Venus is now given a more passive role. It belonged to a lawyer called Francesco Assonica, who was used professionally by Titian and is mentioned as a friend of the artist, and had other Titians. Possibly it was painted for him. It remained in Venice until the 1620s, and was sketched there by Anthony van Dyck, and probably in connection with him acquired for the collection of Charles I of England. After his execution it was bought for £165 by Colonel John Hutchinson at the sale of Charles' art in 1649. The same day Hutchinson paid £600 for Titian's Pardo Venus, or Jupiter and Antiope. In 1651/52 it was bought for £600 by David Teniers the Younger as agent for the Habsburgs, and sent to Madrid for the Spanish royal collection, where it remained before the collection was transferred to the Prado. A number of copies were made during the painting's time in England, and the Royal Collection had one by the time of Charles II of England, which is possibly the good copy they still have. The Prado's other version, Venus with an Organist and Cupid, (148 x 217 cm, Prado 421, signed "TITIANUS F.") with a Cupid rather than a dog, has been thought by some to date from 1547 to 1548, but they currently date it to c. 1555. Miguel Falomir says that recent x-ray and infra-red reflectography make it clear that this was traced from the other Prado version (though they were not re-united again in the Spanish royal collection for over a century). Titian and his studio often used tracing of the main elements to make replica versions. This too used to be thought to be Charles V and Granvelle's version from 1648, which the current dating would rule out, if correct. It has been in the Spanish royal collection since at least 1626, when Cassiano del Pozzo recorded it in Madrid, and features in later inventories. It was thought that it was one of Granvelle's painting bought (through imperial arm-twisting) by Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor from Ganvelle's heirs in 1600, and was later given to Philip III of Spain. Hugh Trevor-Roper thought that the organist "has the features of Philip [II]", but this seems to be a minority view among recent sources; the Berlin version has also been thought to show him; Penny draws attention to the variable quality of the Berlin version,