'v
7415:, .11 div-I491.»
r; 1;?

«I
. :Lf’ifi'w‘t '
.4 .. ,. ,-,
«‘1‘

. .. «rp— 5:115? 1343'

~‘I’a‘r‘

‘3» *2 1)- «Mum-11:4"- am ’
~ I 10m 11m 3"me w
.. {4?}... (,t-5—Y::h'~11:_9; "1132-me
wt: yVhFNI-Whmp .5
W H-h-w
w‘hm‘n‘h ‘va
mmbfiw
1"“ '2- H
2‘? nth-n10». .-
1y319—.<y~n’5~v-w 1:
54.4.4». .9. .
.vbv‘ 3,."

53?. {1+ :HA 1:4 .119.

4.1.7.5}.

 

 

 

 

 

(ert-vfywlfi 3“ "'1‘”..-
{1 V1 113» —I‘- 41.
N "t W mm. W3:

«‘32.:-

33...?

 

 

 

 

 

 

...C’,?~,.,. .,- ? rv *4.
M4511:- . . v
w new-wear"
a r

 

 

Ig’ru
4:11»?

‘4‘.

.;.:....:’;3.., . .

10m

’anlhr It;
ran-Av

u ....' "my. ;.
x2

IiI‘I .I
4.... .2 ..

.W'L'HI. .4

- I .13»..-

_I...

iw- ran-'1 11.1.4 .I
l . I1

I
tur‘. 4, “PA
#1:, ,. din-{p 22-;

. u, 4-.
—‘M. kin
. .I-w «1 -_

1x.
'w. .

A;
. .1: . L;- 47.".
”17144.“ I v. ”.1111

ma
.-

F’fl 1M
“pl--33- - 3:2“

I “4.: >14

m.- -- 4.. ”nor-1? inf:

A l I... 11.12»... 1I~»,-)n1'-n-ri' “$9.05.
31‘...” .1 MPht-I‘irn‘l.‘

.1451
1‘1 ~I-11 A... . . m.....,. .3“...
#:131114- UK

.- 111 .14- "1}.
v..II-v1x-~b1.—w-mc ”n, ”5:1“ my ,M.
any".

 

M
”2: . 31;.” .4...“
>41:- . ALAWWIN-wryw-m
“21444.1. :1 waive-1.1..
pama- 41w
1.4-4 1‘1-rl2!
”0.14331.-

 

~I- 1... 514-»

-.u3...-m...- 0,... ‘
.t‘.’ ..- . .4.“ _ ,

IFVXM-om” I mama-V9.0... 1.;r1-1'1'I1'
1x»: wig-“‘3! W- .1 it'tuyvi 114.0115».- «1

:M ya...” . .154th r:
MI:

 

 

 

«a s...

“1.. ...;.-
-.‘ l .
M4” VIM

“”1591 3%“
‘ $333311

 

 

741‘s" H“
'W 1| 1!

 

 

. .4194 Rush

*7?“
9.3.3; 44.5.53 '5

 

 

 

 

 

bra-amp“.

 

1.1.1.0" ward].
-I- ”Nd-k
‘- v'-;§1qr41;-r
«mmrwvm-a-‘m 514.: w".
wm-w-i-wm' mip
“23.5..

 

 

Hui/u: 4541f

, .1... m... -W‘“
1.»..Am‘v‘. "7

 

pm- .1... --
div-.1551!»

 

Mm

ova-v.1. '
Haw-mm 11.114- -1 wfififa‘
.

 

 

5.44:”. r 1.1“".th I»

 

a-w r-c
'1 4

Wt'btvh‘zd .
yam-mm-VvaI w

 

4-14.. r«-s.1.y.v.: q

 

 

1.1.4.4;- ”.11.”

 

 

 

 

 

p'r
hVW'Mm - v - 1-”4 |\
. v.1..-w... .
...!-:::J *" 1

 

“hm
1w 3"“
' ,1. tv'wf'hfl

 

 

I'M
fiafihlfifi’v)‘ d g,
.. .. ”+4."-.. . ‘

 

 

 

 

“ma-Fm.

r“: ..,.r.
mg!-
as: -v

--'r7
infra: 991+,

 

 

W
.. 4...".

 

....J.,bIrg-r1 nu
91'-

 

._:.I.r.. -.~.- i; _.....,..._...;.
s~ -l~7{-M:f>1~r: -- 134.743..

 

 

 

. $123.7? 4,41: .
» 1 r11

.141. .q».

.w 11.1

«I

1n...“
,.
‘I.

M u
. NC... .-..1¢I

.
' $1.111 um . I
~::§§-> 11.»!1'H’W‘ 4.44... . ”HI-I
raw 'IayfimfiJ‘I-aq «an
”wan-:4; 4,5,..-

’M‘N‘H‘
.w-na Q .14.

 

.I. .1“;

\. .,-.-

”-3131: 51 a
I

.44 33??” I
.. .’ W...,.‘..I; 1
«1-51» h-

’ffi 1.14:; n:

:3... ..

4...} 4 ‘ “.

,4 . .. . ., ”I-..
». an“. 5.1-3
Lie-:41. [4-71 4 "' .

4...». .1 . ,4

Man-.- ~w1'I-w-
ng...xfl.an1.»-.-1~.--- 441.125.45.44». x-.1
1.1.. «H AK’VIIH NPM «42.3“» .-¢~. Jar-m5:-
_. 5 4-. «guy. ,Wb pin-mi.- -
’-.I-.-.1=.~.-...-.1.-.-II-.-.’4-v+m 1 m1. «.4...
V>H 4“]- rlklutk. 44-“ A. B4 4
. 3. z.
“a hflr‘

1.5.114. m.“

w .1.
4. .14
«“4441”,. 1M .. 9&1 -. II- 1-. r. .
-,. .1 w ." 1 41.41.4441.
44““... «A? 1-44-41.»
Wham

 

.. 41.. ,1

«r. ’Wvfl’y-t‘v. I. . ’
w. .1 .1: l

'17: 1:1» ..---w. n p

'3

-. . 4.1.1.191» 1
’4‘?“

4.41.3111 «we.
.,W4»I.I.u1-\-
_;I 1. M... .
., 4.. . . M. ~i~A 1,.

w 1- 1.1:.“
“.141.- .44.» 4.1.11 .u 4..
. u» 1 .44 41.1

.. I- .1 -
““2 1, Aug...“ .. u. .-..< 41.44:..1.x14w "in
W 3.11.; :11. ., ,, L
1-. ~<
22:11:13; u «1.1 «bah-gm;
4... .-I.

 

 

 

 

 

4 ,
4' Awardedx 1: . .- ~—
.3, i712; 3:413. £r1.5s..L,£.¢ I - ,._
flan-f..- Ian-l «at: . {Ii-«144v-
”1.4-, a-p-Im .1- 44-41444
I In A. wz--—.~‘N~ w
«(kW-«x4 '

12.2141

V...” ,
. . “Wu:
“S‘fiSM‘J‘Séfi- 33" 1'- \—
4" 4': r
.. 4:5“ 2.135.».-.

4 4-; ’M‘J'K’, .

 

W' «'N' w- u- war—’wk
.,-..1 {infirm ‘5?“2‘i:;;-.-
43.1% .9149?
4......»“44145. .- -~Ww'u—;<‘-:;a w. 1.14
2.2. .r‘*.*‘;:.:*.“‘~*’!;:.‘5. v. *" WM...

‘9" f1:z-.-.-x_;. 3-“:(4-1. 4-1-

- 41.<‘Ata

 

«4». u...“- «.4
‘:3 .. .. .441.

if...” .-
m. 4.. 4...:
1.. won-m

’41.

”Am.

WI much...

4 1.41541...» 1%4 10194-140101!
n«.-.-.,4.»..-fi:.1~1

“3.1- a .1;
44-“
+:~o;:n4'£‘ “N

 

 

.I .4
“a“: ‘1 1.3-1.0-
3cm~4uwp§
Item - I:"‘1>~I\-n-u§a w
ammaxmlwmgvvl “3-11

“film

‘ ’ 11w

“‘!I¢.«-n- 1113
INI- ~: I. .-I-:II‘1"$
4:1

 

l\. . . . .. . ar 15.. 3.: .r ,, t. p . . ah xéfiurflvu $5: 5511ny 1L .. ,xi...§f,.riivog¥uyf I. .951; xxguéaffyé 23?, .521. :22/3; *3 : {Baikltihfixa

. ..,cT Earriapiihsayli, {Sui 2523.: £3,» a «:bxvaklsfr M.

 

 

a
m
V
A
D
O
D
R
A
N
O
E
L

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

Virgin and Child. Detni] of the “Adoration of the
Magi,” unfinished altar-piece in the Uffizi (1479-1481).

‘J

3

 

 

 

«EEONARDQ
DAREVINCI

THE FLORENTINE YEARS OF
LEONARDO & VERROCCHIO

 

 

 

 

 

 

BY

DR. JENS THIIs

WITH 277 ILLUSTRATIONS
MANY PRINTED IN TINTS

mafia—,Wr-aIc—ww—fi ._‘—’-'-—-~< ‘5‘“

I; A. _.s—Ar«~.41- ~—

 

BOSTON
SMALL MAYNARD 81 COMPANY
PUBLISHERS

 

I (m mm
m VINu

 

   

.“ "I

GIFT OF
WX‘ ; W.

'.i («x p.

 

 

TRANSLATED BY JESSIE MUIR §

-
00'
o I' .r
..o.o. ...noo .
.., ....-o..
00.. ..-Oo".. r
:..o .. 0"
o . 0 o
I... I
. .nc.':,c .- ':. '.
-O°'. 00.00 ' ,
" . to H. c .0 "'-'-°
0
:,,...- 0:... .....-
00.
_ .-

PRINTED BY EDMUND EVANS, L'l‘l)., ROSE PLACE, GLOBE ROAD, LONDON, IC.

 

TO
ERNEST THIEL

E. {03116

 

 

 

 

V ~ M”. I

w

'0

I!

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

IX

 

CONTENTS

LEONARDO DA VINCI
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .
EARLY YEARS AT VINCI AND IN FLORENCE
LEONARDO’S FATHER AND MO'I‘IIER
HIS PERSONALITY.
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA .
LEONARDO IN VERROCCIIIO’S STUDIO.
HIS RESIDENCE IN MILAN
LOST YOUTHEUL PRODUCTIONS.
HIS STRANGE IMAGINATIONS
TIIE NEPTUNE COMPOSITION
A SUGGESTION FOR TAPES'I‘RY
MASTER AND APPRENTICE
ANDREA DEL VERROCCIIIO .
LEONARDO’S DEBT TO VERROCCIIIO
“TIIE DOUB'I‘ING THOMAS ” .
“POLYTECHNES HEPHAIS’I‘OS”
TUE COLLEONI STATUE
TIIE ‘MEDICI SARCOPHAGUS .
THE SMILE .
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT .
DESIDERIO AND VERROCCHIO
VERROCCHIO AND LEONARDO

THE BAPTISM

TIIE BAPTISM OF CIIRIST—BALDOVINETTI AND VERROCCIIIO.

VERROCCHIO, LEONARDO, ALUNNO DI ANDREA
ALUNNO DI ANDREA—DRAWINGS
VERROCCIIIESQUE DRAWINGS

LEONARDO’S DRAPERY .

THE LANDSCAPE . . . .
TIIE LANDSCAPE IN TIIE BAP'I‘ISM OF CHRIST.
LANDSCAPE-PAINTING BEFORE LEONARDO.

GIOTTO AND TIIE SIENESE .

GENTILE DA FABRIANO . . . .
ERA ANGELICO—BENOZZO GOZZOLI—MASACCIO
FRA FILIPPO—GHIBERTI— CASTACNO—UCCELLO
DOMENICO VENEZIANO—PIERO DELLA FRANCESCA .
BALDOVINET'I‘I—POLIIAIUOLO——BO’I‘TICEIII/I

ANDREA DEL VERROCCIIIO .

I'AGE

 

CONTENTS

PAGE

X THIC TWO ANNUNCIATIONS

”a.

 

 

IO

. . . . . . . . . . 91
THE MONTE OLIVETO ANNUNCIATION . . . . . . . . . . . 91

IIIDOIIO G11IRLANDAIO? . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

BAI DOVINETTI—VEIIROCCIIIO—CREDI . . . . . , . . . . 97

THE ANNUNCIAIION IN TIIE L0UVRE.—A COMPARISON . . . . . . . . 08

T111; ASSISTANT—DRAWINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

XI THE PALE LADY IN THE FIR GROVE. . . . . . . . . . . 105
DESCRIPTION OF TIIE POIITIIAIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

ATTI: MI‘IS AT IDENTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

XII AN EXCURSION AMONG THE MOUNTAINS . . . . . . . . . 113
LEONARDO AND MODERN LANDSCAPE . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

XIII ATTIIIBUTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . 117
A SILVER- POINT DRAWING AND TIIE CONFUSION 1T WIIOUGII’I‘ . . . . . . . 117

THE PISTOIAN ALTAR- PIECE . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

XIV THE MADONNA IN HER BEDCHAMBEII . . . . . . . . . . 123
ATTRIBUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

XV THE MADONNA WITH THE PINK . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
IIS NORTHERN ORIGIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13o

XVI YOUTHFUL EXPERIENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
TIIE CONSPIRATOIIS . . . . I . . . . . . . . . I31

XVII THE ANONYMOUS ACCUSATION . . . . . . . . . . . 135
LEONARDO AND SEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

XVIII THE TWO CONTRACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
THE SIGNORIA PICTURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

THE ADORATION MOTIVE IN FLORENTINI AIIT . . . . . . . . . 141

WAS THE SIGNOIIIA PICTURE AN ADOIIA TION OT 111E MAGI? . . . . . . . I42

XIX THE MONKS’ PICTURT . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
WIIEN DID T1IE IDEA FOR THE ADOIIATION OP THE MAUI OlIIGINA'I‘E? . . . . . 147

A MEMORABLE YEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

XX A DIIAWING WITH A CLUE [49
XXI THE SHEET WITH THE ELEVEN PROFILES . . . . 153
SHEET OI STUDIES A1 WINDSOR—THEIR CONNECTION w1111 THE ADORAT1ON OF TIIE MAGI 153

A PORTRAIT 01 THE ARTIST? LEONARDO AND THE PORTIIAI1 . . . . . . . 157

THE ARTIST REFLECTED IN HIS WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

XXII “LE DUE VERGINE MARIE” 161
TIIE BACK OF THE WINDSOR SHEET 161

THE MADONNA IN THE OPEN. I61
LEONARDO AND RAPHAEL . . . I63

TIIE MADONNA WITH THE PLATE OF FRUIT. 163

XXIII THE MADONNA WITH THE LILIES 165
TIIE MADONNA AI GATTO 167
LEONARDO’S AND RAPIIAEI S MADONNAS I69

COPIES AND IMITATIONS I71

XXIV THE ADORATION OF THE MAGI—I’RELIMINARY STUDIES 177
TIIE ADORAT ION OP TIIE KINGS IN THE UIFIZI . 177

XXV HOW THE PICTURE ORIGINATED—THE ADORATION OF THE SIIEPIIERDS 181

- ”‘finV

mfi'flv‘yvav.

XXVI

XXVII
XXVIII
XXIX

XXX

XXXI

XXXII
XXXIII

XXXIV

XXXV

XXXIV

CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STUDIES 1. DRAWINGS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, COLOGNE AND PARIS
S JEROME .

LEONARDO AND MICHELANGELO

THE GALICHON‘ DRAWING

PRELIMINARY STUDIES II. DRAWINGS IN THE LOUVRE, TIIE BRITISII MUSEUM, AT
WINDSOR, AND AT OXFORD .

THE PERSPECTIVE DRAWING IN THE UFFIZI—LEONARDO’S ARCHITECTURE
TIIE BACKGROUNDs—THE BATTLE OF THE STANDARD

THE ADORATION OF THE MAGI—ANALYSIS
THE COMPOSITION

MATHEMATICAL RHYTHMICS‘
THE ADORATION OF THE MAGI-SYNTHESIS
THE IDEAS CONTAINED IN THE WORK

LEONARDO AND CHRISTIANITY .
“HARMONY OF THE DIVINE PROPORTIONS”

THE BACKGROUND .
CULTURE OF THE AGE OF LORENZO THE MAGNIFICENT .

ECHOES . . . . . . .
THE ADORATION OF THE MAGI AND RAPHAEL.
THE GENESIS OF THE LAST SUPPER

APPENDICES

ATTEMPT AT A RECONSTRUCTION OF LEONARDO’S SKIL—TCH BOOK
BIBLIOGRAPH\ . . . . .
BIOGRAPIIICAL HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL WORKS

NOTES
INDEX

II

PAGE

184
185

190

195

201

211
215

218
218

222

227
228
230
232
233
233
237
237
241

247
250
251

257
273

 

 

ILLUSTRATIONS

LEONARDO DA VINCI: Virgin and Child. Detail of the “Adoration of the Magi.” Unfinished altar—piece in

the UFfizi (1479-1481) . . . . . . . . . . . . Frmzlz'spz'ece

,, Drawing. From the Louvre sheet of studies . . . . . . . . Title page PAGE

,, Portrait. Silver—point. Windsor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
VASARI : Portrait of Leonardo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
LEONARDO: Drawing. From the Louvre study for the Adoration . . . . . . . . . 24
,, ,, From a sheet of studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

,, ,, From the Louvre study for the Adoration . . . . . . . . . 25

,, ,, From the Louvre study for the Adoration . . . . . . . . . 26

,, ,, From the sheet with eleven profiles. Windsor . . . . . . . . 27
VINCI (after Muller-\Valde) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

FLORENCE IN LEONARDO‘S TIME; the Piazza della Signoria and Piazza Di S. Firenze. From an old painting

in San Marco. The corner house in the background was probably Ser I’iero’s house. In the

square the fire is lighted for the burning of Savonarola, I498 . . . . . . . 29

LEONARDO: Florentine Knight. Pen-drawing at Windsor . . . . . . . . . . . 3O
,, Young Florentine Knight. Chalk drawing at Windsor . . . . . . . . . 31

,, Drawing. From the Louvre sheet of studies . . . . . . . . . . . 32

,, ,, From the Louvre sheet of studies . . . . . . . . . . . 33
ANDREA VERROCCHIO: After Vasari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
LEONARDO : John the Baptist. Silver—point study at Windsor, about 1476 . . . . . . . 35
,, Drawing. From the Louvre studies for the Adoration and the Last Supper . . . . . 36

,, Neptune. Chalk drawing at Windsor . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
IMITATION 0F LEONARDO: Head of Medusa. The Uffizi. . . . . . . . . . . 38
LEONARDO : Caricature Scene. Pen-drawing at Windsor . . . . . . . . . . . 38
,, Leaf of MS. with study of Flowers. Pen—drawing. Windsor . . . . . . . 39

,, The Gipsy Chieftain, Scaramuccia (P). Drawing in black chalk at Oxford . . . . . 4O

,, Tree. Pen-study on green paper. Windsor . . . . . . . . . . 41

,, Study of a flower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
ANDREA DEL VERROCCHIO: By Pietro Perugino rather than by Lorenzo di Credi. Uffizi, Florence . . 43
VERROCCHIO : Virgin and Child. Terra—cotta. Uffizi, Florence . . . . . . . . . . 44
VERROCCHIO’S STUDIO: Virgin and Child. Marble. Bargello, Florence . . . . . . . . 44
VERROCCHIO: David. Bronze statue in the Bargello, Florence . . . . . . . . . . 45

Boy with Dolphin. Bronze figure on a fountain by Francesca 'l‘adda. in the courtyard of the

U

Palazzo Vecchio, Florence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 .

