# Death of the Virgin is completed for a Carmelite church, then rejected; Rubens later advises the Gonzaga purchase Date: 1606 ## The fact Britannica and later museum lives print the Death of the Virgin as a completed 1605–06 altar for Santa Maria della Scala, refused by the Carmelites, then bought for Mantua on [Peter Paul Rubens](/people/peter-paul-rubens)’s advice in 1607. Rubens’s viewing is the sourced directional link to a neighbouring Person, not a claim that Rubens painted it. It is one event. ## Context Rejection is religious-decorum polarisation of medium confidence; the stored driver is educational because the canvas entered a Gonzaga collection and later public hanging. Do not invent a unique Carmelite statute. [Caravaggio](/people/caravaggio)’s documented role is bounded by other offices and collaborators named in the sources below. Sharing a field with them is not a reason to drop a documented act, and it is not a reason to assign later consequences done in the name after death. Lived 1571–1610. Patrons, chapel rectors, the Order of St John, and later museum pages share the file. Legal incidents are stored as documented process, not as later legend. Ranuccio Tomassoni is not affiliated_with. Complex contribution is required except where the killing is direct. Named person as heading of the dated public instrument. Later editors, museums, printers, or offices share publication. Complex where later carriers are the surviving public file. ## Evidence and sources Britannica and National Gallery independently describe the Death of the Virgin’s commission, refusal, and Gonzaga purchase neighbourhood. Official or archival record: Britannica — Caravaggio (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Caravaggio; Encyclopaedia Britannica). ## Significance A completed altar of the Virgin’s death that became a collected teaching picture is a knowledge path. Rubens’s advice is evidence of directional influence, not a twin Fact on his page copied here. ## What is established and what is not Established: 1606 picture and subsequent refusal/sale in the public file. Not established: unique later-Louvre coefficients as his act. What would change the picture: a contradictory original with a different date or name, or a measured series that can be argued, with lag and alternatives, as a consequence of this instrument rather than of later institutions. The date is the date of this instrument, not a licence to back-date every later harm or benefit. Established here: a sourced, dated public instrument with a named contribution by Caravaggio. They are not a public rating. Caravaggio did not file a later UNESCO form, a later Loeb colophon, or a later museum label as a personal act. A portrait or conventional bust is not this mechanism. Allegation, reconstruction, and established occurrence stay distinct. Keep the carrier date of later English distinct from the received historical year stored in the date field. Do not read a later English edition as a recovered autograph of Caravaggio. ## People - Caravaggio: https://factrail.ai/people/caravaggio ## Drivers - Digital Learning Access: https://factrail.ai/drivers/edu-digital-learning-access ## Sources - https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/artists/michelangelo-merisi-da-caravaggio - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Caravaggio ## Methodology https://factrail.ai/methodology Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/cv-death-virgin-1606