View of the Grand Canal Santa Maria della Salute and the Dogana from Campo Santa Maria Zobenigo

The View of the Grand Canal is among the most significant achievements of Bernardo Bellotto’s early artistic career and his most ambitious painting to date.¹ With prodigious skill and considerable diligence, the twenty- to twenty-one-year-old realized the airy atmosphere, grainy, weather-stained architecture, and dramatic plays of light and dark. Like its former pendant depicting Piazza San Marco now in the Cleveland Museum of Art(fig. 1) , the work’s grand scale and apparent ease of execution proclaimed Bellotto’s considerable youthful talent.²

Fig. 1. Bernado Bellotto (Italian, 1722–1780), The Piazza San Marco looking South-West, Venice, 1742-43. Oil on canvas, 136.2 x 232.5 cm. Cleveland, The Cleveland Museum of Art, Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Fund, 1962.169

fullscreen

Bellotto achieved an unnaturally wide space by manipulating the perspective and sightlines. His aspect, roughly equivalent to the traghetto (ferry crossing) of Campo Santa Maria del Zobenigo (also known as Santa Maria del Giglio), embraces two slightly different viewpoints. One looks east to the Grand Canal entrance and Dogana (or Customs House) with the busy Bacino di San Marco and Riva degli Schiavoni in the distance, in front of which is a large man-o’-war ship; the other looks south to the Seminario Patriarcale and the churches of San Gregorio and Santa Maria della Salute, bathed in intense illumination. Next to the copper globe crowning the Dogana with the statue of Fortuna di Mare (Bernardo Falconi, 1678), the painter included the bell tower and dome of Andrea Palladio’s distant San Giorgio Maggiore, even though this roof would have been almost invisible from such a viewpoint. These various buildings would have provided introductory sights to tourists arriving at the city. Here, however, we see the landmarks in reverse, from the vantage of someone either departing or anticipating visitors.³

As in other versions of the same prospect, light falls from the right and shadows indicate an afternoon sun. Bellotto’s careful orchestration of shade gives a sense of the Salute’s substantial volume, notably its various projecting components. The scrolls, for example, are painstakingly highlighted, while the adjacent campanile casts a strong silhouette on the smaller dome, bending along with the architectural curvature. Fitting for this important monument of Venetian history, Bellotto marginally elongated the Salute, raising the steps and stretching the top half of the building.⁴ He also used thick deposits of paint to form the church’s statues.⁵ In his rendering of Palazzo Pisani-Gritti (left), Bellotto especially paraded his virtuosity, taking obvious delight in rendering the flecked panes of bullseye glass and half-faded decorative frieze. (The building’s indecipherable grey cartouches were never meant to be legible, although the top line begins with ’D’.) As a witty embellishment, a figure leans wearily against the palazzo doorframe in resignation from the day. This adds a somber mood inapparent in Canaletto’s sunnier rendition of the same subject, now in the Fitzwilliam Museum (and listed below), a difference somewhat characteristic of the two artists’ distinctive approaches to identical themes.

Bernardo Bellotto was born on 20 May 1722 to Fiorenza Domenica Canal, the eldest of Canaletto’s three sisters.⁶ While still in his early teens, he began an artistic training with Canaletto, his uncle, beginning to draw and paint Venetian vedute in close emulation of his uncle’s style.⁷ His earliest extant work may be a drawing dated c.1736 on the verso of two letters from Venice by Bernardo and his brother, Michiel, to their father.⁸ At sixteen years old, in 1738, Bellotto was recorded in the Fraglia dei Pittori, the Venetian painters’ guild.⁹ Some of his earliest known paintings date to around the same moment: The Entrance to the Grand Canal, looking West, with Santa Maria della Salute (with Cocoon Art, Milan, in 2010) and its former pendant, The Rialto Bridge from the North (sale, Sotheby’s, New York, January 24, 2008, lot. 114).¹⁰ These are the only Venetian views firmly attributed to the artist in a contemporary document initially composed in 1739.¹¹ Bellotto based these views on two of Canaletto’s most celebrated prospects of the Grand Canal from the 1720s, well-known through Antonio Visentini’s engravings after the original paintings.¹² Bellotto’s The Grand Canal from the Palazzo Foscari towards Santa Maria della Carità (Nationalmuseum, Stockholm), dated to 1740, demonstrates how the young apprentice was already redeveloping his uncle’s models at a very early stage. Characteristically, Bellotto’s version is considerably larger than Canaletto’s prototype.