12

Moms»? , 4

. ‘jjwwm $4., ,n. 3.2,

 

i *9‘5

 

ILLUSTRATIONS

VERROCCIIIO: The Doubting Thomas. Bronze group in Donatello’s marble niche in the Or San Michele,
Florence . . . . . . . . .
,, Beheading of John the Baptist. Museo dell’ Opera del Duomo, Florence
,, Detail of the Colleoni Statue, Venice
,, Lavabo in Marble. S. Lorenzo, Florence
,, Bronze statue of the condottiere Colleoni. Venice
,, Boy with Dolphin. Bronze. Palazzo Vecchio, Florence
DESIDERIO DA SETTIGNANO: Detail of the Marzuppini Sarcophagus. S. Croce, Florence
VERROCCIIIO’S STUDIO : Death of Francesca Tornabuoni. Marble Relief, by Francesco di Simone. The Bargello,
Florence
VERROCCHIO: Detail of the Medici Sarcophagus. S. Lorenzo, Florence
,, The Medici Sarcophagus. S. Lorenzo, Florence .
DESIDERIO DA SETTIGNANO: Jesus and John. Marble. Marchesa Arconati, Paris .
DONATELLO: John the Baptist. Terra-Gotta. Berlin .
MINA DA FIESOLE: Cherub. Marble .
VERROCCHIO: Detail of bronze statue of David in the Bargello, Florence
LEONARDo’s STUDIO: John the Baptist. Louvre
UNKNOWN MASTER: Portrait, about 1460. Poldi-Pezzoli Museum, Milan .
DESIDERIO DA SETTIGNANO: Florentine lady. Marble. The Bargello
LEONARDO: From a leaf of a sketch—book, about 1478. Windsor
VERROCCIIIO : La a’mma [ll/e [Ml/e mam'. Marble. The Bargello
,, La domza (ll/e [Ml/e mam". Marble. The Bargello .
LEONARDO: Study for S. Anne. Pencil. Windsor
,, Monna Lisa. Louvre, Paris. Disappeared in 1912 .
,, Study for Leda. Pen-drawing. Windsor
VERROCCIIIO: Head of Boy with Dolphin. Bronze. l’alazzo Vecchio, Florence ,
VERROCCIIIA and “ ALUNNO DI ANDREA”: Baptism of Christ. Tempera painting, retOuched with oils
(begun about 1465). Accademia, Florence
GIIIBERTI : Baptism of Christ. Bronze relief on the font at Siena (about 1420) .
BALDOVINE’I‘TI: Baptism of Christ. Tempera painting (1448). Accademia, Florence .
VERROCCIIIO: Study for one of the Angels in the “Baptism of Christ.” Sepia and Brush Original size.
Uffizi, Florence . .
ALUNNO DI ANDREA: Virgin and Child, and two Angels. National Gallery, London
,, ,, Silver—point study for the Madonna in London. Uffizi, Florence
,, ,, Virgin and Child. The Gallery, Frankfurt a Main
,, ,, Head of an Angel. Silver-point drawing in the Uffizi .
VERROCCIIIO and ALUNNO DI ANDREA: Detail of the Baptism of Christ. Accademia, Florence .
ALUNNO DI ANDREA: Study of Drapery, with brush and sepia on canvas. British Museum

LEONARDO : Study of Drapery, with brush and sepia on canvas. Windsor

I3

PAGE

47
48
49
50
51
52
52

53
53
54
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59

59
60

6:)
61
61

62

63
64
64

65
66
66
67
68
69
7o
71

 

 

ILLUSTRATIONS

LEONARDO: Study of Drapery, with brush and sepia on canvas (about 1478). Louvre
VERROCCIIIO'S SCIIOOL: Love’s Arrow. Drawn with silver—point and brush. Uffizi, Florence .
,, STUDIO: Landscape background of the Baptism of Christ .
GIOT'I‘O: Joachim and the Shepherds. Fresco (1305). Church of the Arena, l’adua .
DUCCIO: “Touch me not !” (I310). Duomo, Siena
SIMONE MARTINI: Guidoriccio, a commander of cavalry, outside Siena. Painted I328, but restored. l’alazzo
Pubblico, Siena
AMBROGIO LORENZETTI: The Beneficent Rule (about 1340). Fresco in the Palazzo Pubblico, Siena
GENTILE DA FABRIANO: The Flight into Egypt. l’redella to the Adoration of the Magi (I423 . Aeeademia,
Florence
MASACCIO : Landscape from the fresco of the Tribute Money. Brancacci Chapel, Florence . .
BENOZZO GOZZOLI: A section of the Procession of the Magi. Fresco (I459) in the chapel of the Medici,
Palazzo Riccardi, Florence
FRA ANGELICO: Paradise. Section of the Last Judgment. The Academy, Florence
PAOLO UCCELLO: Battle of Gualfonda (painted about 1425). Uffizi, Florence
GIIIBERTI: Story of Abraham. Bronze relief from the Baptistery, Florence (before 1447)
PIERO DELLA FRANCESCA: Constantine’s Dream. Fresco [about 1455) Arezzo
,. ,, ,, The Baptism of Christ in the River Jordan. National Gallery, London
,, ,, ,, Triumph of Duke Federigo (I465). Uffizi, Florence
DOMENICO VENEZIANO: Enthroned Madonna with Saints. Uffizi
ALESSO BALDOVINETTI: Nativity (in the background the valley of the Arno). Fresco in S. Annunziata,
Florence (I462) .
ANTONIO DEL POLLAIUOLO : Hercules killing the Hydra and crushing Antaeus. In the background the valley
of the Arno. Miniature in oils. Uffizi
PIERO DELLA FRANCESCA: The Nativity of Our Lord. Detail. National Gallery, London
ANTONIO DEL I’OLLAIUOLO: The Journey of Tobias. Detail. Royal Gallery, Turin
,, ,, ,, The Martyrdom of S. Sebastian (1472). Detail. National Gallery, London
VERROCCIIIO : Section of background to a portrait of a woman in the Liechtenstein Gallery, Vienna.
PIERO DEL POLLAIUOLO: View through a window, in an Annunciation, Berlin .
,, ,, ,, View through a window, in an Annunciation, Berlin .
LORENZI DI CREDI 2 View through a window. From a Madonna in Turin.
VERROCCIIIO: Landscape. Section of the Annunciation from Monte Oliveto. Uffizi
VERROCCHIO’S STUDIO: Annunciation from Monte Oliveto. Uffizi
LEONARDO: Annunciation. Louvre
PIERO DEL POLLAIUOLO: Annunciation. Berlin. .
DOMENICO GIIIRLANDAIO: Pen-sketch for an Annunciation. Uffizi
RIDOLFO GIIIRI.A1\'DAIO: Portrait of a Goldsmith (P) Pitti Palace, Florence
ALESSO BALDOVINETTI: Annunciation of the Virgin Mary. S. Miniato al Monte, Florence

LEONARDO: The angel Gabriel, from the Annunciation in the Louvre .

I4

PAGE

73
74
75
76
76

77
78

79
79

80
8o
81
81

83
84
84

85

85
86
87
88
89
90
90
90
91

93
94
95
96
97
98

 

 

M—

ILLUSTRATIONS

LEONARDO: The Virgin in the Annunciation. Louvre
LORENZO l)I CREDI: The Annunciation. Uffizi . .
LEONARDO, after VERROCCHIO: Pen-drawing of the arm of an Annunciation Angel (original size). Christ
Church College, Oxford .
ALUNNO DI ANDREA: Study of Drapery (see the Virgin in the Monte Oliveto Annunciation). Uffizi
VERROCCIIIO’S STUDIO: The Virgin in the Monte Oliveto Annunciation. Uffizi
LEONARDO: Female head. Silver-point study on tinted paper. Louvre
COPY OF VERROCCIIIO or LEONARDO: Drawing in the Uffizi
DEVICE: Virtutem forma decorat .
VERROCCHIO : Florentine Lady. Liechtenstein Gallery, Vienna .
DOMENICO GIIIRI.ANDAIO: Florentine Lady. Detail of a fresco in S. Maria Novella, Florence
MEDAL: Giovanna Tornabuoni, I486
LORENZO DI CREDI (P): Portrait of a Widow. Marchese Pucci, Florence .
MEDAL: Nonnina Strozzi, I489 I
LEONARDO: Study of hands. Silver-point drawing at Windsor .
BOTTICEIJJ: Venus. Detail of “Spring.” Accademia, Florence .
LEONARDO: Landscape study from the Valley of the Arno. Pen-drawing from 1473. Uffizi
,, Pen drawing of a flower .
Cloud-burst over an Alpine valley. Red-chalk drawing from the Milanese period. Windsor
,, Study of a plant
VERROCCIIIO: Study for a Madonna. Silver—point drawing. Dresden
,, Female head. Black chalk drawing (somewhat worked over by another hand). Malcolm
Collection. British Museum . . . .
Madonna and Child enthroned, with SS. John the Baptist and Zeno. Altar-piece in the
Cathedral of Pistoia .
LORENZO DI CREDI: Madonna and Child with S. John. Borghese Gallery, Rome
Madonna with wild flowers. Turin
Studies. Uffizi
lMI’l‘ATOR OF VERROCCIIIO: Madonna in her Bed—Chamber. Dresden

)’ U

n ))

ALUNNO DI ANDREA: Study for a Madonna. Uffizi .

FRANCESCA GRANACCI: Study for a Child. Uffizi

ALUNNO DI ANDREA: Study for a Madonna. Uffizi .

FRANCESCO GRANACCI: The Holy Family. Pen-drawing. Uffizi

LEONARDO: Study from the Louvre studies for the Adoration and the Last Supper

COPY OF CREDI. Silver-point drawing. Uffizi

GERMAN IMITATOR or VERROCCIIIO: Madonna with the Pink. Picture Gallery, Munich

BERTOLDO DI GIOVANNI: Medal struck in commemoration of the Pazzi Conspiracy.

LEONARDO: “The hanged conspirator.” Bernardo di Bandino Baroncelli, Giuliano de’ Medici’s murderer,

hanged December 2 , I 8, in Florence. l’en drawinor in the Bonnat Collection Ba onne
25 9 47 z: i y

I5

PAGE
99
100

112
113
114
115
116
117

119

 

ILLUSTRATIONS

   

LEONARDO: The Condottiere (about 1478). Silver—point drawing in the Malcolm Collection, British Museum ,

,, Design for an engine of war. Pen drawing in the Turin Library

,, Drawing. From the Louvre studies for the Adoration and the Last Supper .
,, Head of a youth. Red-chalk drawing. Windsor

,, Head of an old man. Red-chalk drawing. Windsor .

,, Two ages. Red—chalk drawing from the Milanese period. Uffizi

A youth. Detail ofa study for the Adoration of the Magi. Walraff—Richartz Museum, Cologne .
,, Allegorical drawing of the battle of the sexes. Pen-drawing. Oxford

GIOTTO: Adoration of the Magi. Fresco (circ. 1307) in the Church of the Arena, Padua

LORENZO MONACO: Adoration of the Magi (circ I420). Uffizi

Adoration of the Magi. Early Christian sarcophagus relief. Museum, Ravenna

GENTIIE DA FABRIANO: Adoration of the Magi (1423). Accademia, Florence

Adoration of the Magi. Byzantine mosaic (about 560, restored) in S. Apollinare Nuovo, lx’arenna

MASACCIO: Adoration of the Magi. Predella (painted 1426). Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin

FRA ANGELICO: Adoration of the Magi (circ. I450). Accademia, Florence

BENOZZO GOZ’AOLI : Procession of the Magi (with portraits of the Medici family), Fresco (1463) in the chapel
of the Medici palace, Florence .

AMIco DI SANDRo: Adoration of the Magi (circ. 1480). Uffizi.

SANDRO BOTTICELLI: Adoration of the Magi (circ. 1478). Uffizi

FILIPPINO LIPPI: Adoration of the Magi. Altar-piece about 1496. Uffizi

LEONARDO: Adoration of the Magi. Unfinished altar-piece in the Uffizi

Pen—drawing, about 1478. Uffizi

Leaf of a sketch-book of 1478. Pen—drawing in the Uffizi

Imperator. Chalk drawing. Turin .

Study of a head .

From a sheet of studies. Windsor

From a sheet of studies. Windsor . . . . .

Sheet of studies with eleven profiles. Pen—drawing (about 1478). Royal Library, \Vindsor.

From a study about 1478 .

LEONARDO: The Preacher. Detail of the Adoration of the Magi

The Knight (Portrait of the Painter P). Detail of the Adoration

Joseph. Detail of the Adoration

Detail of the Windsor study

A Pilgrim. Detail of the Adoration

LEONARDO: Portrait of himself(?). Red chalk drawing in the Library in Turin

,, Portrait of himself(?). Pen—drawing. Windsor

ANDREA DEI. VERROCCHIOZ Studies of children. Louvre .

LEONARDO: Back of the sheet of studies (p. 155) (? 1550—1559). Windsor

RAPHAEL: Study for the Iisterhazy Madonna. Pen—drawing. Uffizi .

16

I34
I35

144
145
146
I47
148
149
150
151
153
154
154
155
156
156
157
158
158
158
159
160
161
162
163

    
 

r~ fimx’ww's—m—a

mum)...“ .‘ “

 

 
  
 

  
   

pg» m

ILLUSTRATIONS

RAPHAEL: “La Belle Jardiniere,” Louvre
LEONARDO: Madonna with Plate of Fruit. Pen-drawing. Louvre
,, Sketch for the Madonna al Gatto. British Museum
,, Studies for the Madonna with the Flower. British Museum
BEIJI‘RAFFIO: Madonna. Poldi-Pezzoli Museum, Milan
LEONARDO: Madonna with the Lilies. British Museum
SOGIJANI (P) : Madonna with the Flower. Benois Collection, St. Petersburg
LEONARDO: Madonna with the Cat. Pen—drawing. Uffizi .
,, Back of the above drawing. Sketch by the author .
,, Studies for the Madonna with the Cat. British Museum .
COPY after LEONARDO: Sketch for the Madonna with the Cat, upon the drawing of the dragon and the lion in
the Uffizi
LEONARDO: Studies for the Madonna with the Cat. British Museum .
,, Studies for the Madonna with the Cat. British Museum
,, Madonna with the Cat. Sketch in British Museum .
COPY after LEONARDO: Sketch for Madonna with the Cat upon the drawing of the dragon and the lion in the
Uffizi .
LEONARDO: Detail of Study in British Museum
SODOMA: Madonna with the Lamb. Brera Galley, Milan
RAPHAEL: Madonna Colonna. Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin
LEONARDO: Studies for the Madonna with the Cat. Bonnat Collection, Bayonne
SOGLIANI: Copies of Leonardo drawings in the “Sogliani-book” in the Uffizi (from sketches by the author)
COPY after LEONARDO: Studies for the Madonna with the Cat. \Vindsor .
LEONARDO: Fortune and Rumour. Allegorical drawing with pen and brush in sepia. Malcolm Collection,
British Museum .
ANDREA MAN'I‘EGNA: Adoration of the Kings. Engraving (unfinished). Uffizi
LEONARDO: Sketch for a Praesepium. Silver—point drawing. \Nindsor
,, Adoration of the Magi. Unfinished picture in the Uffizi (circ. 1479-1481)
LEONARDO: Adoration of the Shepherds. Pen-drawing. Bonnat Collection, Bayonne
,, Drawing
LORENZO DI CREDI: Adoration of the Shepherds. Accademia. Florence
PIERO DI COSIMO: Virgin and Angels in Adoration. Pen-drawing in Albertina, Vienna
LEONARDO: The Philosopher. Detail of the Adoration
,, S. Jerome. Unfinished altar-piece in the Vatican Gallery, Rome. Painted about 1480.

Studies for an Adoration. Pen—drawing. British Museum

,, Fortune fighting against Ingratitude, Envy and Ignorance. Allegorical drawing in the British
Museum
,, Figure studies for an Adoration. Walraff-Richartz Museum, Cologne
,, Studies for an Adoration. Pen—drawing in the Valton Collection, l’aris .
17 c

PAGE

163
164

166
166
167
167
168
168
169

169
170
171

172

172
172
I73
I73
I73
I74
I74

 

 

\

ILLUSTRATIONS

LEONARDO: Development of the Philosopher motive. Bonnat Collection (reversed). Valton Collection.
Valton Collection. British Museum. British Museum. The picture
COMI’ARISONs: Michelangelo, Louvre ; Leonardo, Valton Collection ; Michelanglo, Ceiling of Sistine Chapel ;
Leonardo, Valton Collection; Michelangelo, Louvre .
LEONARDO: Allegorical’drmving. Christ Church, Oxford
,, Sketch for the Adoration. Pen—drawing in the Louvre (the Galichon drawing)
Adoration of the Magi. Uffizi .

3)

LORENZO DE MEDICI: Florentine silver-point drawing. Louvre

y

LEONARDO: Development of a motive. (The “Leaning” and “ Peering’ motives). The picture. Bonnat

Collection. Valton Collection. Valton Collection. The picture

Studies for the Adoration. Pen—drawing. Louvre .

Development of a motive. (The “ Leaning” and “ Peering " motives). Bonnat Collection, Windsor.
Valton Collection. Valton Collection

,, Development of the King motive. Galichon drawing. Louvre drawing. The picture .

,, The picture

LEONARDO: Development of the “Peering” motive. Cologne. Valton. Louvre. Cologne. Galichon .

Development of a “standing” motive (the motive with the projecting hip). Cologne. Valton.
Cologne. British Museum. Cologne. Louvre

Studies for the Adoration. Malcolm Collection, British Museum

Studies for the Adoration and the Last Supper. Pen-drawing. Louvre

Studies for the Adoration. Red chalk drawing. \Nindsor

Variations of the “ Adoration ” motive. Galichon (reversed). .Louvre. Louvre. Cologne

Studies for the Adoration. Silver—point. University Collection, Oxford

Variations of the “ Adoration " motive. Galichon. Galichon (reversed). , Cologne. Louvre.

Studies of llorses, etc., for the Tilting motive in the background of the Adoration. Pen—drawing,
Windsor

COPY after LEONARDO DA VINCI. Fight between dragon and lion. With small studies for Madonnas in the

the corners. Collection of drawings, Uffizi
PETER PAUL RUBENs after LEONARDO DA VINCI: Battle of the Standard. Copy of the central group in
the destroyed picture of the Battle of Anghiari in the Council Hall, Florence .
LEONARDO : The tilting in the background of the Adoration
Studies for the background of the Adoration, Rothschild Collection, Paris

DONATELLO: Presentation of the Baptist’s Head. Bronze relief in S. Giovanni, Siena (1425)

LEONARDO: Perspective study for the background of the Adoration. Pen—drawing. Uffizi

Ground plan of the architecture in the background of the Adoration, reconstructed from the author’s sketch
Vertical section, showing the arcade with the two flights of steps .

