This Ecce Homo, attributed by Professor Enrique Valdivieso to Bartolomé Esteban Murillo and his studio, is a magnificent example of the technique and style of the Sevillian master. Made during his midlife, in this painting you can see the mastery of Murillo as he captured with his brushstrokes the delicate muscles of the torso through the use of colour and light, creating subtle contrasts that define the figure of Christ. Playing with this contrast, the artist manages to capture brilliantly the different textures, from the softness of the skin to the roughness of the ropes that tie the wrists or the harshness of the crown of thorns. Murillo is able to capture in the canvas that moment of deep introspection and suppressed emotion in the face of Jesus. He shows the exact moment when Jesus, looking sideways and down, accepts his final fate. ORIGIN Until 1940 the work belonged to the Duchy of Seville, as proved with the analysis of the documents available in the archive of the Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España (IPCE) under the record seizure of date JTA_0006 26th July 1937 and the return record of date 28th August 1940 SRA_1110. According to the delivery receipt of the Depósito del Museo del Prado de Madrid no. 1,267 and the return record photograph no. 6,541, in August 1940 the work was delivered by the Comisión General al Servicio de Defensa del Patrimonio Artístico Nacional to the 4th Duke Consort of Seville, Francisco de Paula de Borbón y La Torre, (1882-1953), cousin of King Alfonso XIII. At present, the work belongs to a private collection in Madrid. There is evidence of at least another 8 versions of this work. Some were possibly made by the artist himself, others by Murillo with participation of his studio and others by disciples. All of them, however, were painted with a detailed studied structure. They are now in collections around the world: Huntington - New York, (USA), Gibsonia - Pennsylvania (USA), Montreal (Canada), Oldland Common (UK), Preston (UK), Richmond (UK), Havana (Cuba). This prototype of Ecce Homo is mainly known through a model that is at the Heckscher Museum of Art in Huntington (USA), attributed to a follower of Murillo and dated in 1700 by the Heckscher Museum of Art itself. They are reviewed in the catalogue raisonné of Murillo by Diego Angulo from 1983, under no. 1,531 of the catalogue. Bibliographic information on the model of Ecce Homo of the Heckscher Museum of Art of Huntington (USA) can be found in: D. Angulo, Murillo, 1981, 2nd volume, no. 1531, pp. 446 and 447, images in volume III, plate 330 and plate 562 STUDIES AND STATE OF CONSERVATION · The state of conservation is very good. The visual inspection of the work and the results of the non-destructive diagnostic techniques (NDT) confirmed its good state of conservation. It has the common problems of oil painting. Thanks to the digital ultraviolet radiation photography (UV) and x-rays it was confirmed that it has been restored. It was found that this intervention was designed to repair an important tear in the upper left corner (10 x 10 cm, approx.) and a fissure or surface cut (6 cm, approx.) in the middle, at the level of the chest. · Canvas: It uses a taffeta-style simple fabric, with a slightly irregular warp type. That was common in the Sevillian school, where fabric irregularities seem even as desirable. It is fabric of linen or other similar bast fibre (hemp, jute and ramie), surely woven by hand. The X-ray, however, provides important information about the canvas, about both the manufacture process and its state of conservation. The high resolution obtained when digitising the x-rays at the Centre de Restauració de Béns Mobles de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CRBMC), in Valldoreix, allows us to identify the thread density and uniformity or the thread pattern. The weft threads have an important thickening and irregularities while the warp ones are more homogeneous. In addition, the canvas was relined and placed on a modern wedge stretcher, with a horizontal plank. This intervention was probably carried out as a result of the poor condition of the thin canvas. It had deformations such as tension folds and tears—visible in the hi-resolution x-ray image— as well as cracks. In the process, the original dimensions of the fabric could be slightly modified (2 cm of width approximately). · Preparation coat: In the perimeter strip of the canvas, the preparation coat is hardly visible. It was dyed with polish. So, we couldn’t determine the characteristics of the colour primer or the pigments. Anyway, it seems that the preparation is not very thick given that the canvas weft shows through the colour coat in different areas. · Pictorial coat: Differences in the thickness of the pictorial material between some areas and others can be seen but in general the pictorial coat is thin. However, the macro photographs and the digital ultraviolet radiation photography (UV) show