This painting, of high quality, beauty and drama, represents one of the moments in which the Virgin Mary has retreated to her room at the Cenacle after the ion, and sadly recalls the fatal destiny of her Son. That is why he is painted in the dark, with a dagger in his heart, the symbol of his pain, taking into the instruments of the torment of Jesus, such as the nails, hairshirt, crown of thorns, the dice with which the soldiers wagered for his clothes, among other things; some of them are carried by angels that accompany her. Mary's face is troubled, but maintains dignity and silence. Her clasped hands point to the fact that she is weeping or imploring, in great sorrow; this gesture is repeated in many melancholic works and is recommended by some treatise and rhetorical writers to indicate weeping. A tenuous, but clearly celestial light crosses diagonally from up high to illuminate her face and some of Jesus' belongings. Chiaroscuro, a rare technique in eighteenth century painting, is used here to give drama and solemnity to the moment.
Within the pictorial production of Jose de Ibarra (1685-1756) the type of composition, coloring and handling of the expression corresponds to his final stage, and yet the date on this work appears to be 1718. This discrepancy between what we know so far about the painter, who did not start g his work before 1726-1727, raises the need to study the signature and date more carefully.[1] A close inspection with the naked eye already revealed differences in the surface of the signature area, which could correspond to the repainting of the signature or even that it had been placed there at a later date.
Photographs taken under ultraviolet (UV) light uncovered evidence of a previous intervention involved a dilution of the original varnish made selectively to highlight areas like the face and hands, which also is more evident in the signature area and allowed for the signature to be seen more clearly. A study using X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) revealed that the signature is genuine; however, in analyzing the pigments of the signature and date it became clear that the materials with which both are written are not the same, against all logic and practice of the painters of New Spain, who used to use the same pigment in both of them.[2 ] This differentiation would corroborate the suspicion of the date, which must have been placed later with the intention of providing greater value to the image, perhaps to place it on the market.
The painting has been cut from its original frame, and extends a few centimeters behind the stretcher frame, so that the angel who bears the rod with which they scourged Christ, might be a little more complete if it were put on a new stretcher.
[1]. Mues Orts, Paula, El pintor novohispano Jose de Ibarra: imagenes retoricas y discursos pintados, Dissertation for the Doctorate in Art History, Mexico, UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, 2009.
[2]. Study by Jose Luis Ruvalcaba Sil, April 2012 pages 24-26.