In c.1739, at an equivalent moment, Bellotto produced at least fifteen canvases for Henry Howard, 4^th Earl of Carlisle, part of a large series of Venetian views intended for the North Yorkshire residence, Castle Howard.¹³ This was a significant commission; however, it is likely that Bellotto was not yet recognized as a distinct entity separate to Canaletto and his studio, which may explain the dearth of documentary evidence during this period. The young artist even signed himself “detto Canal.”¹⁴ Another important transaction features in the accounts of Johann Matthias von der Schulenberg, an important collector living in Venice, for whom four views were purchased in November 1740 as executed by “the nephew of Canaletto” (most probably Bernardo Bellotto and not his brother, the fifteen-year-old Pietro), “two of S. Marco and two of the Arsenal.”¹⁵ Revealing of Bellotto’s status at that moment, the price paid was 9 zecchini (not a large sum).

In spring of 1742 Bellotto travelled to Rome via Florence and Lucca “on the advice of his uncle,” producing a variety of drawings and paintings after well-known sights and ruins.¹⁶ In the wake of this return, Bellotto entered a particularly productive period, growing in artistic independence. This was a pivotal moment for the young artist and important also for the dating of the Getty painting. He exhibited a number of views in Venice in 1743, and in 1744 he travelled to Lombardy, then Turin and Verona.¹⁷ Canaletto left for England in 1746, and Bellotto departed Italy for Dresden after April 5, 1747. He stayed eleven years, painting for the Elector, King Frederick Augustus II of Poland, and finding success among other important patrons, before moving to Vienna, Munich, Dresden (again), and finally Warsaw, where he died on November 17, 1780.

In a contemporary biography of the painter published in 1753, Pellegrino Antonio Orlandi famously wrote, “great understanding is required to distinguish [the paintings of Bellotto] from those of his uncle.”¹⁸ His statement enabled the traditional art historical assumption, persisting well into the twentieth century, that patrons of the early 1740s were frequently unable to identify the younger artist’s personal productions. It is important to note, however, that Orlandi sought to praise, and not to undermine. Although our connoisseurly “understanding” of Bellotto’s Venetian period has faded, the original collectors more often probably possessed the requisite capacities for discernment.¹⁹ Consequently, the historical confusion between Bellotto and his uncle, in both nomenclature and painterly style, warrants closer attention in view of the history of the Getty painting.

Attribution and dating

Like many works now assigned to the young Bellotto, the painting traditionally carried an attribution to Canaletto. The Earls of Craven owned View of the Grand Canal and its pendant of Piazza San Marco from at least the early nineteenth century, and the work was seldomly exhibited in public, remaining relatively unexamined. By the middle of the 1990s, after the painting’s acquisition by the Getty Museum, a new sensitivity to Bellotto’s personal style encouraged a reconsideration of its attribution. Scholars detected, among other elements, Bellotto’s cool luminosity, attention to realistic features like masonry erosion, and signature diagonal striations in skies.²⁰ Indeed, Bozena Anna Kowalczyk believes that the Getty painting is wholly from Bellotto’s own hand, with no sign of any assistance.²¹

In addition to stylistic considerations, we might date the Getty painting to c.1743 based on a particular architectural detail apparently just visible in its pendant piece at Cleveland which depicts the Piazza San Marco. Bellotto must have executed this accompanying work shortly after Antonio Gai’s bronze gates were added to the loggetta of the campanile in 1742.²² Interestingly, technical study has revealed an earlier, abandoned attempt to produce the Getty painting, whose architectural outlines are clearly conspicuous in an x-radiograph of the Cleveland work.²³ In this aborted version, Bellotto may have mistakenly enlarged the Palazzo Pisani-Gritti; he also seems to have situated the Salute nearer to the right edge of the canvas, whereas all other principal versions place the Salute closer to the center of the composition.²⁴ Possibly Bellotto struggled with the canvas’ substantial size (intended to fill a large space presumably at the stipulation of a specific commission), resolving to return to the subject after concentrating on the companion piece c.1742-43. However, the evidence of such a mistake may signal that this failed execution, and by extension the corrected work as well, represents an early stage in Bellotto’s painting of this particular Salute view. In light of the number of versions he painted himself (at least four or five), it seems less likely that the Getty painting, apparently the revision of an initial error, would represent a later, experienced version of the prospect, even if the scale had presented challenges. Why, otherwise, would he have initially so misplaced the church? For this reason, the Getty work could indeed be a – if not the – principal type.

