The question of Caravaggio’s sexuality has often been brought into modern studies of the artist and analyses of his oeuvre. Rarely, however has it been satisfactorily dealt with, and, paradoxically, as our understanding of early modern sexuality has expanded, the subject’s prominence in the literature around Caravaggio has largely vanished. For an artist as well-studied as Caravaggio, with reams of new literature produced every year, it seems inconceivable that such a central part of his life and work would be marginalized, or, more often, fully ignored. It is this imbalance this article seeks to redress.

After reviewing the historiography, including a consideration of how biases on both sides of the Atlantic have influenced scholarly discourse, this article situates the topic of Caravaggio and sexuality within historical studies of early modern sodomy, as well as more recent research on his relationship with the younger artist Cecco del Caravaggio, in order to better understand the matter of Caravaggio’s sexuality, and show how it might further our understanding of some of his lesser-considered works, including his Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto ceiling painting and his lost Saint Sebastian. A second purpose of this article is to shed light on how ideological biases can infiltrate scholarship, even that which aims for neutrality, and how the very question of ‘How does Caravaggio’s sexuality matter to our understanding of the artist?’ may be better answered not from a defensive stance, but with a simple question in return: ‘How can it not?’.