Architecture in the background of the Adoration. Reconstructed by the architect Sverre Pedersen, Trondhjem,

from the author’s sketch

18

PAGE

191

192
193
I94
195
196

196

197

198
199
200

200

208
209

210

 

ILLUSTRATIONS

VERROCCIIIO: Beheading of John the Baptist. Silver relief in the S. John reredos in the Opera del Duomo,
Florence
LEONARDO: The background of the Adoration (left portion)
,,r A fight between horsemen and a dragon. Drawing. .
,, linvy yielding to the attack of Force. Allegorical drawing. Oxford
Adoration of the Magi. Unfinished altar-piece in the Uffizi, painted I479—I48l

.. Drawing of a man with birds

., Study of proportion. Windsor.

., Adoration of the Magi. Mathematical lines of the composition
,, Sketch of two men running

,, Portrait of himself. Black chalk drawing. Windsor

.. Detail of the Adoration
Wisdom and Justice defending a persecuted bird from linvy’s wolves and birds of prey. Pen—
drawing. Oxford
,, Study of a man .
LORENZO DE’ MEDICI, called the MAGNIFICENT: From a medal by NICCOLO FIORENTINO
AETER GIIIRLANDAIO. Fresco in S. Maria Novella. Landini. Politian. Ficinus
ANGELO POLITIAN : From a medal by NICCOLO FIORENTINO
LEON BATTISTA ALBERTIZ By himself. Dreyfuss Collection, Paris
PAOLO TOSCANEILI: From a portrait by Baldovinetti .
PICO DELLA MIRANDOLA: From a portrait in the Uffizi
ANTONIO DEL POLLAIUOLO: Painted by Filippino Lippi in a Fresco in S. Carmine .
DOMENICO GIlIRLANDAIO: By himself, in a fresco in S. Maria Novella
FILIPPINO LIPPl AND BOTTICELIJ : Portraits in Filippino’s fresco in S. Carmine
FLORENCE in the time of Leonardo. From an engraving of 1490. Berlin .
DOMENICO G1111<LAN1>A102 Adoration (painted 1487). ,Uffizi
LEONARDO: Joseph. Detail of the Adoration
RAPHAEL: A Pythagorean. Detail of cartoon of the School of Athens. Ambrosiana. Milan
,. The Oriental. Detail of the School of Athens. Ambrosiana, Milan .
LEONARDO: The Hermit. Detail of the Adoration. Uffizi
,, Detail of the Adoration
RAPHAEL : Detail of the School of Athens
RAPHAEL: Leonardesque type of youth. From the School of Athens
LEONARDO: Virgin and Child. Detail of the Adoration
RAPHAEL: Virgin and Child. Detail of the Madonna di Foligno (1512). Vatican
LEONARDO : Allegorical Drawing. \Voman with Unicorn. British Museum
Argument motive from the Adoration. British Museum and Louvre sketches

‘3

The Argument motive becomes the Last Supper motive. Windsor and Louvre studies.

)3

19

PAGE

215
216

217

231
232

233
234
234
234
234
235
235

238
238
239

39
239
239
240

240

241

 

 

LEONARDO:

ILLUSTRATIONS

Sketch for the Last Supper. Red chalk drawing. Accademin, Venice
Various sketches for the Last Supper. Pen drawings. Windsor

The Last Supper. Fresco in S. Maria delle Grazia. Milan

Drawing. From the Louvre studies of the Adoration and the Last Supper

Study for a Nativity (circ. I478). Accademin, Venice

20

 

1
i

 

. FF" ..

 

 

 

 

\T

\

 

 

‘1
h
V,
F

\Vindsor.

Silva—point.

 

m‘!‘

l’mrtmil.

 

LEONARDO:

 

 

 

Truth has ever been but a (laughter of the age.
LEONARDO DA VINCI.

 

N the present day, Leonardo da Vinci is an historic personality in the process of
growing. Admiration for his genius and respect for his great, harmonious humanity
increase steadily with a wider knowledge of the literary work he left behind him.
Leonardo’s manuscripts may be said to have been brought within the reach of
enquiry and study only during our own generation. Distributed as they are among
the public and private libraries of various countries, fragmentarily and imperfectly
published and translated, exceedingly difficult to decipher, owing to the mirror-script
in which they are written and the aphoristic form in which they are worded, Leonardo’s writings have

 

 

 

 

been for centuries a closed book, into which the searcher has only now and again ventured to peep.
It is true that even these glimpses aroused a suspicion that therein lay a legacy from one of the most
richly-endowed men that has ever lived; but it is only recently that learned and reverent students
have spent years of their lives in deciphering and editing 'his manuscripts, thus revealing the mighty
mind reflected in them, a mind that now stands out in all its grandeur and many-sided abundance.‘

Whilst the conception of Leonardo as a thinker, discoverer and scientist has thus been very greatly
expanded, modern art-research has been compelled to narrow the compass of his artistic work. More
than half of what,‘a generation ago, was regarded as the authentic work'of Leonardo, has gradually
been pronounced to be that of others; on the other hand, attempts that have been made to replace
what is lost by attributing other works to him, must, on the whole, be characterised as failures.

One after another of the works with which early tradition or recent hypothesis have connected
Leonardo’s great name has had to give way before modern empirical criticism of its style. Taking,
as a basis, the few certain and undisputed paintings of the master, and at the same time carefully
considerng his far more numerous authentic drawings, investigation has been compelled either to
question now one and now another “undoubted Leonardo,” or to declare them to be unworthy of

23

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINci l

bearing his famous name. Copies, imitations, works of pupils, and forgeries
have, like withered suckers and miserable parasitic plants, one by one fallen
to the ground and been removed from the magnificent trunk." It may well
be that, from a superficial point of View, this leaves Leonardo’s artist per-
sonality somewhat bare, and it has raised no little outcry of protest. The I

III]! In”

critic who always sees works of art through a veil of printed letters, has taken
the lead, and vehemently reproached modern criticism for its radical pruning.

 

{ In reality, however, Leonardo, like every great artist, stands out all the greater
6 and clearer after such a cleansing process. Concerning most of the famous
personalities of bygone days, there arises in the course of time a wilderness .
Jr of myth and misrepresentation. Falsehood and oblivion combine in spinning
their web about the great name, thus concealing the historical truth. The
danger is of course doubly great when the artist’s name is one that can be
attached as of actual monetary value to works that are objects of sale and
U purchase. The vanity of collectors, the greed of art-dealers, the ignorance
or want of caution of managers of collections, the conscious fraud of forgers,
( the credulity of the public, all contribute towards producing a maze of
“tradition ” about great artists and their works. The first and most impor-
{ tant task of criticism is cautiously but relentlessly to select historical facts
\ from this mass of false tradition.3 In the Uffizi Collection, for instance,
K \3 there are forty-two drawings exhibited under Leonardo’s name. After years
of study and profound consideration, the present writer is unable to acknow-
ledge more than seven of these as genuine. Of the others, a few are obviously wrongly named, others
are doubtful, others again are copies or imitations, and one is undoubtedly a fairly recent forgery. é
A critical list of them all will be found in the Appendix at the end or this volume.* It does not seem
to the writer, however, that Leonardo’s artist personality has suffered any loss by the reduction of
this collection from forty—two ascriptions to seven authentic productions. If we

: ,z_~:r-v«-—vm raw-nu. “marks—M»? -.

look over the forty-two sheets that are exhibited under the name of the great 1:339 '
Florentine, we shall have very considerable difficulty in forming from them any I“ A,” \
definite and clear conception of the artist from whom all this heterogeneous and $§€<I
artistically unequal material is said to have originated. If, on the other hand, we k, f

I look at the seven genuine sheets, which almost all date from the artist’s youthful k W
1 days, we obtain an extraordinarily distinct and coherent impression of the young \\ ’f
Leonardo’s genius, his temperament, manner of handling, method of working,

  

technique and delineating media. Here it is all homogeneous; there it is full of

  

contradictions.S .W.
In taking the reader with him into critical analyses of style, and discussions

of works that are wrongly attributed to Leonardo, the author’s desire in the first

place is to differentiate clearly between the gold and the dross, and thus place

the characterisation of the artist’s style upon a firm basis; but it is also done

from a peculiar view of the importance of the connoisseur’s eye, and its relation

to the enjoyment of art. How often do we hear people say: “ I don’t understand

”’ l Every judge of art

\
2, V//// /. 4’

       
 

”Ir
/

art,” or “I’m no judge, but I’m exceedingly fond of art

24 I

 

K... ;.

INTRODUCTION

ought to be what is termed a “connoisseur”; and every lover of
art should endeavour to become one, and to a certain extent be
able to criticise style. A lover of art who is, moreover, willing to
work with intelligence, will find it impossible to avoid crossing the
threshold of the connoisseur’s faculty and obtaining an insight into
its mysteries. Even if this does not make him an expert, it may be
that, through it, he will acquire a taste for undreamt-of pleasures. The
connoisseur’s eye is a necessary and important factor in the full enjoy-
ment of art. When the author says that every lover of art must to a
certain extent train himself to be a connoisseur, he means that he must
learn to understand the language of art and not continue to be a stranger
in the land. To an art-historian who has trained his eye to a critical judgment
of art, there are few pleasures to be compared with that of going for the first time,
and without a guide, through a collection of good but unnamed old works of art.
The pictures become individuals, each with its own language and voice. Every
canvas speaks, and if we listen with care, it will tell us the name of its creator.
We know Jacob by his voice, even if the catalogue call him Esau ; for every real
artist, be he great or small, has his language of form, his accent in drawing, his

   
   
 

timbre in colouring. These make up his art; his ideas and his motives may be

borrowed. It is possible to imitate the language of another, to make as free use of the thoughts of
a greater, as if they were one’s own; but a keen and practised perception is not easily deceived. To
perceive an artist’s individuality clearly and fully is the actual enjoyment of art. An understanding
of art is something altogether different from talking about the ideas, thoughts and opinions that lie
behind, outside or above a picture. The complete sensuous appropriation of the work, of its compo-
sition, its colouring, its delineation, line, touch and laying on of colour; all that the Germans call
“ die Mache,” is the first condition for an aesthetic view of art. The mstheticism that bestows a
fleeting glance, and afterwards with closed eyes dreams about the ideas and nature of art, is not
greatly valued in the present day; but this abstracted, “ thoughtful ” contemplation of art is never-
theless the most general.

If the art-loving public could learn to look more materially at art, would turn its attention to the
peculiar style, technique and execution of each particular work, and thus teach itself to judge artistic
quality, much would be gained. The public would not then be so frequently the victim of trickery
and advertisement as it now is; unskilled criticism would be banished, and the vulgar hunt for motives
become less remunerative. Finally much fruitless discussion about art and morality would cease of
its own accord as idle nonsense.

To recognise the “quality” of a work of art is to perceive its “soul.” Painting, like men, has a
soul in and not outside its body; it can be found and felt in the execution itself. The mood of the
artist when working, his being in the humour or not in the humour, his eagerness and haste, his reflec-
tive search, his easy victory or hard struggle; these can all be read in the permanent traces left by
his pen or brush.

To follow the life of a line in one of Leonardo da Vinci’s beautiful pen-drawings, is to lull the eye
with the most melodious harmony. It is to perceive the balance, the force and the grace in the con-
struction of his figures, to feel distinctly the electrifying current from the creative genius that still

25 1)

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

vibrates in the spring and nervous sinuosities of the lines. All the art of the world has perhaps no more
intense intellectual enjoyment or greater intellectual wealth to offer. In itself it is a sufficient element
of life. A study of Leonardo’s art is instructive because it is art of the highest quality; but in order
rightly to comprehend its value and distance from all imitations, good or bad, or copies, the work of
his pupils and followers, it is necessary, with the assistance of a criticism of style, to test all that
borders on it, or hovers about the artist’s great name. In this investigation must be included every-
thing in his own or earlier times that can throw light upon the genesis and development of his art.
Above all it has been the author’s aim to discriminate justly between Leonardo and his great teacher
and forerunner, Verrocchio. In doing this, it has been impossible to avoid combatting Views that
seem narrow or unjust, or appear as misplaced values. Such controversial points have as a rule been
included in the text, while some of the material that would make the reading heavy for the less pro-
fessional reader, as also quotations from literature, have been placed as remarks and appendices at
the end of the book. The whole of Leonardo’s artistic work will not be found discussed in this book,
which treats only of his youthful production during his residence in Florence before his departure for
Milan, the most prolific part of his life as an artist, and that which centres in the genesis
of the picture of the Adoration of the Magi. This section of Leonardo’s career,
the “Florentine period,” is, in the eyes of the present author, the
germinating period, when the ideas for subsequent great
works also began to germinate in his imag-
ination, even if they did not ripen
into development until

much later.

 

9'

. «m. .‘Y-rqumv» _

 

/ §E~\

II

The great bird will take its first flight from the back of the mighty swan; it will astonish the world and fill
all books with its immortal name; everlasting renown will lie conferred upon the nest in which it was born.

LEONARDO DA VINCI.

INCI is the name of a little town nesting up among the hills on the north side of
the valley of the Arno, where the Florentine district approaches the Plain of Pisa.
A little beyond the town, on the road to “the White mountain,” Monte Albano,
which rises behind it, stood the country house of Ser Antonio da Vinci, who inter-
ested himself in wine-growing. The family was from Florence, where the father,
grandfather and great-grandfather of Ser Antonio had been notaries and members
of the lawyers’ guild. His son, Ser Piero, Leonardo’s father, also became a notary
in Florence ; but both before and after his marriage, the young man seems to have spent much of his
time at his father’s country house. When Ser Piero was twenty-five and still unmarried, a peasant-
girl in the district, Caterina by name, had a child by him. The girl must have been young, and she
is said to have been of good blood.6 This love-child of a young Florentine and a farmer’s daughter
from the highlands of Tuscany, was Leonardo da Vinci.

 

According to his grandfather’s own statement in the taxation-return (in the archives of Florence)7
the year of Leonardo’s birth must have been 1452; for in I457 the whole family still lived together
with the old Antonio, and he, in his character of head of the family, put Leonardo down as “son of
the said notary Piero, illegitimate child of him and Caterina, the present wife of Acchattabrigo di
Piero del Vaccha of Vinci, five years of age.” Thus while Caterina was married to a peasant from
Vinci, the notary, during the year in which the child was born, married a Florentine lady of good
birth, Albiera Arriadori. The marriage was childless, however, and the couple, in accordance with the
custom of the time, took Ser Piero’s child to live with them. In all probability Leonardo spent the
early years of his childhood on his grandfather’s estate at the foot of Monte Albano.

Here, leading a free, open-air life in field and on mountain, among vine-growing peasants, we may
picture Leonardo growing up. Here the boy developed the suppleness and strength of body that

27

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

Vasari so highly commends in the youth; here he must have learnt to manage a horse, he who became
one of the finest horsemen in Florence; here he grew handsome and healthy, and his mind must
have fallen early into the happy, well-balanced condition of which his whole work speaks.

In these Childhood’s years in the mountain district, his acquaintance with nature also had its origin.
Endowed with his mother’s healthy peasant sense, and with the inherited intelligence of his father’s
family, as an only child he probably wandered about by himself and looked independently at all that
surrounded him. He chose experience as his teacher. The plant and animal life on his grandfather’s
estate, the mountain scenery on Monte Albano, the peasantS’ horses and the wild birds of the forest,
everything attracted his attention. Might it not also be that the dream which dominated so great a
part of his life, namely to make men wings with which they could fly through the air, originated as a
child’s passionate wish in some expedition or other among the mountains?

\Vhen Leonardo was about nine years of age, his first step-mother died; but it was not long before
he had a new one, for in I465 his father married a girl of fifteen from Florence, Francesca di Ser
Giovanni Lanfredini. This marriage was‘also childless, and it may be imagined that the relations
between the young wife and her step-son, who was only two years her junior, were therefore all the
more intimate.

We know no details of Leonardo’s schooling and early education. He often called himself a man
5mm [ct/are, unlettered. It was only when of mature age, during his residence in Milan, as we learn
from his notes, that he taught himself Latin. Vasari, it is true, relates that he made such rapid
progress in arithmetic that after two or three months’ study, he quite nonplussed his teacher. He
cannot, however, have been a great mathematician during his youth in Florence, for in a note-book of
which the date must be 1483-1500, there are memoranda such as these: “ Let the arithmetic master
show you how to turn a triangle into a square,” or “Learn from Magister Luca the multiplication of
roots.”7 It is probable that scant attention was paid to the sciences at Vinci; and the boy’s first
teachers were his father and grandfather.

 

 

VINCI (after l\IiilIer-\Valde)

-—————-—-———.——, mu v.

 

 

 

 

EARLY YEARS

 

Photo. Brogi.

FLORENCE IN LE ONARDO'S ”2;”th THE PIAZZA DELLA SIGNORIA A\D PIAZZA DI S. IlRl‘NZE.

From an old painting in San Marco. The corner house 111 the background was probahl) Ser I’iero 5 house. In the Square the fire 15 lighted
{or the burning of Savonarola, 1498.

From the year 1469, however, a new life began for Leonardo. We know from taxation returns
that at that time, or a little earlier, Ser Piero no longer lived at Vinci. He had then moved for good
into the Tuscan capital, where his fame as a notary was growing, and where he certainly made a good
income. He lived just behind the Signoria in the Piazza di S. Firenze in a house that stood where
the Palazzo Gondi now stands which must have been pulled down about twenty years later, when
Giuliano da Sangal lo began the erection of the palace

That Ser Piero was highly esteemed in his profession is vouched for by the fact that the name of
no Florentine notary appears so often at that time at the foot of contracts and public documents.
Now we find him as procurator to the Cloister of S. Annunziata, now as financialmanager for the
monks of S. Donato, later also as notary to the SignOria and legal assiStant to the house of Medici
itself. It cannot be denied that the bundles of old papers in‘the archives have more to relate about
Ser Piero than about his son Leonardo. ' - “ ' ' ' 1

Ser I’iero was obviously a man of~strength and spirit. He was married four times. At the age of
forty- five when his young, second wife died, he took for his third wife a certain Margharita, who

29

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

brought him a dowry of 365 florins,
and bore him the first, longed for
legitimate children, Antonio and
Giuliano. At about this time Leo—
nardo seems to have left his home.
Ser Piero, however, outlived his
third wife, who died after presenting
him with four sons and a daughter.
For some years the prosperous notary
seems to have submitted to the con-
ditions of widowerhood; but in his
sixtieth year he adventured matri-
mony for the fourth time with una-
bated courage, and took to wife
Lucrezia di Cortegiani, by whom he
had six children. This Bluebeard of
a notary, as a French writer calls
him,8 was certainly not lacking in
vitality. Ser Piero had sprung from
a vigorous stock, and Leonardo was
the child of his youth and passion.9
Leonardo’s biographers tell of
his marvellous and manifold gifts.
“Wonderful, in truth, and divine was
Leonardo, Ser Piero’s son,” begins
Vasari. “His person was endowed
with a beauty that cannot be too
highly extolled, and in everything
that he did he exhibited the most per-
fect grace; so great was his ability that
however difficult the problem to which
he turned his mind, he solved it easily;
and his courage and boldness were
exceptional and sublime.” (Spirito
clevatissz’mo e [bieno di leggiadria.) He

 

Photo. llralni.

