Evaluating a Cumaean Sibyl: Domenichino or later? A multi analytical approach Original Research Article

The purpose of this study is to clarify important details about a Cumaean Sibyl painting that is preserved in a private collection. This work, bearing neither signature nor date, has never undergone conservation. It was executed after Domenichinoʹs Cumaean Sibyl, a work known to have been used as a model by many 18th century painters. Investigation of the anonymous artistʹs painting technique and identification of its constituent materials were facilitated by employing optical microscopy (OM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM/EDS), FTIR and microRaman spectroscopies and high performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection (HPLC-DAD). The painterʹs palette comprised lead white, yellow ochre, lead-antimonate yellow (Naples yellow), cinnabar, cochineal lake, madder lake, haematite, Prussian blue and carbon black. The detection of Prussian blue (synthesized in 1704 and widely used as artistʹs pigment after 1750) was decisive in establishing the workʹs authenticity for, as such, it cannot be attributed either to Domenico Zampieri (1581–1641) or to his apprentices. In addition, the identification of Naples yellow, which prevailed in the period from 1750 to 1850, supports this statement. Nevertheless, its elaborate painting technique strongly suggests an artist greatly influenced by the Renaissance masters. A comparison of its stylistic features with those of the Cumaean Sibyl of Angelica Kauffmann (1741–1807), a prolific 18th century artist known to have studied and to have copied Domenichinoʹs Sibyl, reveals significant similarities between the two in composition and palette. The unsigned Sibyl, therefore, could well be by Kauffmann.