bassano

This was an especially baffling painting for me. First, the full table seems to positioned between Jesus and the disciples; that is, they are not sitting at the sides of the table but at the end. Second, Jesus seems to be sitting uphill of the disciples. Third, the Disciple on the right is showing an unprecedented amount of skin. The dog in the picture looks like and over-sized cat and the cat looks like a rat. The knife in the still life is hanging precariously over the edge.The message is lost in the oddities of the painting.

Jacopo Bassano, The Supper at Emmaus, c. 1538
(Kimbell Art Museum)

Tintoretto

According to the museum, the basic composition of this painting conforms to High Renaissance norms:

• The scene takes place in an enclosed space parallel to the picture plane, defined by a checkered stone floor across the foreground
• Christ's place on the central axis is reiterated by the column over his head and the corner of the table
• The two groups of three figures flanking Christ are regulated by the classical system of contrasting counterbalances.

Tintoretto, The Supper at Emmaus, c. 1542
(Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest)

Francesco de Zurburán

Akin to the Velazquez piece, in terms of population paucity. Play of dark and light with the light source somewhere over the shoulder of the leftmost disciple. Orderly arrangement of the still-life components. Focus on the meal and the "men."

Francisco de Zurbarán, Dinner at Emmaus, 1639
(Museo Nacional de San Carlo)

******************************************************************************

This survey was prompted by curiosity emanating from my recent work comparing Caravaggio’s two treatments of the subject topic. Who else had treated this subject? How had they approached it?

This survey covered 16 artworks from 10 artists with Rembrandt (four), Titian (three), and Veronese (two) contributing multiple pieces to the effort. 

The core of the story is Jesus and the two disciples. Some of the efforts limited themselves to that while others extended to include patrons (Pontorno) and family portraits (Veronese).

A broad variety of approaches and techniques were employed by these leading lights of the painting world but they each succeeded in effectively communicating this simple yet powerful story.

Caravaggio's Supper at Emmaus: An examination of the 1601 and 1606 versions

Caravaggio's painting style and personal predilections have always been intriguing to me. I have written on his life in this blog and have posted many detailed analyses on individual paintings on my Facebook page. I had done one such analysis on his 1601 painting titled Supper at Emmaus and was slightly taken aback to see another version of that painting at the exhibition titled Caravaggio which was recently held at Rome's Palazzo Barberini. I explore the differences between the two representations in this post.

The backstory remains the same. Two of Jesus' disciples were walking to Emmaus and are joined by a third traveler. This traveler is Jesus but he remains unrecognized until he reveals himself to the disciples while they are having dinner at an Inn in the town of Emmaus. Both paintings attempt to capture this moment in time.

According to the National Gallery, the 1601 effort was "painted at the height of Caravaggio's fame," was recorded at the Villa Borghese (Rome) in 1650 (likely having been in the collection of Cardinal Scipione Borghese, who died in 1633), and listed in a Borghese inventory of 1693.

The museum sees the painting as "among his most impressive domestic religious pictures." The symbolism associated with the painting is illustrated below.

The 1606 rendition was painted after Caravaggio's flight from Rome to Naples to escape the consequences of murdering Ranuccio Tomassoni. The painting appears in the inventory of Palazzo Patrizi in 1624 (valued at 300 scudi). It was acquired by Pinocoteca Brera in 1939 and resides there to this day.

The technique, approach, representations, light, and color have all been toned down, according to godwhospeaks.uk, because of:

• The ascetic influence of his patron Cardinal Mattei
• A now-precarious existence (and the mental weight that came along with that)
• Having to paint without a studio or sufficient material.

The main differences between the two paintings are captured in the annotated 1606 representation presented below.

One source sees the Milan (1606) Emmaus as a "sad picture, drained of the dynamism of the earlier version." The London Emmaus is seen as bold, with powerful protagonists and a deliberately forceful impact. The Milan Emmaus, on the other hand, was viewed as more withdrawn, with figures no longer bursting out of the canvas.

In my view, the 1606 version is a clear reflection of where Caravaggio was in his life. The worry lines on the forheads of the Innkeeper and his wife(?) are pretty telling and that sense of worry and doom and gloom pervades the face of Jesus and the overall environment. If the 1601 version was painted at the peak of Caravaggio's career (as per the National Gallery), then the Milan version was painted at the low mental point of his life.