LEONARDO: Florentine Knight. Penvdrawing at \Vindsor.

possessed an innate intelligence and charm that captivated every one quite spontaneously. He was
musical, played on the lyre and sang to it divinmimzta improvised songs of his own. The only thing for
which Vasari reproaches him is his inconstancy. “ He might have carried his learning and knowledge
far, if he had not begun so much that he afterwards abandoned.” But through all this “he never left
off drawing and modelling, as these appealed especially to his fancy (case 0126 gli aizdavano afmiiasiapiz}
d’almm (ilk/(1).” Even if Vasari appears to infer the talents of the youth from the whole life-work of
the famous genius, it is quite conceivable that Ser Piero’s son was early a phenomenon in Florence,
a city in which intellect, art and elegance abounded. The description that Vasari gives of his

30

HIS PERSONALITY

personality and manners is nothing
short of dazzling. The reader in-
voluntarily asks where truth ends
and where exaggeration begins; yet
the opinions of contemporaries and
associates agree in corroborating
the report of the marvellous scope
of his abilities and the bewitching
power of his person.

He mastered all arts: painting,
sculpture, architecture, music,
poetry. He cultivated all sciences :
mathematics,perspective,anatomy,
physics,mechanics,geology,botany,
biology, astronomy. He was a mili-
tary, hydraulic and mechanical en-
gineer, land-surveyor, cartographer
and strategist; yet this seeker after
knowledge was no dusty book-worm,
no musty alchemist. He was a
young gentleman who walked the
streets of Florence, a supple cour-
tier of Sforza, and a self-reliant
master of his art in the service of
King Francis. The description
that Vasari gives of him as a
young man is fascinating; it is the
young Leonardo who lives in the
traditions of Florence. Handsome,
strong, supple, an adept in the art
of conversation, full of wit and
satire, but also of good-natured
merriment and grotesque jesting.
A sportsman, a horse-breaker,
quick and active in his whole LEONARDO: Young Florentine Knight. Chalk drawing at Windsor. PhO‘O-Bmun-
manner, and with beautiful, strong, artist’s hands, that could sweep the strings of his silver lyre, or
bend a horse-shoe straight. In manner he was grand, extravagant, amiable towards mankind, and
gentle towards animals. The story of the birds he bought in order to set free, is well known. His
behaviour was that of a dandy who apparently had little to do; he dressed well, had horses in his
stable, and servants to wait upon him. A circle of friends appears to have surrounded him.
“ Charm ” is the word that drops incessantly from the pen of his biographer. But how many were
there in light-hearted Florence who ever dreamt of what there was in this young man, who, behind
the easy bearing of a man of the world, concealed a superhuman passion, a veritable hungering for

31

 

 

 

[LEONARDO DA VINCI

the comprehension of the innermost connection of things? His contemporaries caught glimpses of
his genius, and were aghast at what he knew; but to them he was ever the incomprehensible Jack-of-
all-trades, with his inconstant, roving disposition, and his perpetual activity. For centuries the five
thousand folio pages of his writings have remained a sealed book. It is our own age that has first
begun to comprehend the dimensions of this searchor’s mind.

Leonardo’s desire for understanding was boundless, his eye ever watchful, his synthetic faculty in
ceaseless activity. In his note-books he collected particulars concerning the flight of birds, the flowing
of water, the budding and branching of trees, people’s gestures and the play of their features. He
had eyes for the rib in a leaf and the vein in a stone, he studied the character of his fellow-men,
their walk, their disposition, their moral and intellectual failings, their noses and chins. He measured
the human body in every direction, and dissected it to its most delicate fibre; and he did the same
with the body of the horse. With no other guide than experience and his divine synthetic faculty, he
made clear to himself how the earth moved round the sun, how man’s blood circulated, and how the
earth’s crust had been formed through remote ages; that man is a vertebrate animal, that steam
possesses motive power, that the humidity of the air can be measured, and that man should be able
to learn to fly through the air, the supreme dream of his life I

All this knowledge and experience was not a disordered chaos of details without coherence or
system. It was merely connection, resemblance or difference, that he saw everywhere. To him the
Florentine was a specimen of mankind ; man a species of the animal kingdom, the animal kingdom a
result of vegetable and terrestrial life, the earth a star in the solar system. The sun, the source of
light and heat, he worshipped as the great, divine life-giver. Behind this visible world he conceived
an inner, logical connection, a web of laws and forces, into which his apprehension was ever seeking to
penetrate—the never broken chain of causality, the inviolability of Nature’s laws, the imperishability
of matter and force, the relativity of truths, the oneness and eternity of truth.

Before Bacon and Newton, Leonardo laid the foundation of a view of life built upon experience,
spcrientia, commune madre di lutte [a scimtie e (ii/ti.” As the first modern philosopher, he saw and
worshipped the miracle, not outside but within the order of nature : “ O mimbile, 0 stupenda neciessitd!
Thou who with thy laws dost produce every effect from its cause, always by the shortest road l It is
here that we must look for the true miracle l ””

 

s: .fiMWbo-nn': wax. « A. .4 V.

«an

 

 

III

. zu Verrocchio, einem (lenkenden, (lurchaus theoretisch bcgriindeten Manne .....

GOETIIE.

ER PIERO, the wise notary, was not mistaken in his son’s ruling talent when
he one day gathered together his studies, and went with them to Andrea del
Verrocchio, clz’em molto amico suo, begging him to give his opinion as to the boy’s
ability. How well suited to Leonardo was this father, who willingly and with
understanding was the first to guide him into the path that was to lead him to the
pinnacle of fame, just as it suited Michelangelo’s case to have a bigoted father and
a couple of narrow-minded uncles to contend with, before he could enter upon the
path of art. The. harmony in the life of the one and the discord in that of the other, are only reflec-
tions of the peculiarities of their minds; yet who can say in which soul the hardest battles were fought,
in that of “the spoilt child of fortune” Leonardo, or that of “ the melancholic” Michelangelo ?

It has been said of Verrocchio, stir/mi Andrea ml vcdcr i1 gmndissimo principio di Leonardo. This
feeling of astonishment and mystery at the perfection of the youth finds expression in all contem-
poraneous accounts of Leonardo and his genius, and continually suggested to Vasari’s pen, when
speaking of ii divmo e celestc Vinci, the strongest superlatives of which the language was capable.
It is as though triumph were always assured to him who bore that victorious name.

Of all the good fortune that attended him through life, none can be compared with that which
decreed that Verrocchio should be his father’s friend, and that he himself should be apprenticed to
this artist. It will be one of the aims of the present writer to prove this from a consideration of
Verrocchio’s art, and to ShOW how much Leonardo owed to his congenial teacher.

We find no reliable statement as to when Leonardo entered Verrocchio’s studio. It was probably
shortly after Ser Piero moved to Florence, in 1469 at the latest, when Leonardo was in his seven—
teenth year.” In 1472 he was considered to be a consummate master of his art, as at that time
he was in the Company of Painters, and is mentioned in the Company’s “red book.” His name
is there recorded for neglecting to pay his member’s subscription, and for not having bought his
candles for S. Luke’s Day.’3 Leonardo seems never to have been a good manager; he is represented

33 E

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

rather as having been a lavish and generous spender of money, and
probably, just at the time when the subscription was due, had an
empty purse. About candles for saints’ days he can never have
been very careful. The next thing that we find about Leonardo
is that notwithstanding his being a master of his art, he was still
in Verrocchio’s studio, and in fact living with the master. This
information has been obtained from an infamous anonymous accu—
sation of which Vcrrocchio and his pupil were the victims, and
to which we shall return later.” It is not surprising that Ver-
rocchio, who at that time had plenty to do, willingly kept his pupil
to assist him in his studio, and Leonardo, on his side, must have
been warmly attached to his master. As Ser Piero had recently
married for the third time, and there arrived, shortly after, the
longed-for legitimate heir, it may be that Leonardo, who had now
completed his twenty-fourth year, preferred to leave his home and
[6305‘ VERRoccon PIT'roR. m) take up his abode with his teacher, who was unmarried, and only
L. “H' H ”CH' “01' sixteen years older than his pupil. The remaining reliable facts
“Wk... that can be extracted from documents and biographies concerning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leonardo’s residence in Florence, are exceedingly scanty. Vasari’s account of events and works is
wholly anecdotal and not a little confused; he assigns an evidently incorrect date for Leonardo’s
departure for Milan, confounds the artist’s first residence in Florence with a later visit, and gives
on the whole few, if any, reliable chronological data. Nor is it easier to find out anything from
Borghini’s brief biography in [Z 11617503035 Finally, there is the short anonymous biography in the
ilfaglz'abecc/zi manuscript which formed one of Vasari’s sources.‘6 The writer states, inter alia, that
Lorenzo de’ Medici interested himself in the artistic training of the young Leonardo, and gave him the
opportunity of working from the antiques in the Medici garden near the Piazza S. Marco, where
subsequently Michelangelo was a frequent visitor. It is also this biographer who first relates that
Lorenzo sent Leonardo, at the age of thirty,’7 in the year 1482 therefore, to the Duke of Milan with a
silver lyre that the artist himself had made. There is no information as to any other connection
between Leonardo and Lorenzo “ il Magnifico ”; it would seem rather as if Leonardo, for some reason
or other, was not sufficiently appreciated by the great art-patron of Florence, and perhaps this was
one of the reasons for his leaving the town of his birth at the age of thirty, and repairing to Milan.

The few data we find in the documents concerning Leonardo before this journey, are soon
enumerated.

(I) A drawing of the 5th August, I473, to which we shall return later, shows him to have been in
the valley of the Arno.

(2) Another drawing about the end of I478, which will also be discussed in detail in these pages,
indicates a certain connection with l’istoia, and mentions two Madonnas that Leonardo had begun.

(3) A contract, 10th January, 1478, treats of an order for the Signoria Palace.

(4) A drawing, 29th December, I479, of the hanged conspirator Bernardo Bandino, shows that
Leonardo was in Florence at that time, and probably also during the Pazzi conspiracy the previous year.

(5) Several entries in a journal dated 1480 and 1481, from a monastery outside Florence, relating
to a picture that was ordered from Leonardo for the monastery church.

34

iwwflsn~mfii‘“ ~ '

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

(6) One of these entries shows
that in I481 he had a house of his
own in Florence.

 

Vasari relates, in contradiction
to the Anonimo who was his prin-
cipal source, that in 1494 (in his
forty-second year) Leonardo was
sent with great honour to play upon
the silver lyre that he had made
himself, and that in this musical
contest he surpassed all the musi-
cians who had come together. As
reasons for the journey and the
contest,Vasari mentions Gian (Gio-
vanni) Galeazzo’s death, and the
election of Ludovico Moro to the
ducal throne. This account has
simply to be rejected as a mistake
or a confusion, as there is docu-
mentary evidence of Leonardo’s
having been in Milan from I487.‘8
Vasari further writes : “After
Verrocchio’s departure for Venice
(1484),Giovanni Francesco Rustici, I“: f
who had known Leonardo in Ver-
rocchio’s studio, took up his abode
with the young master, who had a
great liking for him.” According
to this, Leonardo would still have ,
been in Florence in I484, and .
Richter and Morelli accordingly
date his Milan journey as I485.‘9 At
the time of Verrocchio’s departure, .
however, as M'Lintz has remarked, ‘ ‘ ‘ i ‘ " Photo. 1am”:
the said RUStici, “7hO \Vas born in LEONARDozjohn the Baptist. Silver-point studyat \Vindsor,nbout I476.

1474, was only ten years of age, so

 

it could not at any rate have been before going to Milan that Leonardo lived with the young sculptor.
It was more likely twenty years later, when, in 1504, Leonardo returned to Florence ; for then he is
said to have been present at the casting of Rustici’s three figures for the grouping of “John the Baptist
over the north doorway of the Baptistery.”

The period from 1482 to 1486 is a blank in Leonardo’s biography, as there are no records of his
doings; but from the latter date there is documentary evidence of his being in Milan in 1487, 1490,

,7

Preaching,

1491, 1492, and lastly in 1499, when Gascon archers, during the siege of Ludovico Moro’s city, destroyed

35

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

Leonardo’s model for the Sforza statue. But when did Leonardo go to Milan ? There is one thing
to go upon in a statement about the Sforza statue by the same man who has recorded the destruction
of the model, namely, the humanist, Sabba Castiglione.“ He says that Leonardo had worked uninter-
ruptedly for sixteen years at the model which the French destroyed in I499. At that time Castiglione
himself was twenty years of age and studied at the university of the adjacent town of Pavia. As he
subsequently, moreover, became an earnest student of the artistic and historic monuments of Milan, no
little importance must be attached to his words. According to this evidence, Leonardo must have
begun the Sforza statue as early as 1483, and consequently was at that time in Milan. He must
probably have begun the work the year before, or at least have been turning over in his mind the idea
for it, as an epigram has been preserved, that was intended for the pedestal of the Sforza statue,
composed by 11 Moro’s court poet, Francesco Arrigoni. This epigram the poet fortunately dated
when he sent it to his royal master, the 25th February, I482 ; so even at that time, Leonardo must
have been in Milan. -

This agrees well with the little that we know of him from Florence. From the 10th January, 1478,
to the 25th September, 1481, in contracts and payments for pictures, we have a check upon Leonardo’s
probably uninterrupted residence in Florence. From I481 his name disappears entirely from the
documents. We hear nothing about any balance paid him for the above-mentioned pictures, and it
is not until the next century that his name suddenly reappears in Florence. In 1501 he executed
the famous cartoon for the picture of the Madonna with S. Anne, intended for the church of the
Annunziata. At about the same time he must have begun the portrait of Monna Lisa.

It is not our intention, however, to follow the artist as far as this. Our investigation ends with
Leonardo’s departure for Milan, and judging from all the evidence, this took place at the close of 1481.

With the journey to Milan, the first great period of Leonardo’s life terminated—the Florentine
period, the period of his youth and greatest development, at any rate as painter. With his sojourn in
Milan begins a new section relating to Leonardo the sculptor, the architect, the engineer, and still
more the man of science. Here too begin his labours as a teacher of painting.

There is no part of Leonardo’s manuscripts to which an earlier date can be assigned for their
commencement than 1483 (the Codex Atlanticus in Milan); so his literary labours lie quite outside
our field of observation in this work. The author’s task is exclusively to follow Leonardo’s youthful
development as a painter and draughtsman, to examine into his relations with Verrocchio and his
studio, to sift the works that are attributed to Leonardo during his Florentine period, and above all
to follow the growth of the ideas and the development of the motives in his genuine works. Few
though these may be, the material for our investigation is abundant enough. Scarcely any period of
Leonardo’s life is so full of growing power, so abounding in ingenious artistic thoughts, as these three
years of his youth in Florence, when, wholly a painter, all his greatest works as an artist were forming
in his mind.

 

'F

3". ‘

\‘I

‘W

 

 

,vg-rw ”if???“

- : .36... .u}.-.; «.34

Photo. liraun.
LEONARDO: Neptune. Chalk drawingr at \Vinrlsor.

IV

The painter strives to emulate Nature.
LEONARDO DA VINCI.

OTHING better gauges Leonardo’s greatness and the impression created by his
personality, than the fact that his fame as a painter rests upon four or five
unfinished or half-ruined paintings. This man, who “began much and completed
little” was in many respects a favourite of fortune; but his works have been
pursued, checked, destroyed, annihilated, by chance and an evil fate. His fame as
an artist nevertheless attained the level of Michelangelo and Raphael, both of
whom bequeathed a colossal life-work to the world. Nor, most wonderful of all,
has time caused any diminution in his fame. It has survived the changing fashions and tastes of four
centuries. The name Leonardo has never been forgotten, never slighted. Always surrounded by an
atmosphere of reverence, it has never shone so brightly as now; for we must remember that his writings
and the thoughts hidden in them, were not known to his contemporaries, nor yet, with the exception
of a few fragments, to those who came after him. It was reserved for the nineteenth century to see
them published. Leonardo’s personality had such an influence upon his age that it became a myth
and a romance for after ages.

There is not much left of Leonardo’s artistic work, if only his paintings are taken into account.
We seek in vain for his youthful productions, of which we read in the accounts of the artist’s
biographers, Vasari and the Florentine Anom'mo. The shield or round wooden disc with the
chimera, of which Vasari tells in his racy, anecdotal manner, is to us no more than a legend. If the
picture really came into the possession of Ludovico Moro, as Vasari assures us it did, it has since, at
any rate, totally disappeared.”

Nor can we now form any certain opinion as to the tcsta di MLTchl con mimbili c vzm'i agmppamwzti
di $61751, which the zélnom'moz3 and Vasari saw in the collection of Duke Cosimo de’ Medici, and which

37

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

is also mentioned in the inventory
of the alVIedicisJ’4 The Head of
Medusa in the Uffizi is evidently a
late work, which, under the guidance
of Vasari’s anecdote about the
shield, and the account of the
Gorgon, has been painted, for the
purpose of fraudulently taking the
place of the lost original. Mundler
thought that Leonardo’s Milanese
biographer, the painter Lomazzo,
might be the author of the counter-
feit; but the coarse drawing of the
face, combined with the minuteness

 

of detail in the snakes’ skin, would
rather indicate a late, northern
(Flemish?) imitation. It is time that the directors of the Uffizi Gallery struck out Leonardo’s name from
this forgery, which, although no longer capable of deceiving a skilled observer, still usurps the admiration

Photo. .\linari.
IRII'I‘A'I‘ION Ol“ LEONARDO: Head of Medusa. The Uffiyi.

of the great gallery-visiting public, which innocently takes it to be a work of Leonardo da Vinci. The
picture is reproduced here, so that the reader may assure himself with his own eyes of its Spuriousness.

Attention is involuntarily drawn to the fact that it was this kind of “ strange and most marvellous
thing” that, according to Vasari, occupied the imagination of the young Leonardo. It is startling to
find the future great empiricist beginning his artistic career by representing chimerical beings; but an
inclination towards the fantastic and mystical is often dimly seen through Leonardo’s art. He was

“

attracted not only by the beautiful and the perfect but also by
the strange, the bestial, the horrible, and even the misshapen.
Vasari indeed relates how he would follow in the street
persons of a strange, confused or ludicrous appearance, and
so impress their features upon his memory, that he could
draw them at home as exactly as if they were sitting to him.
The few genuine caricatures from Leonardo’s hand?5 (and
some of the counterfeit productions which may have been
copied from genuine drawings that have disappeared) give
evidence of this sense of the weirdly grotesque, and also of
a bitter knowledge of mankind. Vasari’s anecdote, however,
of the manner in which the picture of the monster on the
shield originated, is interesting from the fact that behind
the subsequent mythical development and romancism of the
author, the story actually contains a certain characterisation
of the nature of Leonardo’s imagination. This young man
who, after making up his mind to paint the unnatural and
fantastic, first selects from nature all kinds of slimy ver-

 

min and creeping things which instinctively arouse fear LEONARDO:(3aricaiureS:ene. infiniiriwinggu\nmimr.