details hardly visible to the naked eye, such as minor repainting on the mantle or the chest—as a result of damage—, varnish ageing, dirt or the state of conservation state of the colour coat. Although some craquelure can be seen in different areas of the pictorial surface, as well as minor discolouration, it's in good condition and has no major conservation problems. Finally, in December 2017 CAEM concluded its last report after the latest tests made with the transmitted infrared photography technique (IRT). There it’s clarified that the work studied by CAEM is undoubtedly contemporary with Bartolomé Esteban Murillo. It’s also noted that the studied work is a painting whose Murillo original has never been identified. We know that it had to exist thanks only to the existing copies. The painting studied by CAEM is most likely the oldest. That is to say that the work studied by CAEM is most likely the closest to the lost original work or model. Back and arm outlines (used to define the figure in space) are marked with strong formal severity. It contrasts with the fact that the underlying drawing is not very detailed. This leads them to think that the work could perhaps be made copying directly an original model. This idea is reinforced by the low number of pentimenti, which are located in the joint of the right arm biceps and deltoids; the reed held by Christ as a sceptre; and the lengthening of some fingers of the right hand. And they continue arguing along this line. One of the turns of the knot tying the hands of Christ is later than the preparatory work. That is clear when comparing the IRT, where it doesn’t appear, with the IR, where its presence is clear. For them it proves that the painting was made contemplating an original. In addition to the above arguments, there is another one indicating them that the work is an adult reproduction and not a mimetic workshop replica. That is the superposition with the version of the Heckscher Museum of Art in Huntington (United States). Indeed, and despite the fact that the canvases have almost the same dimensions and that both works seem identical, if we overlap their figures we find that they don’t fit perfectly. That reinforces the idea that they were copied in a free way and not using exact replica techniques. There is a single difference between the painting of the Huntington Museum and the work studied by CAEM. That difference is the way the hair of Christ rests on his right shoulder. It’s a minor detail but enough to understand that both works were made by independent artists not using tracing methods. REPORTS This work has a report by Professor Enrique Valdivieso González, Professor Emeritus of the University of Seville. It is noted there, in reference to this painting, that it’s an oil on canvas (96 x 72 cm) where the figure of an Ecce Homo is depicted. For Professor Enrique Valdivieso this work clearly shows the characteristics of the style of Bartolomé Esteban Murillo. In his written report he also mentions that in his opinion other members of his workshop also participated in the production of the painting. Technical reports and certificates: · Study of materials made with pigment and canvas microsamples dating the work in the 17th century. · Analysis of the work through x-rays and digital infrared and ultraviolet light photographs that show the process of creation of the work and the restorations carried out. · Seizure and return reports of the work coming from the archive of the Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España (IPCE). · Expert certificate by Professor Enrique Valdivieso, author of the catalogue raisonné of Murillo. · For more information and viewing these documents, please get in touch with Ana Trigo: a.trigo@catawiki.com PERMITS AND EXPORT LICENCES · This work already has an express export permit for the member countries of the European Union issued by the Spanish Government. The buyer is responsible for obtaining the necessary permits for outside the EU. If they are not granted or there is a delay it won’t free them from paying the piece. The work is subject to the payment of export fees outside of the European Union (EU) and they will be borne by the buyer. EU countries are exempt from these fees. · No application has been made for the export authorisation for outside of the EU. It can’t be considered, therefore, as exportable in accordance with 16/85 law and its regulations. In the case of requesting the export authorisation, the seller wants to warn all potential bidders that the request will be, in the case that the Spanish State deemed appropriate to make use of its preferential right of acquisition, for all purposes an irrevocable sale offer in favour of the Spanish State for the sales value. You will have to add the auction fees to the winning bid. The buyer of the work, once it is acquired, will be responsible for all the efforts and costs that may cause its collection, shipping and insurance.