Bellotto likely also executed the Getty painting at a similar time to another work: his accomplished, densely atmospheric drawing of the same view (fig. 2), customarily dated soon after the beginning of the 1740s.²⁵ In vessels, staffage, lighting and architectural detail, the drawing and painting are so similar that they appear to be directly related – the one likely derives from the other, but in a sequence presently unconfirmed.

Fig. 2. Bernado Bellotto (Italian, 1722–1780), The Grand Canal with the Church of S. Maria Salute from the Campo S. Maria Zobenigo in the direction of the Bacino San Marco [Der Canal Grande mit der Kirche S. Maria Salute vom Campo S. Maria Zobenigo in Richtung Bacino di San Marco], c.1740. Pen and brown-tinted ink, 23 x 38 cm. Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum, inv. AE 2243

fullscreen

The drawing forms part of a bequest of works on paper from Bellotto’s Venetian period from the artist’s direct descendants to the Hessisches Landesmuseum in Darmstadt.²⁶ Combined with the visual closeness between the works, this ancestral provenance would further support the Getty painting’s re-attribution to Bellotto. In style, the drawing seems related to Bellotto’s other more individualized, more distinctive renditions of Canaletto’s synthetic vedute (constructed from a fictive standpoint, allowing the spectator to see more than humanly possible) in the same bequest. These drawings already show remarkable independence in handling – especially in their atmospheric effects – and generally seem related to Canaletto’s prior sketches only by analogy.²⁷ Interestingly, however, no precedent sketch by Canaletto survives for this particular view, which is evidently also one of the most accomplished works in the bequest.²⁸

Scholarly opinion on the Getty painting and related versions has shifted dramatically in the last few decades, and it will be interesting to briefly recount the history of these attributional fluctuations. The first edition of W. G. Constable’s catalogue raisonné on Canaletto of 1962 listed the work as the prime version by Canaletto, dating it to the early 1730s and recording a string of related workshop versions, none of which Constable explicitly linked to Bellotto.²⁹ By the time of the supplemented second edition of 1989, revised by J. G. Links, the opinion of Jack Goodison of the Fitzwilliam Museum had been appended (“listed by Constable… as by Canaletto but more probably workshop”).³⁰ Constable had seemingly never hesitated about the attribution to Canaletto, and Links, who possessed Constable’s photograph after the work (the reverse of which bore the unambiguous one-word attribution “Canaletto”), appeared initially unprepared to concede to growing uncertainties about the attribution towards the end of the twentieth century.³¹ Few paintings were then allocated to Bellotto’s Venetian period. Stefan Kozakiewicz, the author of the first catalogue raisonné on the artist, accepted only six Venetian works as definitively by the artist, two of which were versions of the Getty painting (but not the Getty painting itself).³² Since the 1990s, however, Dario Succi, Bozena Kowalczyk, and latterly Charles Beddington, have attributed many more paintings to Bellotto’s early Venetian period, the Getty painting being one of the earlier reattributions.³³

Versions

Although there is now a scholarly consensus on the attribution of the Getty painting to Bellotto, an important aspect of the canvas is its relationship to the pool of other works depicting the same view. Luca Carlevarijs first established the specific prospect of the Salute used by Bellotto in his famous 1703-04 print series, the plate entitled “Altra veduta della Chiesa della Salute,” with Canaletto later enlarging the view for a c.1734 drawing (fig. 3-4).³⁴ Subsequent painted reconfigurations used the Palazzo Pisani-Gritti as a framing device, of which there are no less than twenty-three known painted versions, derivations, and copies; the Getty painting is easily the largest.

fullscreen

fullscreen

Of these many executions, there are at least five extant high quality, principal types, differing from each other in the placement of figures, vessels, and the surfaces and proportions of buildings, four of which are currently thought to be from Bellotto’s hand. Canaletto’s single surviving painted version is distinct in coloring, light, architectural erosion and figure formation. (In a difference revealing of the variation in the two artists’ commitment to realistic detail, Canaletto omitted the metal bars running diagonally through each window casement in the left-hand palazzo which in the Getty Bellotto is so painstakingly rendered.) Painters clearly often produced this view as part of a pendant. Many of the paintings are or were coupled with another Venetian scene, frequently either of Piazza San Marco or another stretch of the Grand Canal. The Palazzo Pisani-Gritti’s strong left-hand vertical lent itself to such a paired orchestration. These principal types in turn relate to various sub-versions and copies (for a list of the known versions, please see appendix below). (Fig. 5-6)