38

 

‘2‘

LOST YOUTHFUL PRODUCTIONS

and disgust in men, and then shuts himself up with lizards
and snakes, spiders and bats, of which he continues to make
studies until the atmosphere of the room is unbearable for
human beings—this is Leonardo. Of this young man Vasari
writes that he never tired of drawing from nature, and that
he made clay models which he draped with fine linen dipped
in plaster, and then patiently, with a fine brush, made exceed-
ingly subtle studies of drapery “ that were a miracle l ” The
same scientific thoroughness, the same faithfulness to nature
are to be found in his art, no matteriif he drew a skirt or
a dragon, a flower or Medusa’s snake-locks. A note in his
“Treatise on Painting” (about I492) gives an insight into
Leonardo’s artistic imagination and its close relation to
reality. He there gives advice and rules as to “What you
ought to do to make an imaginary animal natural. You
know,” he says, “that you cannot imagine any animal that
has not its limbs from somewhere or other; each limb must
recall something in some other animal. If you want to make
a chimerical animal to look natural, let us say a dragon, then

 

. LEONARDO: Leaf of MS. with .‘t (l '01- Flowers.
take for its head the head of a sheep-dog or a sleuth-hound, Pen-arming. “Quasi-aid

for its eyes cats’ eyes, for its ears hedgehogs’ ears, take the greyhound’s snout, the lion’s eye—
brows, the temples of an old cock, and the nape of a turtle’s neck.”6 Behind the fantastic descrip-
tion may be suspected an impression of Chinese dragons, which the artist had evidently seen; but
so entirely did he make these foreign representations his own, that every detail of the monster was

Clear to his mind, and lived in his imagination. We shall see later, too, how organically he was
able to form these chimerical representations, and what life he gave to them in the sketches for
fighting dragons.

It is not only the cleverness and calculation in this kind of art that arouses admiration, it is the
conformity to law with which his fancy acts. In an artist such as Hieronymus Bosch,” for instance,
the imagination wanders in a delirium of incoherent absurdities, and his chimerical representations
have therefore the effect of a nightmare. Leonardo’s chimeras are just as coherent and organic,
and therefore just as probable, as his figures from real life; for his imagination never wanders about
aimlessly, and, no matter to what height it rises, is always anchored to realities.

Vasari states that Leonardoin his youth modellec “in clay some heads of children and laughing women,
which bore the stamp of the master-hand.” None of these models by Leonardo is now in existence.
We are obliged to have recourse to drawings and analogies from the productions of Desiderio and
Verrocchio in order to obtain some idea of their smiling grace (pp. 55—~58). For a time it was
believed that a possible work of Leonardo had been found in the famous wax bust of a young, graceful
woman in the Museum at Lille, but the idea has now been wholly rejected."8 Concerning Dr. Bode’s
attempt to reconstruct the sculptor Leonardo from three or four slightly-treated bronze-reliefs by very
different and inferior artists, there will be an opportunity of speaking in another connection (in Part II)?9

The cabinet pictures that Vasari mentions, and which might be supposed to belong to the time
of Leonardo’s youth in Florence, have also disappeared. A Madonna, with flowers in a bottle of

39

 

 

 

LOST YOUTHFUL PRODUCTIONS

water beside her, which Pope Clement VII
is said to have owned, may have been a
youthful production; but We shall sub-
sequently see what a complete misap-
prehension there is in the wish to identify
the lost Madonna with a picture in
Munich30 tha has been rediscovered in
our own day. T On the other hand a draw-
ing in black chalk at Windsor, of Neptune
driving his sea-horses, seems to be one of
the studies for the Neptune composition
which Vasari tells us Leonardo drew for
his friend Antonio Segni in Florence.
“You saw the rough sea and Neptune’s
chariot drawn by sea-horses and accom-
panied by monsters, dolphins, south winds
and some beautiful heads of sea-gods.”3‘
Even from the greatly reduced produc-
tion at the head of this chapter, an im-
pression may be obtained of the ardour
of the hand that held the chalk.‘ The
horses are snorting, neighing and lash-
ing the waves with their fishes’ tails; the
composition is as rhythmically and amply
decorative as a Rubens. Vasari also
mentions several portrait drawings, drawn
with matita mm, mong them being a
splendid head of an old man, in which the
features were those of Amerigo de’ Ves-
pucci; but this it is no longer possible

 

LEONARDO: the (iipsy Chieftain, Sczu'zuuucciaC?) Drawing in black chalk at Oxford.

to identify with any genuine Leonardo—drawing.” As to whether the intensely characterised, not to
say caricatured, profile of a brutally coarse, plebeian physiognomy in the Christ Church Collection at
Oxford is identical with the drawing of the gipsy Chieftain, Scaramuccia, which Vasari saw in the
house of a canon at Arezzo, I will not venture to give an opinion; but in any case the sheet is a true
and powerful example of Leonardo’s extreme realism. Whether the angel with the foreshortened
arm, of which Vasari speaks as one of the pearls in Duke Cosimo’s collection, is to be identified with
the mystical John the Baptist in the Louvre (shown on. p. 57), as some persons think, is more than
doubtful.33 The beautiful Silver-point drawing of a nude John the Baptist (shown on p. 35), hardly
agrees with Vasari’s remark ; but it is certainly an early drawing, probably from about 1476.34

These early works seem to be irretrievably lost, and we find no material among the drawings from
which mentally to reconstruct them. The greatest loss, however, among Leonardo’s vanished youthful
productions seems to be that of the cartoon of the “Fall,” which, according to Vasari, the artist
executed for a piece of Flemish tapestry in gold and silk, intended for the King of Portugal. The

40

 

 

, _..W“:r~———-.if__"_. _... .

 

 

 

 

{ram}.

Photo. I

unlmr.

Pen-study on green paper. \V'

Tree.

ONARDO:

LP

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

biographer saw it in “the happy house of the glorious Octaviano de’ Medici,” and he adds that it
was a present from Leonardo’s uncle. It appears, from the description, that our first parents were
represented “in the earthly paradise at the moment of sinning.” With the knowledge we have of
Leonardo’s psychological feeling and ability to render physiognomical expression, we can believe that
the subject was a highly promising one. The picture would most certainly not be a mere traditional
representation of the mechanical offering of the apple. What a seductive play of purity and desire,
of pleasure in the sin and sense of guilt, can we imagine in glance and smile and the first conscious
contact of the beautiful bodies! Vasari further relates that the cartoon was executed in water-colour
mgrisai/[c (with sepia and white lead); but in spite of its lack of colour, the representation of the
luxuriance of the garden of Eden draws forth his loudest expressions of praise. He speaks of a
meadow with innumerable plants and animals so painted that “ there is no divine genius in the world
that can compare with Leonardo in carefulness and naturalness, or produce so striking a likeness to
nature.” A fig-tree, in particular, has impressed him with the exceedingly admirable correctness and
exactitude with which its leaves were drawn and its branches distributed; and concerning the curves
in the fan-shaped leaves of a palm, he says that they “ were executed with great and wonderful artistic
feeling such as only Leonardo is capable of.” We must thus imagine a landscape executed with an
intimacy and minute attention to detail based upon profound study of nature; and it is not improbable
that the landscape in the cartoon bore traces of the influence of the works of great Flemish painters,
which, at that time, were eagerly sought after by Florentine lovers of art.35

Vasari expressly mentions that the tapestry was not executed, so there can be little hope of finding
Leonardo’s composition in any textile production. This is the more regrettable from the fact that up
to the present no figure-studies among the master’s drawings have been found that can with any
show of probability have been prepared for this work. It is probable, on the other hand, that we may
form some idea of the details of the scenery from the numerous faithful and minutely-executed pen-
studies of plants and trees that are found among Leonardo’s drawings; and on reading Vasari’s
description of the landscape we involuntarily think of the straight palm—tree and bushy oak in the
middle distance of the half-finished picture of the Adoration of the Magi in the Uffizi, which also
dates from the time of Leonardo’s youth. Borghini, it is true, says expressly that the cartoon of
Adam and Eve “was among the first things that Leonardo did,"36 but as he added this scrap of informa-
tion of his own accord to his history, which in other respects he copied from Vasari, little reliance can
be placed upon it. The cartoon cannot on that account be assigned to the time of Leonardo’s earliest
youth. If the fact be true that it was ordered for the King of Portugal, it may certainly also be taken
for granted that the order would be placed with a finished artist, who had already proved his capacity
rather than with a beginner.37 It is important to remember this, because the cartoon of the Fall seems
to have been one of the most considerable of Leonardo’s youthful productions, and also because it will
naturally be dated during the fruitful years of his life that precede his departure for Milan in 1481, the
year in which the Adoration of the Magi was created and, as we shall see, when other great picture-
visions were growing in his imagination.

 

 

 

Photo. Alinari.

ANDREA DEL VERROCCHIO
ly Pietro Peruqino rather than by Lorenzo di Credi. Uffizi, Florence.

V
Feeble is the pupil who does not outstrip his master.
LEONARDO DA VINCI.

REAT EFFORTS have been made to fill with new attributions the empty
places left by the lost productions of Leonardo’s youth. One work after another,
both in painting and sculpture, has been drawn forth from collections and stores,
and “assigned” to the young Leonardo. His master Verrocchio, whom Vasari has
treated so cavalierly by persistently praising the pupil at the expense of his teacher,
has had now one, now another of his works wrested from him, German art-historians

 

thinking fit to rename them “young Leonardos.” These German art-historians,
it is true, have developed a remarkable zeal in replacing what has‘been lost. The diligent old
“orifex” and bronze-caster, to which level Vasari is inclined to reduce him, has suddenly become a
central and much contested figure in Florentine art-history, not only as sculptor, but still more as
painter. Dr. Bode, the director of the Berlin Museum,who is unsurpassed in tracking new“acquisitions ”
in private collections and the shops of art-dealers, seems to have made it one of the principal aims of
his life to add to the number of Verrocchio’s few acknowledged productions.38 The old “orifex” has
at last, towards the close of the nineteenth century, rcached the Jarnassus to which Vasari never
imagined he would attain, and reached it moreover with greatly increased baggage. \Vhether he

43

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

himself would acknowledge the swollen production with which
Dr. Bode and other art-historians have furnished him is another
matter. Personally I fail to find it much more than a collection
of school and studio pictures, imitations, copies, or forgeries. They
may to a certain extent serve to supplement the conception of the
sphere of ideas within which the art of Verrocchio’s bottega moved;
but as evidence of Andrea’s own hand, they rather detract from than
add to his honour. On the other hand, fresh wrong has been done,
as has been said, to Verrocchio, real work of his having in recent
times been taken from him and given to “the young Leonardo.” 9
On the whole, in art-history it has been a misfortune to Verrocchio '
to have had so talented a pupil. Vasari’s biography and all sub-
sequent art—writing about the master have been filled with gossip
concerning the teacher’s dependence on, and inferiority to, his pupil.
Hear how Vasari begins his biography of Andrea del Verrocchio.
“ Many there are who learn an art by Virtue of their diligence, and
who would surpass all others if their diligence were supported by

 

VERROCCHIO : Virgin and Child. Terra-tutu. . . ' . '
Uffizi, Florence nature, so that natural gifts might be coupled w1th acquired practice.”

If their art is kept alive by incessant study of nature, he goes on to say, such people may accom-

plish incredible things ; but if they leave their work for

 

only three days and get out of practice, it is all up with
them. “Such men,
acquire an angular style, devoid of all grace, on account

)7

continues the biographer, “always

of the great exertions they have to go through in defying
nature. It ought not therefore to be considered remark-
able that Andrea del Verrocchio, who reached the highest
stage among sculptors more by reason of his industry
than of his talent, and who had thoroughly mastered the
technique of his art, was considered to be angular and
hard in his works. These qualities his works have always
had, even though they may be a wonderful sight to all
who know them.” Quite unnecessarily the biographer
repeats himself in the next passage of the biography with
still harder and more sweeping terms about this slave to
work, who won a name for himself in art by his toil and
by being the teacher of a gifted pupil. Vasari betrays the
bad foundation for this summary judgment in speaking
of the different works of Verrocchio, to all of which he is
compelled to yield full recognition and even admiration.
In the matter of a few examples of Verrocchio’s art,
which chanced to be in his own possession, he says, with-

 

out more ado, that “Leonardo da Vinci always imitated

VERROCCHIO'S STUDIO : Virgin and Child. Marble.

liargello, Florence.

 

these delicate drawings of highly expressive female heads

44

 

 

A.

‘Q’

ANDREA

with their elegantly dressed hair,
because of their beauty.” Nothing,
of course, is more natural than that a
gifted teacher should be thrown into
the shade by a still more gifted pupil;
but the fact that Perugino stood in
the relation of teacher to Raphael
and that Ghirlandaio’s studio
counted Michelangelo among its
pupils, has not impaired the fame of
those artists. It almost seems as if
Vasari had become the spokesman
of a special prejudice which must
have spread in Florence itselfagainst
Verrocchio and his art. The repeated
anonymous accusations brought
against him show that while living
he had personal enemies; and the
fact that he moved over to Venice
towards the close of his life would
scarcely add to his renown in his
birthplace. The chief reason, how-
ever, for the refusal to acknowledge
Verrocchio’s art is that he had a
direct continuer in his pupil Leo-
nardo. The fact that Leonardo
owes Verrocchio so very much, and
was so like him in many respects, is
what has injured the master. The
romantic idea of absolute independ-
ence of surroundings and transmis-
sion by reason of simple genius, has
been a hindrance in the way of seeing
the true connection between master
and apprentice; and, by virtue of a
superficial hero-worship, the relation
between the two men is turned upside
down, the master becoming appren-
tice and the apprentice master. The
characterisation of Verrocchio given

DEL VERROCCHIO

 

l’holo. Alinari.

VERROCCHIO: David, Bronze statue in 1heliargcllo, Florence.

by a French historian, Eugene Muntz, in his large work on Leonardo, is reliable in so far as it is almost

paradigmatic of the current, superficial, and contradictory views of the connection between them.”

Milntz begins by presupposino‘ an extremely slow development for Verrocchio. For a long time, he says,

.-_,;jr.

43

g

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

Verrocchio was exclusively occupied
with goldsmith’s work, and with
works of an inferior class; and it was
only towards the end of his life that
he succeeded in developing his taste
for “the great art of statuary.” Ver-
rocchio’s slow and gradual emancipa-
tion into a real artist must have been
due to the influence of Leonardo, a
pupil sixteen or seventeen years his
junior! It is, however, an incontro-
vertible fact that all his principal
dated works, with the exception of
the Colleoni, were begun before he
was forty, at a time when Leonardo
was still a youth of about twenty,
just admitted into the Company of
Painters. “But Verrocchio,” con—
tinues Leonardo’s French biographer
dogmatically, “was a seeker and not
a finder, essentially of an incomplete
nature, but of a particularly sugges-
tive mind, one who sowed more than
he reaped, and trained more pupils
than he produced masterpieces.” The
author admits that “the revolution
that Verrocchio, with Leonardo’s
assistance, aspired to bring about, was
pregnant with consequences. Its
purpose was nothing less than to
restore the picturesque element, a
pliable, undulating life, in the place
of the purely plastic, instead of

 

I’ll t .Al. ‘. - -
VERROCCHIO: Boy with Dolphin. 0° "m” decorative formulae which were often

Bronze figure on :1 foumain by Francesca Tadda, in the courtyard of the l’alazzo Vecchio, Florence.

fairly easy to manage, and upon
which his predecessors rested.” M. Muntz is not far wrong in this, or rather he is circling round the
truth; for, as if he were afraid that so much praise would weight Verrocchio’s scale too heavily, and
send Leonardo’s up into the air, he suddenly turns against Verrocchio with preconceived ill-will:
“The whole outline of his figures is with difficulty detached from their background. [Is it the Thomas
group that detaches itself so badly from its niche, or Colleoni who stands out indistinctly against the
sky ?] Above all he does not understand the art of marrying [maria/J a statue or a relief to the
architecture that is to frame it. This is abundantly shown in his Boy with the Dolphin, with its
stilted, improbable, although pretty position.” In order to appreciate a criticism such as this, we

46

‘u'

ANDREA DEL VERROCCHIO

must remember that the Boy with the
Dolphin was never thought of in con-
nection with the architecture that now
surrounds it in the cortile of the Signoria,
but as a figure for a well or fountain in
the Medicis’ villa at Careggi, probably
to be Viewed against a background of ; . 7 7 ‘ A
sky and laurel-trees. This we know i ' ', . 9 --———~~- i ‘ ~—__——_—:’

 

from an old memorandum by Verrocchio’s
brother Tommaso,40 which the document
searcher MUntz should be the last to
forget. Moreover, it is sufficiently clear
that the marble pedestal upon which the
figure stands and the flat porphyry basin
which receives the water are not Verroc-
chio’s work, but that of a baroque artist,
who set up the fountain a hundred years

 

later in the court-yard of the Palazzo
Vecchio.“ That the artist, whose name
was Tadda, has accomplished his task in a
manner bordering on perfection, that the
fountain as it stands is the most graceful
in the world, and that Verrocchio’s roguish
little boy in the beautiful high light makes
a delightful effect as he stands there
balanced upon the point of his toe and
fluttering his sparrows’ wings, while he
laughingly squeezes the jet of water out
of his dolphin, none of this has the learned
French librarian noticed! Marier de [a
sculpture avec l’mc/zitecture. If any one
has ever known how to do that, it must
be Verrocchio, the great decorator who ,, .V , .
designed the sarcophagus of the Medici VERROCCH10= TheDoubtingThomas.

Bronze group in Donatello’s marble niche in the 01' San Michele, Florence.

