(Paris 1604–1670 Richelieu) Lucretia, oil on canvas, 113.7 x 91.7 cm, framed Provenance: Possibly commissioned by Armand-Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Duc de Richelieu (Paris 1585- 1642) for the Château de Richelieu, in around 1640 for the “Chambre Lucrèce” of the Apartment de la Reine. Possibly described and subsequently sold in the early 19th century (1835) “Lucrèce se donnant la mort“ when the Château was demolished;European private collection. We are very grateful to Dr. Sylvain Kerspern for confirming the attribution of the present painting. The painting is accompanied by an extensive report by Sylvain Kerspern. Dr. John Schloder has also endorsed the attribution. Sylvain Kersperns recent authorative work on Prévost has reestablished him as an important classicist artist of the Grand Siécle. (see P. Bassani Pacht, S. Kerspern: Le décor peint à Richelieu: l‘action,la gloire et le pinceau, in: Cimorelli, Dario [Ed.] Richelieu à Richelieu : architecture et décors d‘ un chateau disparu; exposition Musées des Beaux-Arts d‘ Orléans, 12 mars - 13 juin 2011, Milan 2011, pp. 115-128). Numerous accounts of visits to the Château de Richelieu, the magnificent palace built for the Cardinal in Poitou, recall a synonymous painting in the “Chambre Lucrèce”, a room situated in the right wing of the palace as part of the Apartment of the Queen, where it hung over one of the fireplaces. (compare for example B. Vignier, Le Chateau de Richelieu, ou l‘histoire des dieux et des héros de l‘antiquité, Desbordes, 1676, p. 79, and earlier Brackenhoffer (1644), Laurent Bouchet (between1642 and 1653) and Desmarets de Saint-Sorlin (1653). There are good reasons to believe that the present painting is the one described. (See Kersperns analysis) A fragment in Orléans has in the past been linked to that lost chimney piece, but it is today identified as one of the allegories used as over doors in the queen’s apartments. A “Lucrèce se donnant la mort” is described as having been in the Comuns of the Château as late as 1835 (see Kerspern’s analysis), whilst the Orléans fragment had already entered the Museum in 1824 .The description of 1835 gives the approximate dimensions of that lost work: “5 pieds 4 pouces de haut sur 4 pieds 8 pouces”, roughly 173 x 152 cm, similar dimensions as “Salomons Idolatry”, the chimney piece for the Salles des Gardes (oil on canvas, 184 x 170 cm, Orléans, Musée des Beaux Arts, Inv. Nr. 49.24.2), Were the present painting to be identified as the lost work from the Chambre de Lucrèce, it would have been considerably reduced in size since 1835. Vignier in 1676 describes the painting as having also featured Lucretia’s father and husband - perhaps a clue of what was shown in now possibly missing parts: even though the present painting is not of a fragmentary character, this is still a possibility. Kerspern also considers the fact that the rooms of the Queen had, according to Desmarets de Saint-Sorlin in 1653, been decorated in certain colours which also dominated the paintings intended for them as possibly indicative of the present paintings provenance. The Chambre de Porcia for example was “Azur”- the main colour of a Porcia painting from that room. The Chambre Lucrèce was decorated in vermeille, i.e. Vermillon, the brilliant red also used in the present painting. The paintings were rehung, reused and possibly altered in size even when still in the Château: a Polyxena intended as Chimney Piece in the Kings room had ended up as an overdoor in the 18th century. (compare, H.T. Goldfarb (ed.), Richelieu (1585-1642), Kunst, Macht und Politik, exhibition catalogue, Ghent 2002, p. 312). Lucretia exactly fits the pictorial program devised by the Cardinal for the rooms of the Queen: that of strong, chaste and political women (see Renate Schrodi-Grimm: Die Selbstmörderin als Tugendheldin Ein frühneuzeitliches Bildmotiv und seine Rezeptionsgeschichte, Göttingen 2009, pp. 85, 86, 144, 163, especially 251, and C. Richard-Jamet, Cléopâtre: femme forte ou femme fatale, une place équi-voque dans les galeries de femmes fortesaux XVIe et XVIIe siècles, in: Exhibition Catalogue, Cléopâtre dans le miroir del’art occidental, a.a.O., p. 37-52, p. 42). By choosing this program, which possibly included the present picture, for a large part of his palace, Richelieu very likely wanted to demonstrate the legitimacy of female regency, to which, in the form of Maria de Medici’s rule until 1631, he owed much of his powers. Stylistically, the painting fits well into Prévost’s mature oeuvre. Prévost’s stylistic development has over the last years been carefully scutinized by John Schloder and Sylvain Kerspern (compare J. Schloder, Un artiste oublié, Nicolas Prévost, peintre de Richelieu, in: Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire de l’art français, (1980), Paris 1982, S. 59-69). His later works tend to show a more classicist, simple style influenced by Jacques Stella (compare S. Kerspern: Retour sur l‘exposition Bossuet, suite: du nouveau pour Prévost et Licherie, 2008, online, also S. Kerspern, Exhibition Catalogue Bossuet, Miroir du Grand Siècle, Paris 2004, and S. Kerspern, A propos de Nicolas Prévost et Jacques Stella, Melun 2008 and 2012 (online). The Manneristic influence of Orazio Gentileschi, whom he met when Gentileschi and Prévost worked together with Vouet at the Palais du Luxembourg is still apparent (see K. Christiansen, J. Walker Mann, Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 01.01.2001, p. 209-210, for Gentileschis impact on Prévost), but Stella in the 1640s became a more important model: in fact some paintings formerly attributed to Stella were given back to Prévost recently, such as the Judith, which was with Jack Kilgore, Inc., New York, (fig 1). A Cleopatra, which was among Prévost first commissions for the Chateau and which was incorporated in the paneling, therefore of a less polished quality than other, more prominently placed works, is very interesting as a comparison to the present Lucrezia. The contrasting reds of the drapery, the whites of the flesh and the overall composition of a red draped bed and the curtain swag above are already existing elements later used in the present painting. The red, gold embroidered cloth to the left of Lucretia features a design very much comparable to the one in Prévost’s Polyxena (oil on canvas, 207 x 154 cm, Orléans, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Inv. Nr. 94.24.3), while the hairdress of the present Lucretia is exactly the same as in the kneeling servant second from the left in the Polyxena. The jewelry chain which holds Lucretia’s dress between her breasts and certain physiognomic features are almost the same as in a Thomyra. The head and the noble, almost unmoved expression of Lucretia’s face is very close to the Kilgore Judith and it appears likely that the same model was used. A very striking comparison can be seen with a Suicide of Cleopatra in a private collection, which features very comparable, detailed, almost plissée-like pleats of the dress , the same curtain swag and voluminous breasts. A engraving in Nancy of a Venus and Amour (Nancy, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Inv. no. TH.99.15.1050) shows an equally compact anatomy, with the same shortening of the robust thigh. The provenance through Richelieu should, in the light of these very comparable but later works from the 1650s, only be seen as one hypothesis, (compare Kerspern’s report). Regardless of the possible connection with Richelieu, the present painting is an important rediscovery and a very interesting addition to the artist’s oeuvre, showing him at the apogee of his career, emulating the early influences of Vouet and Gentileschi and combining them with the more classicist manner of Jacques Stella.

additional picture