fullscreen

fullscreen

Currently, there is no consensus about the sequence in which the two artists produced their principal versions.³⁵ While Beddington argues that Bellotto’s drawing preceded his paintings, Kowalczyk asserts that the Fitzwilliam Museum version is the painter’s chief rendering and the Darmstadt drawing is a record of the Getty painting.³⁶ Whether or not Bellotto relied on an pre-existing painted precedent in Canaletto’s oeuvre – which remains to be proven – many of the younger artist’s Venetian views around this c.1742-43 period should be considered not as copies, but rather like highly conscious, individualized reinterpretations of his teacher’s oeuvre.³⁷ The Canaletto painting in the Fitzwilliam Museum is not necessarily a prior, prototypical execution but more a parallel accomplishment; indeed, Canaletto’s painting may even postdate Bellotto’s work in the same collection.³⁸ In fact, some scholars draw attention to the apparent transformation of Canaletto’s style – more “wintery” and analytical – precisely during the period Bellotto was in his studio (1738-42), suggesting the lines of influence between the two artists were more reciprocal than we might assume.³⁹

Provenance

Revealing of this reciprocity, certain details of the Getty painting’s early provenance indicate that the original purchaser, possibly the Craven family, acquired it as a work by Canaletto. Indeed, the connection between the Getty painting and the Earls of Craven may well stretch to the mid-eighteenth century, if not the time of its execution, depending on the interpretation of a comment by Sir George Scharf (1820-1895), a prominent British art critic and director of the National Portrait Gallery. Seeing this painting at an 1857 exhibition (there attributed to Canaletto) Scharf wrote, “Lord Craven [William, 2^nd Earl of Craven (1809-1866)] still holds the painter’s receipt for two of the Venetian scenes (826 and 827) given to his ancestor.”⁴⁰ There is no reason to disbelieve Scharf, usually a reliable source. We know that he likely had contact with the family, having visited Combe Abbey in 1853 in order to record his impressions of the collection, adding enthusiastic praise for the Venetian pendant.⁴¹ The abbey, previously a Cistercian monastery, was the principal residence of the Earls, home to many of the family’s most treasured artworks, like two other painting today also in the Getty Museum: Jan Lievens, Prince Charles Louis of the Palatinate with his Tutor Wolrad von Plessen in Historical Dress, 1631 (71.PA.53) and Workshop of Rembrandt, A Young Scholar and his Tutor, c.1629-30 (84.PA.570). On the same 1853 visit Scharf conceivably viewed the “painter’s receipt” with the earl incumbent, for whom it was evidently a treasured document.

Scharf’s statement would suggest that an unnamed Craven forebear either acquired the pendant from Canaletto or through an intermediary, or subsequently received it at some unspecified time accompanied by the receipt. The transaction presumably took place between the painting’s execution c.1743 and the succession of the then-present Earl on the death of his father, William, 1^st Earl of Craven (1770-1825). However, Scharf’s use of “ancestor” seems to imply a more historical (and possibly also a more indirect) forebear.⁴² If the acquisition had occurred during Canaletto’s lifetime, the most likely recipient – assuming the painting was acquired by the head of the family – was Fulwar, 4^th Baron Craven (1700/04-1764), living three generations before, with the purchase taking place after his succession to the barony in 1739.

It has been claimed that the painting was not in Combe Abbey, Warwickshire, and hence probably also not in the Cravens’ possession, until after at least 1814, the date of a description of the household contents in which the pendant does not feature.⁴³ The paintings are certainly missing from the Combe Abbey inventory of 1769.⁴⁴ Horace Walpole does not list them in his visit to the house in 1768, neither does Thomas Pennant in his detailed review of the art collection published in 1783.⁴⁵ But the author of the 1814 description records only a small proportion of the works, evident from a comparison against Pennant’s more thorough account. It is therefore possible that the pendant was hanging at Combe Abbey in 1814 or earlier, but most likely not before 1784.

If, interpreting Scharf’s annotation thus, the paintings were in the Cravens’ possession prior to their first documentation at Combe Abbey, they may have adorned the walls of another family residence. The Cravens owned several substantial properties beside the principal Warwickshire residence. Fulwar, the 4^th Baron cited earlier, spent time on the family’s Berkshire estates at Ashdown House (also known as Ashdown Park, in present-day Oxfordshire), old Benham Park (called Benham Valence), and Hamstead Marshall, where he was eventually buried. The Cravens also owned 16 Charles St off Berkeley Square, London, from at least the first decades of the nineteenth century, if not even earlier.⁴⁶ Interestingly, a label previously affixed to the Getty painting’s reverse indicates that it was in this property; it reads, “The Earl of Craven. 16 Berkley [sic] Square”, in a c.1800 hand.⁴⁷ As we can trace the movements of the painting from the mid-nineteenth century onwards with reasonable confidence, it is even more probable that the label records the work’s location at some point before 1853.