 

Photo. Alinari.

in San Lorenzo and carved the marble

[(121000 in the Old Sacristy (in which he anticipates the best decorative ideas of the baroque), who
chased the silver relief of the Beheading of John the Baptist, and designed the pedestal for the statue
of Colleoni—for only the artist who created the statue can have conceived the new, bold idea of
the towering pedestal. Marry sculpture to architecture! I wonder whether art—history really
knows many such happy solutions of so fresh and difficult a problem as that which was set and
solved in Verrocchio’s Thomas group for Donatello’s tabernacle in the Or San Michele.“ A dramatic
group of two figures, placed in a narrow niche that had been built for a single statue! By merely
raising the figure of Christ upon a low step inside the niche, the artist has given it superiority and

47

 

 

 

LEON/HUN) l)/-. \l‘ihl

( , "“15722,‘ 1/, , 1) ..,, 4,, ,

a central position, which invests Our Lord with I! gleam 0, ,2, , ,, « .. 4.1913,?) of reve-
lation. By a clever, and hold utilisation 'rf’ i1 llf’ll‘?’rl'7;5{ com/1:, ‘7": 27";1‘, 2729731. tie doubting
2,: ZINE,” ;: '.':", ,1 1,}; group its

 

Thomas the necessary space for his lie'-,it;itiri,r,{ atop, :s

extraordinary dramatic life, and imparts quite A new lim ,‘1, ter .AIZ' Le whole an

 
 

a>sthetic analysis of Verrocchio’s group of the riaeri (gar/f, em: ".f.‘: ; , TEX/71:5: is entirelv

sufficient to convince us that we have before us the work of a gen, ,1. 14:91? marks

 

a breaking away from old customs and have, a revolution for l,r:o:,:;, , ,, :3 11', :::'x,r.’_;,.:‘~..'_. but not
to begin. How delicate is the play of line", lietzc’eeri ‘31; ' i ‘ ,
on both feet, resting in assurance, and him who steps haw,
How eloquent are the motions of the hands, and how a}: .-
grand. natural, and yet solemn gesture, the risen Sit/{1'0}? if:

with the other He uncovers the print of the around if, Hi2, ’-" : -
his hand towards the sign, trembling and iri'.'olurit:irfi;.', a

  

hand sinks imperceptibly into the position of blessing. The friefrjzigr; 1: rigid-3'». and meeting of
hands that focus dramatically upon the mark ofthe wound. is iii-“:32: 712)}: :2, .,., it ——e and wonder-
fully thought out. No one but a highly cultured and extrernei; ’

 
 
  
  
 
   

brought

.,V,.‘

about this nervous tension, and yet with so perfec, a...‘ p.27

 

 

Only flowing lines, soft flexing of joints, gliding steps War. , :estures,
urbanity, elegance l “hat a transformation lies l)‘;11'.";‘:7: 13.11: ’ ‘. A, ' 5 ’ ' t :orentine
youth in the form of the doubting disciple. and S. Geor; :' '2 knight
which Donatello made for another niche in the same bu: r'_:_;. J

In a purely formal sense too, the Thomas (frOup indir " ' " :*H V -' 5 - A, _ So
" Florentine
sculptor: eyen Donatello-s equestrian statue must have i ,. ” . 7 l _ ' _ xvii: T‘Effect
‘ i i ' -‘~::s of the

interest in

justice consider that there are too many broken 2.. '
figures—too many because the abundance of the to

 

the group. But what artistic splendour there is in all :::s :lax' : ___‘_: 1:: sisijx , 332:5 that
catch bright light. and projections that throw deep 2. ' ogis * ' > ': > ;_ In the

matter of form, too. what a play of parallelisms. C02: :3 figure

 

are here in germ. Verrocchio’s Thomas group is a :ree of :is : :: ‘

 

 

 

l
P
E

 

 

 

 

 

 

VERROCCHIO; Detail of the Colleoni Statue Venice.

VI

The painter must seek to he universal.

LEONARDO DA VINCI.

 

NDREA never rested, but always worked at something or other, either painting or
sculpture, and at times he left off one piece of work to change it for another,” says
Vasari concerning Verrocchio. “In his youth,” he also writes, “he gave himself
up to the sciences, particularly geometry.” - He was a technical experimenter, who,
according to Vasari’s description, went from one occupation to another—“goldsmith,
master in perspective, sculptor, wood-carver, painter and musician.” We hear
how he made the most varied things, from the smallest to the greatest, from
the ornamented Clasps for the vestments of the Chapter, to the great gilt ball43 composed of eight
huge copper plates, which completed the dome of the cathedral, described as a piece of technical
art that aroused the admiration of the whole town. We see from such of his works as have been
preserved, and also in Vasari’s life, how high was the degree of perfection to which he carried the
arts of bronze-casting and chasing. “Andrea’s fame could rise no higher in this art, and as he
was a man who was not satisfied with being eminent only in a single line, but wished to become the
same in others, he turned his attention to painting.” We are told of excellent cartoons of a battle
among naked men, drawn with pen, but intended to be executed as mural paintings,“ and of another

 

 

 

 

49 G

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

series of cartoons which the artist
began in colours. “But whatever
the reason may have been, they
remained unfinished.” The only
painting now existing of those men-
tioned by Vasari, Christ’s Baptism
is also unfinished. The people of,
Pistoia had to wait more than six years
for their altar-piece, although during
all that time it “was standing almost
finished in his studio.“5 Eighteen
years passed from the day that the
Thomas group was ordered until it
was placed in its niche.” The Forte—
guerri statue for Pistoia Verrocchio
seems finally to have abandoned for
the Colleoni statue for Venice. Nei-
ther of them was finished by Verroc—
chio’s own hand; the first was never
completed in the way he had intended
it to be, and death took him from the
second.“ This goldsmith, who bore
the name of the master to whom he
was first apprenticed, must, to judge
from his commissions and orders,
have enjoyed a reputation for versa-
tility unusual even among the gifted
artists of Florence. In addition to
actual goldsmith’s work, and working
in bronze, we hear of an architec-
tural competition in which he took
part for a chapel in the cathedral
of Orvieto (I461) #8 but neither this

 

Photo. .\lin:n'i.
VICRROCCHIO; Lawn/m in marble. S. Lorenzo, Florence. design DOI‘ other architcctura] \VOI‘kS

(in a stricter sense) by Andrea have
been preserved. During the building of the dome of the cathedral in his native town, he was
appointed judge, and to him was entrusted the crowning of Brunellesehi’s great work with a large,
richly-gilt ball, jmlla, that was to lift to heaven the cross containing the precious relics.” \Vhen the
Signoria was to have a costly bronze candelabra for its audience-chamber, the order was given to
Verrocchiofi" Vasari even mentions a journey to Rome and an order from Pope Sixtus IV for
some apostles in silver for the papal chapel ; but the statement is not confirmed by the documents.“
The house of Medici preferred Verrocchio as an artist before any other. A list dating from I496,

Wthh the Cloth-weaver Tommaso, his Survivinrr brother drew u) after Andrea’s death mentions
O a 1 a

50

V_.. -rfi—‘r ._ ._ w -—.———-~_—-.—-.— ‘V‘

raw

”‘1 4-;

“POLYTECHNES HEPHAISTOS”

fifteen works that Verrocchio had exe-
cuted for the Medici family. Among
them are his David and the Dolphin-
boy, as also the bust of a woman in
the Largellofiz When the old Cosimo
died, it was Verrocchio who received
the commission for the stone that was
to mark his resting-place in the family
vault of San Lorenzo. He executed
it with the greatest tact, in perfect
accordance with the wise taste of the
deceased for an unostentatious memo-
rial, a simple polychrome marble
mosaic in the floor of the church. For
Cosimo’s son, Piero il Gottoso,
Verrocchio executed the fanciful and
charming lambo in the Old Sacristy of
the church, a masterpiece of marble-
work, adorned with dragons and
dolphins, and with heads of lions and
wolves.53 When Piero was dead, his sons
Lorenzo and Giuliano commissioned
Verrocchio to erect a monument to
their father in the form of a sarcophagus,
where there would also be room for their
uncle’s bones.54 Verrocchio fulfilled his
task with great genius, in a manner
wholly decorative, and renouncing all
figure—ornament. His instinct as a
painter sought out the most precious
and richly-coloured materials~red por-
phyry, green and white marble, bronze
that could cling to the polished stone,
smooth and dark and growing more
beautiful in colour from year to year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo, Alinari.

VERROCCHIO : Bronze statue of the condottiere Colleoni. Venice.

The sculptor modelled and the goldsmith chased the substance with a treatment of the material such as
never, perhaps, has been surpassed for perfection and beauty; and the architect, with intent, ingeniously
set up the monument under an arched opening into the church, separated from the congregation by an
open lattice-work of bronze, Visible to all, and yet unobtrusively placed in the sacristy.

Taken as a whole, the Medici sarcophagus is Verrocchio’s next greatest achievement to the Colleoni,
and an imperishable testimony to his intelligence, refined taste and the highest technical skill.
Compared with the far richer and more preposseSsing, but less characteristic marble monuments
in S. Croce by Desiderio and Rossellino, the effect of this monument is wholly superior and Virile.

51

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

Totally fresh sides of Verrocchio’s talent are revealed by rem-
nants that have been preserved of the monument to Francesca
Tornabuoni (in the Bargello), and the composition of the monu-
ment to Cardinal Forteguerri in the Cathedral at l’istoia.55 It is
true that the Tornabuoni relief, with the agitated scenes-around
the death-bed of a woman dying in childbirth, is only the inferior
craft of a pupil (Francesco di Simone) as far as the work in
marble is concerned; but the dramatic composition itself, with
its affecting emotional character and violent movement, has been
created by no poor apprentice, but by the master himself. \Vith

 

Donatello’s dramatic relief in his mind, and with some recollec-
tion in the composition of a Roman sarcophagus,56 Verrocchio
has here broken new ground. In a pathetic moment, when life
and death are the subjects, the feelings of everyday life come
to the front without any disguise whatever, and demand justice
and room in art. The terra-cotta sketch, in the South Ken-
sington Museum, of the original composition of the Forteguerri
monument, shows it to be no less dramatic in its idea (as a
vision), and no less a new creation as regards form.” The Whole
picturesque conception of the sculpture without any architectural
setting whatever, is not only novel, but also disturbingly radical.

 

Photo. Alinari.

VICRROCCHIO : loy with Dolphin. amine. T h e F o r t e g u e r ri

Palazzo Vecehio, Florence.

monument was the
first of a long series of baroque, picturesque sepulchral
monuments, which culminated in Bernini’s huge, florid
productions on the walls of S. Peter’s. Of Verrocchio’s
greatest masterpiece, the Colleoni statue, we shall have
occasion to speak in another connection. We will here
only remind the reader that once more it is the new and
quite unexpected of which Verrocchio’s talent speaks in his
last work, and on this occasion with such certainty and
resounding power that there can no longer be any doubt
as to his genius. Continual renewal of impulse and search
for fresh paths are the fundamental features in Verroc-
chio’s artistic personality. His tendency to stretch his
art technically and psychologically to the uttermost is
also characteristic. To understand and interpret great
contrasts must have been the highest ambition of his artist
nature, and the secret of his unwearied insight. From the
child’s smile and the fluttering of sparrows’ wings to the
sensitive expressiveness of the Thomas group, and thence
again to the tramp of a steed and the Clank of steel plates
upon the thighs of a rider who does not fear to join

 

Photo. Alinari.
DICSIDERIO DA SETTIGNANO: Detail of the Marzuppini Sarcophagus.
S. Croce, Florence.

52

 

\W

 

’3'"

 

  

 

“ POLYTECHNES HEPHAISTOS ”

Photo, Alinari.

VERROCCHIO’S STUDIO : Death of Francesca Tornabuoni. Marble Relief, by Francesco Lll Simone. The Bargello, Florence.

company both with death and the devil—to such length and breadth does Andrea’s genius reach.
But characteristically because the great becomes noble in his hands, it does not follow that the small is
beneath him. His sphere of interest and his technical ambition seem to have been something like
Leonardo’s in extent. At the same time that he is working upon the Colleoni, he does not hesitate to
set about casting guns for the Great Council at Venice.58 He undertakes every commission; casts a
famous church-bell for the monks of Vallombrosaf9 makes, for a clock on the Mercato Nuovo,
a mechanical bronze figure of a boy, which strikes the hours with a hammer ;5° restores imperfect
antiques for the Medicis ,6‘ executes the finest silver relief for the altar of S. John in. the Baptistery ;62
takes part in judging-committees, and undertakes other public duties. When distinguished guests
visit the town, and it is to be adorned in their honour, Verrocchio has to be consulted. At both the
famous tournaments in 1469 and 1475, which Lorenzo and

t 9 XKNKKWKKXKXVSE \xxxmw Giuliano de Medici held in honour of their ladies, Lucrezia

, v ., 9,‘ J! - de’ Donati and Simonetta Vespucc1, and which Pulci and

Politian have celebrated in verse, Verrocchio was master
of the ceremonies and drew designs for the dresses and
decorations; Politian mentions a famous helmet orna-
mented with a silver hind, which Verrocchio made for
Giuliano.63 Finally, when Milan’s mighty tyrant, Galeazzo
Sforza, with his consort Bona of Savoy and a suite of two
thousand persons vis1ted Florence in the spring of 1471,
and the house of the Medicis and the entire town clothed
themselves in their most gorgeous apparel and feasted for
many days, then too it was Verrocchio who had charge
of the preparations for the festivities.64 To the very last,
indeed, while he was engaged in casting the great Colleoni
statue, he did not refuse smaller commissions. He designed
a doge's tomb, and a few days before his death undertook
to make a marble well for the King of Hungary.65 With
all this, Andrea found time to train a large number of
journeymen and masters. Leonardo and Lorenzo di Credi
Photo. Alinnri. were pupils in his studio from boyhood, and Perugino as

\VERROCCHIOI Detail of the Medici Sarcopllagus. - . .
s. Lorenzo, momma. a grown-up man.66 From Desiderio’s studio came the

 

 

53

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VI NCI

sculptor Francesco di Simone, and became his dutiful assistant,67 and from Neri di Bicci’s picture
factory came the painter Botticini, who learned to be an artist.68 The painter who goes by the
name of “Tommaso”69 must also have been Verrocchids pupil, as also another unknown artist,
who in the meantime must be satisfied with being called Andrea’s pupil (Alunno di Andrea)?”
Vasari mentions moreover among the sculptors from Andrea’s studio Nanni Grosso, and the
Robbia-worker, Benedetto Buglioni; and Giovanni della Robbia has also evidently been Verrocchio’s
pupil.” Even finished artists such as Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, Domenico Ghirlandaio, and their equal,
Sandro Botticelli, did not escape coming under the influence of Andrea’s superior intelligence.” Of
whom does this remind us—this versatility, this untiring industry and experimenting, this technical
desire for knowledge, and ambition to master all arts and sciences, and last, but not least, this incon—
stancy in work, which throws old ideas on one side to pursue new ones—of whom does it remind us
but Leonardo? Truly they were kindred naturesl In his personal life, however, Verrocchio was
scarcely the spoilt child of fortune that Leonardo was ; Vasari must be right in saying that he was a
“toiler.” He pressed higher and higher, from task to task. His appearance does not seem to
have been imposing; he was square-built and plump, with short arms and broad hands that could
wrestle with the refractory material, but with a pair of piercing, wise, keen eyes in an otherwise
uncommunicative face. It is thus the serious young Perugino conceived him and painted him in
the portrait in the Uffizi, which wrongly bears Credi’s name as the artist (p. 43), but which, to some
extent at any rate, agrees with the wood-engraving that Vasari gives.“ He was a man of science,
experimenter and discoverer—a polytec/zms of the Hephaistos type, Andrea, the son of the brick-maker,
Michele di Cioni, with the surname del Verrocchio.

 

 

Photo. Alinari.

VERROCCHIO: The Medici Sarcoplmgus. S. Lorenzo, Florence.

.. w«- “ ‘

DESIIHCRI L
SETTIGrSXIIVS jesus and john. Marble.

Marehesa Arconali, Paris.

 

VII

’ 7‘ ' ‘ ' r . . r n I l ‘ -
Leonardo (le \ 1nc1 nnprnnc a ses figures un tel cachet (le superiorite, qu’on 56 sent trouble en leur presence. . . ( e sourire
vague, enigmatique et delicicux, lc regard (lui promct (lcs \‘oluptcs inconnues ct l’expression (livincment ironiquc. .

TllliOl’llILlC GAUTIER.

 

N speaking of Verrocchio’s favourite type, Eugene Mt’mtz remarks that it possesses
a species of beauty “ which is sickly and not altogether free from affectation.” It is
somewhat surprising to find that in comparing Botticelli’s women with Verrocchio’s, he
speaks of the former as “charming in their 7m’zm‘é and tenderness, while Verrocchio’s
Florentine women are melancholy dreamers.”74 It is difficult to imagine what the
author means, when we remember on the one side the dream-figures of Botticelli’s
Primavera, and on the other the vigorous, happy mother in Verrocchio’s Madonna
relief in the Uffizi (p. 44), or the bust of the healthy, erect maiden in the Bargello, with the bunch of
primroses in her hands (pp. 59, 60). But we will let that pass. 'M'untz, however, goes on to say:
“ Even in Verrocchio’s men, his Thomas for instance, we find a melancholy, disillusioned smile, the

 

 

 

 

Leonardesque smile.”

U1; sow/ire attristc/ ct de’sillusz‘mznc’, [e sowiw Léorzardesque. What a characterisation of the smile,
the famous, seductive, never wholly fathomed smile that lies like sun or moonbeams upon the
Leonardesque faces. The sweet smile upon the lips of Monna Lisa, which speaks of the highest joy
and the most secret knowledge—7m sow/ire attrz’sié ct ddsill'zzsz'mmé /

The Leonardesque smile I How often has the expression lightly and thoughtlessly dropped from
the pen of art-historians. The phrase has been worn to threads. The Leonardesque smileflthe smile
that dawns upon the Virgin’s lips in the Annunciation, the smile that lights up her whole figure in the
Adoration of the Magi, the smile that sparklesilike the mystery itself in the semi-darkness of the Grotto,
and dissolves with passing grace in the happy dreaminess of the S. Anne. How often the smile has
been imitated, sugared over with sentimentality, salted with tears, and added, with the wormwood of
unintentional caricature, to the pictures and drawings of pupils, followers and plagiaristsl Every-
where in collections of drawings there are hundreds of sheets with Leonardo’s name (originals or
Braun’s photographs), which try to re-awaken this mysterious smile—sheets by pupils or followers,
who had caught something of the reflection of the master’s genius—sheets by a Sodoma, a Beltraffio,

55

 

 

LEONARDO DA VlNCI

 

DONATELLO : John the Baptist. Terra-coma. Berlin.

MINO DA FUCSOLE: Cherub. Marble.

a Cesare da Sesto ; also sheets that are the work of talentless imitators and toiling copiers—a Marco
da Oggionno, a Bernardino de’ Conti, a Salaino, a Gianpetrino—not to mention positively shocking
imbecilities that deck themselves out with the name of the great Vincii5

What variants of “the Leonardesque smile” collectors have amassed and art-historians described
and published. The idea is now to be extended so as to apply also to pre-Leonardesque works. Eugene
M'L'intz is by no means alone in declaring this; most art-writers of a certain wide-spread school are
inclined to assume that an influence from Leonardo reacted upon Verrocchio’s works.76 It is Leonardo’s
smile that we shall find playing about the boyish lips of the victorious David, illuminating the child-
face of the Dolphin—boy, and lying half hidden in the corners of the Mother’s mouth in the Madonna
relief; it is the smile that hovers like a presage upon the girlish face of the Bargello bust, and flits
across the aristocratic and sceptical features of the Doubting Thomas. What consequences follow
in the train of prejudice! Make room for the acceptation of the borrowed smile in one of the works,
and the circuit is completed; they must all smile with the borrowed smile, for their smiles have
unmistakably sprung from the same source.

