This work belonged to the collection of Caterina Marcenaro, who was responsible for its restoration in 1967, and entered the Cariplo Collection in 1976 under the terms of her bequest. While the Genoese scholar attributed it to Francisco Zurbarán, Federico Zeri identified it during the operations connected with the transfer of the collection’s ownership as the work of Pasquale Ottino, a Veronese artist active primarily in his hometown in the late 16th century and the first few decades of the 17th.

The attribution of the canvas to Ottino is plausible. The Veronese school maintained its autonomy with respect to the Venetian, favouring a moderate form of naturalism that shows the influence of nearby Lombardy. Having trained in the workshop of Felice Brusasorci, Ottino found new stimuli in Bolognese circles and especially in the art of Alessandro Tiarini, as noted by Raffaella Colace in her description of the painting in the catalogue of the Cariplo Collection. Still more significance attaches for our reading of the work to the artist’s stay in Rome, which presumably took place in the years between 1615 and 1620. Direct acquaintance with the works of Caravaggio and Lanfranco had a marked impact on the style of Ottino, who became a convert to what Roberto Longhi termed “grandiose academic Caravaggism”.

This interpretation of what he learned in Rome distinguishes the mature production of Pasquale Ottino, including both the Raising of Lazarus in the Borghese Gallery and the great altarpieces in the area of Verona (the parish church of Oppeano and San Giorgio in Braida). The Cariplo Saint Francis belongs to his mature period. While the naturalism of the face and above all the hands shows the influence of Caravaggesque models, the plump, curly-haired angel confirmation the artist’s familiarity with the classical prototypes of the Emilia school.

Here too, Marcenaro’s original attribution of the work to Zurbarán, though incorrect, proves to hold an element of truth in that this constant interweaving of realism and classicism constitutes a recurrent feature of 17th-century Spanish art. In any case, the attribution of the work to Pasquale Ottino seems wholly credible and it should be possible to dispense with the doubts and misgivings expressed by Colace, who suggested at the end of her analysis, and after initially giving the impression that she accepted Zeri’s views, that the painting could be regarded as the product of a Spanish workshop.

The iconography is somewhat uncommon. The reference is to the episode that took place in the monastery of Vicalvi near Sora, where Saint Francis, still uncertain whether to enter the priesthood, was visited by an angel with a vial of crystal-clear water and told that the soul of a priest should be equally pure, whereupon he abandoned the idea. The image can be read in two different ways. On the one hand, it emphasises the humility of the saint, who did not think himself worthy of the priesthood. On the other, it stresses the need for a priest to be irreproachable, a conception put forward by Catholic doctrine in the era of the Counter Reformation. It is therefore possible that the work was commissioned as an object both of devotion and of admonition by a priest or a religious community. This reading is borne out by the presence of a depiction of the episode in the sacristy of the Basilica of Santa Maria degli Angeli in Assisi, a reminder of the duties of priesthood to those preparing to celebrate Mass.