We may hypothesize that the painting and its pendant were received and hung at this London address at some point prior to their transferal to Combe Abbey. The pair of Venetian views could have moved to Combe Abbey by 1833, when the companion piece appears in an exhibition as the property of the Earl of Craven.⁴⁸ We cannot, however, securely establish whether the Getty painting was identical with the “Canaletto 126 View in Venice. Earl of Craven” displayed in Birmingham two years prior, in 1831, a reference often associated with the Salute view.⁴⁹ By this point the Cravens possibly already possessed a third Venetian work attributed to Canaletto, the “Rialto at Venice” subsequently inventoried at Combe Abbey in 1866.⁵⁰ The reference in the 1831 exhibition catalogue may therefore refer to this other Venetian work. Both the companion piece of Piazza San Marco and a view entitled “Grand Canal, Venice” (probably the Getty painting) subsequently feature in another exhibition at the same Birmingham Society of Arts in 1842 as the property of the Earl of Craven, attributed to Canaletto.⁵¹ With more confidence, however, we can place the pendant in Combe Abbey by 1853, the year of Scharf’s visit; and, in view of the receipt, we should assume that both paintings were acquired together before the companion piece’s first appearance in the 1831 exhibition – most likely decades earlier.⁵²

To summarize, the pendant came into the Craven collection along with a painter’s receipt between c.1743 and 1831, probably even between c.1743 and c.1800, or whenever the label was added to the reverse. The pair of paintings hung in 16 Charles St and were transferred to Combe Abbey before 1853 – conceivably even before 1831 – hanging in the Brown Drawing Room by 1853. They remained at Combe Abbey until the twentieth century, photographed in 1909 hanging high up above a series of large fireplaces in what was then the library, after which point they were transferred to another Craven residence, Hamstead Marshall, where they remained until their sale in 1961.⁵³

Canaletto and Bellotto

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Scharf’s annotation, however, is the logical assumption that the written “receipt” ascribed the pendant to Canaletto. If the document specified that the paintings had originated from Bellotto, Scharf, who had probably viewed the receipt, would surely have regarded them as his works. Indeed, there are several other cases from c.1740 where a foreign collector evidently knowingly purchased from the younger artist.⁵⁴ The receipt’s ascription to Canaletto is not a problem for the painting’s attribution to Bellotto today, rather it may help our understanding of the complicated working relationship between the two artists in the early 1740s.

The young Bellotto has only in recent years begun to emerge as a distinct stylistic presence from his uncle’s shadow.⁵⁵ Bellotto’s early “improved renditions” of Canaletto’s most popular compositions probably often sold as his uncle’s autograph work.⁵⁶ The fact that Bellotto named himself after Canaletto obviously heightened the productive ambiguity, allowing the nephew’s works to pass as the uncle’s with even greater ease. As we have seen, however, Bellotto evidently also received his own commissions at this date.⁵⁷ Working under the appellation of either “Bellotto” or “Canaletto” would presumably depend on the requirements of a specific commission.⁵⁸ It remains to be determined whether, during these younger years, Bellotto’s nominal ownership over a commission significantly altered his painterly approach or style.

Evidently, Bellotto’s approximation of Canaletto’s style supplied him with patrons and professional advantages at an impressively early age, but there is a sense that, at the beginning of the 1740s, Bellotto was already far more than a student. Indeed, evidence suggests that his precocious talent caused his uncle some consternation.⁵⁹ Perhaps it is no coincidence that during this precise time (1742-44) Canaletto began adding signatures to several of his works – then a new practice for him.⁶⁰ This is why the Getty painting, a work so much larger than Canaletto’s version of the same view, is such a notable product of Bellotto’s early career; for it shows, “the first real signs of a prominent future as a great artist”.⁶¹ Here we witness the young apprentice striving to rework his teacher’s practice and, in some ways, even to surpass it.

• Niko Munz, J. Paul Getty Museum, Department of Paintings
  July 2022

Appendix: list of known versions

Here below, the known versions, all oil on canvas, are listed in no particular order. The more minor versions and copies appear indented under the principal type to which they chiefly correspond.