And why stop at Verrocchio? The women and children in Desiderio da Settignano’s art smile
too—smile with a bewitching and engaging aristocratic smile, perhaps somewhat less attriszfé ct désil-
lustomzé, but sufficiently composite to raise the question: Where does it come from? Should we
not get nearer to the truth by letting each artist keep his own, and at any rate content ourselves
with assuming a transmission from the older to the younger? It would certainly be more productive
if we brought literature to our aid, and tried by purely historical means to explain the evolution of
the type of mind that speaks in this Florentine smile, which passes as a species of tradition from

56

TV”,

r,--___..r__

f

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

 

VERROCCHIO: Detail of bronze statue of David in the Barqello, Florence. LI‘ZONARIJO'S STUDIO: john the Baptist. Louvre.

artist to artist. The historian of social culture, not the art-historian, must investigate this matter.77
It is certain, however, that the explanation is to be found in a great social development, not to say
revolution, a development from warlike roughness and civic narrow-mindedness to a high degree of
intelligence and humanity. The increasing prosperity in Florence, the refined desire for pleasure,
the entrance of the humanists and with them a spiritualistic platonism, the greater importance of
women in the community, their sympathetic alliance with humanists, philosophers and artists, an
infection from the vices as well as the virtues of refinement, in short the process of combustion in
raw natural forces under the influence of civilisation~~this must have created the smile. Before, there
was only rough earnestness or noisy laughter, gentleness and innocence or brutality. Even in Donatello
this psychological differentiation of expression begins to show itself. The ambiguous and doubtful
gaiety that keeps one in uncertainty is already stamped upon his Cupid in the Bargello ; and among
his busts of youths, such as the young John the Baptist, we come across a few (in the Bargello and
the Berlin Museum) whose expression is strangely complex, something between laughter and tears,
something nervous and excited, almost hysterical.

Donatello’s pupil or successor, Desiderio da Settignano was very unlike his master. There
certainly burned no passionate soul of fire within him; but he must have had a happy temperament.
Indomitably gay spirits, coquettish roguishness, or inoffensive playfulness, sparkle in his artistic
work—sparkle from the eyes and laugh from the mouths of all his young women and children.
Girls who cannot help smiling when you look at them, roguish girls of fifteen, charming married ladies
who are ready for any fun, nice little boys and sweet, mischievous childrenflthese made up Desiderio’s
artistic sphere.

57 H

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

UNKNO‘VN MASTER: Portrait, about 1460. Poldi-Pezzoli Museum, Milan. DICSIDlCRIO l).\ SIC'IV'I‘IGNANO; Flemming lady. Marble.

The liurgcllo.

But that, which in Desiderio was superficial gaiety and roguishness, became, when transplanted
into Verrocchio’s wise, critical nature, a more complicated and differentiated mood: a joy mingled
with sadness, with sensuous enjoyment and self-consciousness, making up one part of his rich
temperament. The expression thereby acquires warmth and soul, as in one who does not live wholly
and solely for the moment, but who already has a background of dreams and memories for his moods.
Hence this reserve in the smile, this mysterious dreaminess in the glance, this “ Leonardesque”
quality, which ought rather to be called “ Verrocchiesque,” since it is first to be found, a new thing,
in Verrocchio.

There is fortunately, however, a long distance between Verrocchio’s reflected sensitiveness, between
this expressive mingling of spontaneity and reverie, and M. Muntz’s sickly and artificial Verrocchio-
type with [a sow/m attristé at de’sillusimme‘. Verrocchio was no decadent, nor were the creations of his
art decadent. He was of an energetic, profound nature, a great worker, a discoverer. He belongs to
the healthy, spontaneous period of the early Renaissance, and stands as its most central figure, the
most intelligent and most conscious, as also the most influential artist in the Florence of his day. He
was not the last of a dying race, but a creator, a teacher and a guide, who knew where the land of
the future lay. He was therefore early able to point the road to his beloved pupil and great heir.
All honour to him for that.

Tradition cites Donatello as Verrocchio’s teacher in sculpture,78 but there is really nothing in the
art of the two masters to corroborate the assertion, and Vasari omits to mention Verrocchio’s real
master in sculpture. When the biographer speaks of the lavabo in S. Lorenzo as the joint work of
Donatello and Verrocchio, he is at variance with an older and very trustworthy source, Albertini’s

58

 

vf‘

 

_/-n.

. pa...

DESIDERIO AND VERROCCHIO

 

LEONARDO : From a leaf of :1 sketch-hook, about 1478. \Vindsor. VICRROCCHIO : La 110mm Ill/c [1:ch mani. Marble. The Bargello,

Memorials; and in the way of style there is nothing to indicate such co—operation. Outward con-
ditions also contradict the supposition that Donatello might have been Andrea’s teacher.79 When
Verrocchio was born, Donatello was already a man of fifty, and throughout the time of Verrocchio’s
youth, from his eighth to his eighteenth year, Donatello was away from Florence residing in Northern
Italy.80 That Verrocchio, like all other contemporaries, received strong impressions from Donatello’s
works, and to some extent set himself tasks similar to those of the great Florentine master (carrying
them out, however, in a very different manner, as his David proves) is an altogether different
matter. Verrocchio’s graceful, refined art points rather in the direction of Ghiberti’s school than
to Donatello’s naturalismf“ Here too, however, the great difference in age (Ghiberti was fifty-five
when Verrocchio was born) makes the direct relation of master and pupil unlikely, for any length
of time.

In looking for a master to whom Verrocchio shows some affinity, one probably comes to a stand at
Desiderio da Settignano. Desiderio was not more than eight years older than Verrocchio, but there
is nevertheless much that proves that this artist exerted an influence on Verrocchio when quite
young, and to a certain extent determined the development of his style.“ The two young men
may have met in Donatello’s studio during the last few years of that artist’s life, when, according to
Vasari, the master was paralysed and certainly unfit to be a teacher. Desiderio, Donatello’s assistant
in the decoration of the Pazzi chapel, may at that time have been a kind of foreman to Donatello.
Even in purely decorative work, we may discern points of contact between Desiderio’s art and
Verrocchio’s. We need only compare the Marzuppini sarcophagus (in S. Croce) with the Medici
sarcophagus (pp. 52 and 53). Both stand upon lions’ feet, both have their corners swathed in finely—cut

59

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

acanthus foliage, and the lids covered with scale
pattern. The finely—pleated, fluttering ribbons
of which Verrocchio is so fond, already wave
upon the pedestal of Desiderio’s monument; and
there is something in the dancing lightness with
which the boys bearing garlands step along the
cornice that recalls the running posture of the
Dolphin boy. The points of contact only become
more numerous and more important when we
pass from the ornamental work of the two sculp- ?“
tors and compare their figure-productions. The
frank roguishness that is so bewitching in Ver-
rocchio’s fountain-boy, is only a more refined
expression of the same happy frame of mind that
is a family characteristic of Desiderio’s children
and angels. \Ve recognise the smile from the
pages of the Marzuppini tomb, and from heads
of angels and cherubs in other of Desiderio’s
works; we know it from the numerous busts of
smiling children to be found in various public
and private collections, frequently under Dona-
tello’s name, but of which the majority are the
work of Desiderio’s delicate artist-hand. The

 

VICRROCCHIO:Lan’mmrzalr’uficl/ezmzm’. Marble. 'l‘lieliargello. greatest resemblance, however, between the two 3
artists is seen in their portraits of women. If we glance at the '
marble or plaster busts of young women that have come out of
Desiderio’s studio—busts such as that of the Princess of Urbino,
Marietta Strozzi and other Florentine ladies of position—we can-
not but bring into the same circle Verrocchio’s beautiful bust of a
young unknown Florentine lady, La domm allc belle mcmi, in the
Bargello. All these Florentine busts of women of the sixties and
seventies of the fifteenth century have one common characteristic
which rests upon something more than dress and fashion. They
all have the erect, full-face position, which in a side-View gives an
exact profile; they all carry their heads high upon slender necks;
they are all, by their undeveloped bosoms and sloping shoulders,
characterised as maids. In accordance with this budding youth-
fulness, their expression is generally one of open spontaneousness,
which is widely different from the mask-like stiffness and intention-
ally fastidious deportment that marks the Neapolitan women

 

of Francesco Laurana. There is something of the Florentine
early Renaissance ideal over them all, in spite of individualising ' v- ’ ~ ‘

Photo. Braun.

realism. It is interesting to follow the development of this ideal LEONARDO: Study for s Anne. Pencil. Windsor.

60

 

 

 

VERROCCHIO AND LEON ARDO

in the charmingly—painted profile portraits of young,
girls from the hand of a master whose name is-dis-
puted (Piero della Francesca? Domenico Veneziano?
Andrea del Verrocchio P), but whose mastership is indis-
putable. These pictures, especially the twd’in Berlin
and Milan, form, in a manner, the starting-point. The
reproduction on p. 58, of one of them, gives only a
feeble reflection of the beauty of this young girl’s fair
head against a deep enamel-blue background ; but we
see at any rate the cheerful ingenuousness that radiates
from the frank face. From this complete unconscious—
ness to the more conscious, mischievous, graceful, or
slightly condescending expression in Desiderio’s busts,
is a step worthy of remark in the histories of art and
of culture. It is only, however, in Verrocchio’s bust
of a lady with a bunch of primroses between her
beautiful hands, that we find for the first time the
Florentine charm in its fully developed form. A touch
of ethical dignity, far removed from the prudery of
the Laurana busts, unites with the personal charm
of this woman and becomes unspeakably captivating.
Those round shoulders and long hands with the arched

 

wrists invite caresses, though her soul is wrapped in a ,
veil of dreams. It is not too much to say that the LEON;\R1)()ZBIGIHIALlSfl. linu\'1‘u,l’2uis. Disappeared in 1912.
Bargello bust is the bud that opens out into a blossom
of intoxicating sweetness in the portrait of Monna
Lisa, a sensualism that is wholly soul.

How near Leonardo in his youth came to this
Verrocchiesque ideal of a young girl is shown by a
pen-drawing on a leaf of a sketch-book, probably from
1478, which is placed beside the bust on p. 59. In
Leonardo’s drawing, the model is still younger, almost
a child; but in the main the two profiles are closely
allied. The full~faee attitude is even more strictly
carried out, and the way in which the line of the neck
runs into the back is strikingly similar, except that
edges and hardnesses left in Verrocchio’s style appear
softer and more supple to Leonardo’s eye. The oval
of the face has grown more slender, the eyes larger

 

‘. and deeper set, the lips shorter and fuller, the

f, dividing-line between the cheek and neck has dis-

, 3 appeared, and the hair at the temples hangs in free,
LEONARDO:mudymma, pabhmving. \\~,,,d,f:,l‘_”m'“m” natural locks. Notwithstanding her extreme youth,

61

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

there is a matronly expression about the young girl in Leonardo’s drawing, and this .matronliness is, as
we shall see, in continual development in the successive Madonnas, until it culminates in the composi-
tion in which the Virgin is seated upon the lap of S. Anne. While Leonardo aims at increased fulness
of form, his constant endeavour is to give greater softness to motion. From the erect bearing in this
early drawing, we can trace an ever-increasing tendency towards complex movement, with a curve
forward and to one side, writh contraposed turns and displacements in the carriage of the figures,
until here too the extreme limit is reached in the composition of the S. Anne. In his “Treatise on
Painting” he actuallygives the following categorical rule as to “ How women must be represented:
With chaste movements, ’the feet‘close together, the arms drawn in to the waist, the head bent and

turned to one side.” In another place he simply recommends “contraposed movements for a repre-
sentation of the beautiful.” His studies for the lost picture of Leda (see the preceding page), and

the various copies of that picture in existence, afford the best illustration of the teaching of the
“Treatise on Painting.” ,. _

Finally, as the development of Leonardo’s art progresses, we observe an ever-increasing taste for
sweetness, not only in form, but also in expression. In comparison with his’later type of woman, the
maiden drawn upon the leaf of an early sketch-book has an appearance of reserve and aloofness.
Yet how charming she remains. In the beautiful silver-point profile study in the Royal Library,
Windsor, of a young married lady, about 1480 (a reproduction of which forms the frontispiece to this
book) the expression is immobile, almost apathetic; In the Adoration of the Magi the smile on the
Mother’s lips is still slight; it does not alter.the aspect of the face. Not until the Milan period
does the sweetness of expression increase, while the shape of the face becomes constantly softer
and more veiled in shadows and half-tones. It is as though the artist Were more and more desirous
of solidifying the expression of a great inward joy which cannot be restrained, but must overflow its
banks. In the portrait of Monna Lisa we delight in the wonderful sweetness that is inseparable from
the most perfect maturity; but one step further, and over-ripeness supervenes, and the sweetness
acquires a nauseatinglafter-taste. Leonardo’s numerous imitators, his “school, readily took this
step. In a picture such as John the Baptist in the Louvre (p. 57), which is closely connected with
the ageing Leonardo, but can scarcely have been painted by his own hand, the over-ripeness has
already set in, and a tainted flavour accompanies the charm.

H

 

 

VERROCCHIO AND “ALUNNO DI ANDREA": “Baptism of Christ.”
Tempcra painting, retouched with oils (begun about 1465). Accademia, Florence.

VIII

Drapery must be drawn from nature.

LEONARDO DA VINCI.

ASARI makes Leonardo enter Verrocchio’s studio “as a child,” at the period when
the master was engaged upon the picture of Christ’s Baptism. Then follows the
romantic story about this “child,” who immediately eclipses his master, paints in
and thereby so dis-
courages his teacher that he “ would never touch colours again, being vexed that a

the picture an angel, “more beautiful than Andrea’s figures,”

boy should be cleverer than he.” From Vasari’s biography, this piece of gossip has

 

passed through art-history down to recent years. Muntz seriously accepts it in his
book on Leonardo, and fixes the age of the infant prodigy at fourteen. Even Bode and Mackowsky
declare in their works on Verrocchio, that one angel in Christ’s Baptism is the work of Leonardo.83
Giovanni Morelli was the first critic who, with a deeper knowledge of Verrocchio and Leonardo,
rejected the anecdote.84

63

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

(EHIIiICRTI : Baptism of (‘hrisL l‘mmze relief on the font at Siena (about I420).

The source of the legend is evidently to be
sought for in the fact that the unfinished and
half-ruined picture shows evidence of being the
work of two hands. The difference is most
marked in the two angels, for both were not
painted by the same artist. That Verrocchio
worked on the picture is certain; everything
else is doubtful. Comparing this work with the
master’s undisputed sculptures, we can ascribe
to Verrocchio the figure of Christ, the carefully-
drawn Baptist, and also the more distant of the
two angels. In the Uffizi collection (No. 130)
there is a charming study or working drawing
for the angel’s head; but with downcast eyes,
and not, as in the picture, with eyes uplifted.85
It is noticeable how greatly inferior are these
figures (especially that of the Baptist) in artistic
freedom and beauty of form to Verrocchio’s
sculptures. There is a hardness and senility in
their style, less noticeable in the David and
absent from the Thomas group. The thin,

sinewy body of the Baptist, with coarse face, long legs, and over—elaborated knees, are strongly

reminiscent of Pollaiuolo’s type of man, and the
composition suggests earlier representations of the
same subject. In the Academy in Florence hang
eight long wooden panels, depicting thirty-five

scenes from the life of Jesus. The panels were

originally cupboard-doors in the church of the
Annunziata, enclosing the silver vessels for the
altar, a gift from Piero de’ Medici. The whole
series of pictures bears the name of Fra Angelico,
and it is true that the paintings are from the brush
of that pious monk, with the exception of three
which constitute the first panel and represent the
Marriage at Cana, the Baptism of Christ, and the
Transfiguration on the Mount. These three little
pictures are so strikingly different from the others
in style and colouring, that they cannot possibly
have been painted by the monk himself, and must
be ascribed to another more realistic painter. As
they are the first of the series, it would almost seem
as if this unknown artist began the work, but had

 

not had the opportunlty Of completing [more than BALDOVINETTI: Baptism of Christ Tempera painting (r448). Accademia, Florence.

64

 

 

Uffizi, Florence.

Original size.

Sepia and brush.

aptism of Christ.

VERROCCHIO : Study for one of the Angels in the “ B

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

the first three scenes when the commission was taken
from him and given to the monk of Marco. However
this may be, the pictures undoubtedly show the hand of
Alesso Baldovinetti; and if the series was actually, as
stated, painted in 1448, the year in which Baldovinetti
entered the S. Luke’s guild as an independent master,
these three little paintings are the earliest works from
that artist’s hand with which we are acquainted.86
Alesso Baldovinetti must have been the artist who

 

taught Verrocchio the painter’s craft, and who eventu- gs
ally exerted a fundamental influence upon his art. A
comparison of the works of the two artists will give
convincing proof of this,87 and the two pictures of the
Baptism of Christ also bear testimony to the fact.
There is Sufficient evidence that the composition of
Baldovinetti’s early and in many respects imperfect
representations of the subject, recurred to Verrocchio’s
mind when he painted the Baptism of Christ for the
\ . monks of San Salvi. The pupil’s work is infinitely
i a .. . I ~ . superior to that of his master it is true, but we are

“it“, , , _
%l n .. . ,t . nevertheless struck by resemblances in the scheme of

 

 

rummanuangi. the composition, and above all by the great similarity

AI’UNNO DI \\1\1ifiin\l(\liriyifiiiiidtoiilld and m “"gek' in the figures of the Baptist in the two pictures. The 1
position is the same, and so are the long striding legs, and the fall of the drapery. The folds have
the same stiff, tube-like character as in Baldovinetti’s
pictures, very different from the dignified, picturesque
drapery in Verrocchio’s later and more independent
works. There is much then that indicates that the
Baptist is a comparatively early work by Verrocchio
belonging to a period in his production when he stood

in a certain position of dependence upon painters,

r-_<___._e.r -.u—-._ _‘___ *-

such as Baldovinetti, and Antonio del Pollaiuolo, who
were older than he. This agrees very well, moreover,
with the tradition that Verrocchio was working at the
picture when the young Leonardo, about the age of
fourteen, entered his studio. It is a far cry, however,
from this assumption to the assertion that Leonardo
painted the remainder of the picture, and by his supe-

 

riority permanently disheartened his master. On the

 

contrary, there are aesthetic reasons, as well as ques-
tions of style, which do not support the idea that
Leonardo painted the angel on the left of the picture.
The figure displays a vague and forced emotion, the

 

l’hoto. l’hilpot
ALUNNO DI ANDR EA : Silver-point study for the Madonna in London.
Umzi, Florence.

66 I

_ ___-_A1,..-.‘ .

 

.,-' 77....

VERROCCHIO, LEONARDO, ALUNNO DI ANDREA

turn of the head has no parallel in Leonardo’s other
productions, and there is uncertainty in the direction
of the languishing glance towards Jesus or the Bap-
tist. There is no interplay between the angels, and
although the so-called Leonardo angel is much nearer,
the face is smaller than that of its fellow in the
background. Beside the sincere, simple, child’s head
of Verrocchio’s angel, we feel a want of reality in
his pretty companion, who is simply coquettish. In
short, the much admired angel is not worthy of
Leonardo, lacking naturalness and an organic coher-
ence in the drawing. At the same time, it is not the
work of a beginner, but rather of a thoroughly expert
technician. The artist in question manages the tech-
nique of oil-painting with no little virtuosity; he can
throw sparkle into his high-lights, and play with half-
shadows, and his drapery in particular shows consider-
able study and clever arrangement- A more careful
detail of ’the drapery (p. 69), however, shows that
besides certain general features and peculiarities that
are to be found in the whole Verrocchiesque school
(such as the radiated, outward-falling folds upon the
ground), there is a special character that does not
agree with the style of drapery of either Verrocchio, Leonardo, or Lorenzo di Credi. The long, stiff,
straight lines, rather abruptly arranged (cg. the longitudinal fold on the back, and the cross fold
at the waist), and the angular breaks in the bends of the silky material, differ from Verrocchio’s
and Credi’s heavy folds of woollen, lined material, and from the graceful, supple play of folds in
Leonardo’s draperies (p. 71). Even in its most undeveloped form, in the little Annunciation in the
Louvre, Leonardo’s style of drapery does not afford sufficient points of resemblance.