• Canaletto, View of the Grand Canal (Fitzwilliam Museum, no. PD.106-1992; ex-Leggatt; ex-Heber-Percy (by whom sold, Christie’s, London, 25 June, 1971, lot. 24; 56 x 102 cm). (fig. 5)⁶²

• Bernardo Bellotto, View at the Entrance of the Grand Canal (Fitzwilliam Museum, no. 186; 59.4 x 94.6 cm).⁶³

  • After Bellotto, sale, Leslie Hindman Auctioneers, Chicago, October 16, 1988, lot. 324 (57 x 95.5 cm; ex-Cincinnati Art Museum, no. 1946.108; ex-Hanna; ex-Abram; ex-Seeley (by whom sold Christie’s, London, 22 June, 1928, lot. 173); a note on the reverse reads, “ptd for John Duke of Rutland” [presumably John Manners, 3^rd Duke of Rutland (1696-1779)]). (fig. 6)⁶⁴

  • After Bernardo Bellotto, National Gallery of Ireland, no. 705 (59 x 96 cm).

  • Follower of Bernardo Bellotto, sale, Christie’s, London, 29 October, 2014, lot. 212 (76.8 x 127.5 cm; sale Christie’s London, 13 July, 1951, lot. 165).

  • “Manner of William James, 20^th century,” sale, Bonham’s, London, 28 October, 2009, lot. 228 (58.5 x 97).

  • After Bernardo Bellotto, sale, Sotheby’s, New York, January 29-30, 2016, lot. 646 (58.5 x 97 cm; formerly attributed to William James; sale, Sotheby’s, New York, October 14, 1992, lot. 128).

• Bernardo Bellotto, Santa Maria del Salute, c.1743 (private collection / care of Richard Green 2010; 72 x 96.5 cm; sale, Christie’s, London, 11 January, 1995, lot. 25; ex-Stewart collection).⁶⁵

  • Bernardo Bellotto (?), sale, im Kinsky, Vienna, 24 June, 2014, lot. 524 (63.1 x 98.5 cm; ex-Hirsch collection in 1925).⁶⁶

• Bernardo Bellotto, View of the Grand Canal: Santa Maria della Salute and the Dogana from Campo Santa Maria Zobenigo, c.1743 (Getty Museum, 91.PA.73; 139.1 x 236.9 cm) / Bernardo Bellotto, Grand Canal with Santa Maria della Salute from Campo Santa Maria Zobenigo in the direction of Bacino San Marco, c.1743 (Hessisches Landesmuseum Darmstadt, no. AE 2243; 23 x 38 cm).⁶⁷

  • After Bernardo Bellotto, Ca’ Rezzonico / Museo Correr, Venice (51 x 71 cm).⁶⁸

• “Bernardo Bellotto”, sale, Sotheby’s, London, 14 December, 2000, lot. 90 (as pair) (47.3 x 73.7 cm; previously with P. & D. Colnaghi).⁶⁹

There are at least eleven other derivations of the same view. These are either less directly connected with the principal types in terms of compositional detail, or the lack of a reproduction has prevented their comparison:

• Attributed to the Lyon Master, c.1743-44, art market, London [in 2005] (47.3 x 73.5 cm).⁷⁰

• Pietro Bellotti, c.1743-44, private collection, Canada [in 2010] (56.5 x 84 cm).⁷¹

• Galleria Estense, Modena [in 1972] (43.5 x 70.5 cm).⁷²

• Munich, private collection [in 1972] (dimensions unknown).⁷³

• “Venetian School c.1720 (workshop of Michele Marieschi)”, sale, Hôtel Drouot, Paris, 2 December, 1994, lot. 107 (62 x 97.5 cm; possibly equivalent with the painting listed immediately below sold at Hôtel Drouot; presumably ex-Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples).⁷⁴

• Sale, Hôtel Drouot, Paris, 9 March, 1854, lot 159 (60 x 96 cm).

• Sale, Mak van Waay, Amsterdam, 12 May, 1936, lot. 3 (53 x 80 cm).⁷⁵

• “After Canaletto”, sale, Sotheby’s, London, 14 December, 1977, lot. 294 (79 x 130 cm).

• Baron Ash collection, Wingfield Castle, Suffolk [in 1961] (dimensions unknown).⁷⁶

• Sale, Hôtel Drouot, Paris, Spiridon Sale, 27 May, 1911, lot. 12 (38 x 62 cm; including more buildings to the right).⁷⁷

• Private collection, Sussex (dimensions unknown; apparently close to the previously cited painting in the Spiridon Sale).⁷⁸