On the other hand a similar character in the folds of drapery will be found in three Italian pictures
all representing a half-length figure of the Virgin, with the Child either standing in front of her upon a
parapet, or resting upon her lap and worshipped by her and ministering angels. These pictures are
in Frankfurt on the Maine (Stadelsche lnstitut, No. 9), Berlin (Kaiser Friedrich Museum, No. 108),
and London (National Gallery, No. 296). The first and the last of these were formerly exhibited
under the respective names of Pesello and Pollaiuolo, but they are now generally assigned to Verrocchio
or his studio. Here, especially in the Frankfurt picture, we find the same sharply—broken treatment
of raiment, with bright high lights, as in the so-called Leonardesque angel of the Baptism. The
angel on the left of the London picture has considerably greater resemblance to that work, both in
typé’ of face and treatment of hair, than in any admitted work by Leonardo. The small tight mouth,
the languishing eyes, and the very fair artificially curled hair, are peculiarities of Verrocchio and not
of Leonardo, who loved fresh, full lips, a frank gaze from large eyes with strongly-formed eyelids,
and loose, waving locks.88

A probable explanation regarding the Baptism of Christ is that the picture was begun by Verrocchio

ALUNNO lJI ANDREA: Virgin and Child. The Gallery, Frankfurt a. M.

67

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO 'DA VINCI

at an early period in his career, about i
1465, the composition and drawing being
entirely his, whilst he only grounded
in tempera the landscape and figures.89
He also finished painting the figure of
Christ and part of the landscape before
discontinuing the work. The picture was
then put on one side, and remained unfin-
ished in the artist’s studio, perhaps for a
number of years. This, as we know, was ‘
sometimes the fate of Verrocchio’s com-
missions.9° Afterwards the master, whose
art in the meantime had wonderfully
developed, no longer felt inclined to work
again upon the antiquatedpicture. We
suggest that he entrusted it to one of his
clever pupils, the nameless one already
mentioned, who must have been cotem-
porary with Leonardo and to some extent
influenced by him. This almmo or pupil
may be named “Alunno di Andrea.” His
more studied style forms a striking con-
trast‘to Verrocchio’s primitive force. At
first he worked upon the angel in the
foreground, perhaps only roughly
sketched in by the 'master, and then he
touched up the landscape. At last he
must have discovered that he was unable
to bring-his additions into harmony with
the master’s work, especially as he
employed a'new method of painting with varnish colours. Finally, master and pupifmust have
agreed to relinquish the work entirely and to let the monks have the altar-piece as it was. In the San
- Salvi monastery the difference in the work must sooner or later have been noticed, and as a matter of .
course it would be asserted that Leonardo, whose star in the meantime had risen high in the heavens i
of renown, Was” the pupil who had helped the master. When Vasari, three-quarters of a century
later, saw the picture at the monastery, it was hardly likely that the monks would fail to relate the
story of the master who beCame pupil, and the pupil who became master. For Vasari, the anecdote-
hunter, the story was a welcome ornament to Leonardo’s biography. .
Verrocchio’s alm‘mo has not yet been identified. Clearly a finished technician and a clever draughts- !
man, he was probably an elder contemporary of Leonardo in Andrea’s studio. It is not impossible
that,-like LeOnardo and Credi, he also Worked as a sculptor. The beautiful marble relief in Mr. Quincy
Shaw’s collection in Boston9r may perhaps be the work of this clever pupil of Verrocchio. He seems
chiefly, however, to have worked as a painter, and we shall see later that he had a share in

68

 

 

Photo. Brogi.
ALUNNO DI ANDREA : Head of an Angel. Silver-point drawing in the Uffizi.

 

fqr

ALUNNO DI ANDREA—‘DRAWINGS

another important church painting that
came from Verrocchio’s studio. He is
alsorundoubtedly the painter of the three
previously-mentioned Madonnas in Lon-
don, Frankfurt and Berlin. Some idea of
the ability of the anonymous artist can
be gained from a small group of drawings, ,
scattered amongst the Uffizi and other ' ,’
collections, and classed partly under the
name of Verrocchio, partly under that of :1? V
Leonardo, but which, for reasons of style, 3
must be ascribed to this unknown Alunno 1'.
di Andrea. First in the series is a deli- .’
cate, tenderly conceived silver-point
drawing in the Uffizi (No. 445, shown on
p. 66), of the Child worshipped on Mary’s
knee. As the artist omitted to ground
the paper before he used the silver-point,
the lines of the drawing are very faint
and sometimes difficult to understand »
even in the original, and thus still more .
difficult to reproduce photographically.
If we study the sheet carefully, however,
we find a delightful little genre scene,
in essence evidently reminiscent of Fra
Filippo’s famous Madonna at the Win-
dow in the Uffizi. The Virgin is seated
with the naked Child upon her knee.

She looks with devotion towards Him Photo Mimi
and folds her hands in \Vorshlp An VERROCCHIOANDALUNNODIANDREA:Detailofthe“BaptismofChrist.”Accademia,F[orence.

 

angel supports her on the right, and a little S. John with long, curly hair, approaches from the left
with reverent gestures and a radiant smile. Similar compositions are of frequent occurrence in the
Verrocchio school (the Madonna in London, Mr. Quincy Shaw’s relief, the Berlin Madonna No. 104 A,
and Botticini’s picture from S. Maria Nuova, now in the Uffizi, etc.) ; but there can be no doubt that
the drawing is intimately connected with the picture in London. The composition, including the posi-
tion of Mary and the Child, is the same, and the little S. John in the drawing is making the same
movement of the hand as the angel in the picture. In other words, the drawing forms the basis of the
picture, but is superior to it in quality. The design cannot very well be ascribed to Verrocchio him-
self, as is done by Signor Ferri in his catalogue, and Dr. Bode in his treatise on Verrocchio;92 the
drawing is too hesitating and not sufficiently masterly. But the pupil has caught the best of his

-master’s style and much of his feeling. There .is a nai’vete’ and sincere sorrow in the Virgin’s expression,

and a sweetness in the smile playing about the lips and eyes of the little S. John, that may safely be
called Verrocchiesque, if we are not accustomed to call them Leonardesque. A considerable difference

69

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

of opinion exists with regard to the attribu-
tion of this drawing to Verrocchio. Crowe
and Cavalcaselle call it a Credi, Mackowsky
ascribes it to Botticini, and Berenson, who
classes it in Verrocchio‘s school, character-
ises it in the following words: “The smile of
S. John suggests Leonardo, but the Virgin
has something of Botticelli’s dolefulness;
the Child is as uninteresting as if drawn by
Credi.g3 The present author sees in the draw-
ing the same hand that painted the Madonna
in the National Gallery (and the two others
in Frankfurt and Berlin), and the angel in
profile in the Baptism of Christ, the hand of
the nameless Alunno di Andrea.

Nor can he do better with another very
beautiful, but almost unnoticed silver-point
drawing that he found in 1890, in one of
the portfolios of the Uffizi (Categ. II, 212),
under Leonardo’s name. This also must
be ascribed to the same Alunno di Andrea.
The drawing, which is here reproduced for
the first time (p. 68), is on white, ungrounded
paper and measures 29x 20 centimetres. On
one side of the sheet is sketched in silver—
point the head of a young girl with downcast
eyes and an abundance of wavyhair, probably
a sketch for an angel; on the back is sketched

) in black chalk the head of a child, also with
ALUNNO m ANDREA: Study of Drapery, with brush and sepia on canvas. Ilii—iiislhlhbfiiiiiiii downcast eyes, but with no hair, a study for
the Child Jesus. Both heads exhibit a decided Verrocchiesque character. The angel has the same
high, broad type of head, the waving locks twisting into spirals, the high eyebrows and the arched eye-
lids, a tender mouth with curved lips, and the same full neck widening with folds towards the shoulders,
as in Verrocchio’s splendid study of an angel for the Baptism of Christ (p. 65). The only difference
is that every feature is fainter and more slender in the drawing. Verrocchio’s boy-angel has become
a girl. The delineating hand itself seems to be feminised. We recall another beautiful and much
discussed silver-point drawing for a Madonna in the Dresden cabinet, which will later occupy our

 

attention, The drawing of the angel does not seem sufficiently powerful even for Verrocchio’s later
and more sweetened style. The line is often hesitating, as in one who is working from a copy. The
child’s head on the back of the sheet is certainly more resolute in execution, and the type agrees
exactly with the studies of children on a famous leaf ofa sketch-book belonging to Verrocchio
preserved in the Louvre, and reproduced later in this book. On the whole the drawing has more the
character of a clever pupil’s study than of a master’s design. Berenson has come to the same

70

VERROCCHIESQUE DRAWINGS

conclusion in his great work on draw-
ings (Designs of Florentine Painters, I,
p. 38), although he considers the draw-
ing more purely Verrocchiesque than
others of Verrocchio’s school. “I have
no clue to this draughtsman’s identity,”
the great connoisseur goes on to say.
“ He certainly was neither Verrocchio
nor Credi, nor the author of Verroc-
chio’s Sketch-Book. For the first, he is
too fumbling in quality, and too modern
in feeling. With the second he certainly
has much in common, but he has nei-
ther his touch nor his technique, and
he shows much greater refinement.
With the third, Francesco di Simone,
he cannot be confounded. Nor can I
connect him with any existing work of
Verrocchio’s school, although one is
tempted to believe him to have been
.the author of Mr. Quincy Shaw’s
beautiful relief of the Madonna with
an Angel.” Berenson, too, is inclined
to class the drawing with the preceding
one. The writer, who considers the
latter to be by the painter of the
London picture, goes farther, and
ascribes the sheet with the angel’s head ' .. .
also to Alunno di Andrea.94 There is Mfg

another Silver_p0int dra‘Ving in the LEONARDO:StudyOfDmpery, with brushandsepiaoncanvas. \Vindsor.
Uffizi (No. 212) closely connected with these drawings. Formerly passing as a Botticelli, it is now
exhibited as a Verrocchio. The drawing (see p. 74) represents a young woman or nymph (scarcely
Venus, as she has been named) reclining upon Cupid’s bow and quiver, and surprised from her slumber
by the god oflove. Softly the slim boy steals through the rushes, slips an arrow out of the quiver,
and unfastens the clasp of the sleeper’s chiton. In another moment the heart of the maid will bleed,
and dreaming will give place to awakened passion. I This is indeed a subject for a bridal coffer, such
as the cassone-painters loved to take from mythology or the allegorical love-poems of their age, a
composition allied to Botticelli’s Venus and Mars in Berlin, or Piero di Cosimo’s Death of Procris in
London. The drawing has been ascribed to both these artists, but it cannot pass as the work of
either!” Types and expressionof form are quite Verrocchiesque, notably the broad cheek-bones, the
heavy eyelids, and the abundance of curling hair. There is also an unmistakable likeness between
the smiling Cupid and the little S. John in the drawing on p. 66; we might with perfect truth speak
here of the Leonardesque smile. I would not venture, however, any more than Berenson, to decide

71

 

 

Photo. Braun.

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

who is the painter of this piquant and poetic mingling of the genius of Botticelli and Verrocchio, which
is also not wholly without Leonardesque touches. Berenson’s question, “Who was its author? ” can
only be repeated, and the answer must be left to others.96 The authorship of a couple of drapery-
studies in the Uffizi and the British Museum, which carry the name of Leonardo, is more easily
arrived at. The study for the drapery of a sitting figure (Uffizi, No. 437), will be reproduced and
mentioned in another connection. The second (reproduced on p. 70), which Berenson has pointed
out in the British Museum, represents a kneeling figure seen from behind, somewhat in accordance with
the foreground angel in the Baptism of Christ.97 Both drawings are executed in gouache (umber and
white) upon fine canvas grounded with grey in the same manner as a number of other studies from
Verrocchio’s studio, which are all attributed to Leonardo. Amongst them is one (reproduced here)
which cannot possibly be ascribed to an inferior hand.

Vasari speaks of this method of brush drawing upon fine, used canvas, as peculiar to Leonardo,
and it is therefore natural enough that tradition should have given Leonardo’s famous name to the
whole of this group. But these drawings of drapery differ from one another in the expression of form.
Some of them reveal the diligent hand of the open-hearted Lorenzo di Credi, the thick, woollen,
softly-falling material, the bluntly-rounded, slightly clumsy folds peculiar to that artist.98 Others,
which present the same style in an effeminate and degenerate Character, must be referred to the
young Francesco Granacci, an eclectic. whose artistic career began in Credi’s studio."9 Others again,
like those here mentioned, exhibit an angular and pointed style, with accentuated high-lights upon the
narrow fold-ridges and triangular hollows. This system of folds is the same as that found in the three
Madonnas of London, Frankfurt and Berlin, and, as we shall see, in another and more important
picture from Verrocchio’s studio. The same characteristic, at a more primitive stage, is noticeable in
the mantle of the angel in the foreground of the Baptism of Christ.

Compare these studies of drapery by Alunno di Andrea with Andrea’s folds, or with Leonardo’s
bold draperies, and the difference is at once apparent.

Verrocchio’s pupil retains, especially in his paintings, much of the sharp-edged and acute-angled
character that distinguishes the earlier Florentine painting, the primitively laboured and angular
System with breaks and tubular folds to be found in Pesello or Filippo Lippi. Andrea’s own system
of folds is softer and more undulating, often quite baroque (see the Thomas group and the Forteguerri
monument). It suggests that he worked from a model clothed in soft, heavy woollen materials.
Verrocchio, however, is undeniably inclined to exaggerate the picturesque effect, and attempts too great
a detail; he has difficulty in keeping to the long sweeping lines in the fall of a drapery, as well as in
gathering the lights and shadows into large main groups.

As is shown by that grand drawing in the Louvre, Leonardo follows in the steps of his master, but
his work is greatly superior. The drawing reveals serious and patient study from a model, and also a
genius for observation and composition. Leonardo is pompous without falling into the baroque; he
is severe without being stiff and angular. In examining a drawing such as the above-mentioned, or
any other authentic study of drapery by Leonardo, we find a difficulty in placing reliance upon
Vasari’s story of the master’s mode of procedure with his drapery models.mo Leonardo’s own words
in his Treatise on Painting also contradict it. “The drapery must be drawn from nature,” he says.
“ For instance, if you want to do a woollen drapery, use the folds of such an one, or if it is to be silk, or
fine cloth, or a rustic material or a veil, then make the folds each different after its kind, and do not,
as many do, arrange draperies over models that are covered with paper or thin skin; for then you will

72

 

LEONARDO : Study of Drapery, with brush and sepia on canvas (about 1478). Imuvrc.

 

After licrcnson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

be badly fooled.” These .folds certainly do not give the impression of being drawn from thin linen
material dipped in plaster to keep them stiff; on the contrary, that might explain Alunno’s thin, paper-
like, broken folds. Leonardo’s drapery falls freely and softly by the natural weight of the material,
The material does not cling to the limbs, and yet allows the form of the body underneath to be guessed
at. The drawing of the Louvre produces a majestic effect. We cannot say whether the limbs are
those of a man or of a woman; but the folds speak to us with dignity, almost with pathos. Light
and shade are distributed like sunlight and shadows over a Wide area; and in the light and the
shadows there are a thousand delicate transitions, imperceptible half-tones, and slight details. There
is hardly a drawing to be found in the world which renders “values” with a finer skill. But that
Which from first and last excites our admiration, however, in this fragment from a master’s hand, is
the majesty of the lines. This royal fold of woollen material is a song oflpraise to the lap it covers,
whether that of a man, the Mother of God, or God Himself. Everything Indicates that this study of
drapery, like the other no less admirable study ofa kneeling figure (p. 71) at Windsor, is a very early
work by Leonardo, executed during his apprenticeship in Verrocchio’s studio. The studies of drapery,
which Alunno and other pupils of Verrocchio have executed with the same careful technique, date
probably from the same period. No doubt Verrocchio himself directed their efforts; and these
minutely-executed studies by pupils testify to the conscientious and intense study of nature carried
on in his studio. Work was evidently perfOrmed there with definite purpose and system, at a high
pressure of ordinary diligence and intellectual exertion. A brilliantly gifted teacher was in command,
who expected the best from his pupils. The competition of talented fellow-students, 1nspired and
stimulated all to strive for perfection.

 

Photo. Brogi.

VERROCCHIO'S SCHOOL: Love's Arrow. Drawn with silver-point and brush. Ufl‘izi, Florence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_‘”—fi?"

 

 

VER ROUGH IO'S STUDIO: Landscape background of [he Baptism of (ilirisl.

IX

See the light and consider its beauty !
LEONARDO DA VINCI.

ERROCCHIO’S Baptism of Christ is not only an unfinished picture and a half-
ruined picture (for it has been badly treated in the course of time), but it also left
the artist’s hands with conspicuous faults. Notwithstanding the earnest way the
Baptist steps forward, and his appearance of sincere devotion to his office, there is
no real life in the action. The figures themselves are sympathetic in expression
but their gaze is uncertain, and almost absent-minded. The composition lacks an
energetic unity. It is unfortunate that the two principal figures stand upon the
same level, with their heads at the same height. The Baptist’s active arm has not sufficient power,
and he does not reveal the necessary authority. Ghiberti showed a better knowledge of compo-
sition in his relief on the font at Siena (see p. 64) where the Baptist stands upon a rocky bank of
the river, raised above the Saviour, and stretches out his arm in power as he empties the vessel over

 

the head of Christ. His tall, pathetic figure is balanced by a group of standing figures upon the oppo-
site bank. In the aif are hovering angels. This baptism is a scene of intense solemnity, and in
comparison the action of Verrocchio’s picture is rather tame. In the first place the composition of
the latter suddenly falls away on the left from the central figure to the low group of kneeling angels.
The clumsy, dark brown palm, which looks as if it were cut out of wood, and is brought in to fill up
space, is far from pleasing. It is, however, more particularly in the Christ that the picture falls short.
This figure suggests a model of athletic body and small head with rather a sheepish expression of
countenance. Its attitude, resting upon one leg like a dancing master, is not suitable to the circum-
stances. There is the same inappropriate elegance and sorrowfulness with this Christ that impresses
us disagreeably in Pollaiuolo when, in the well-known drawing in the Uffizi, he makes his athletic
Adam lament and gesticulate over the difficulties of cultivating the ground.

In spite of all its failings and weaknesses, however, there is still a strong sympathy about Verroc-
chio’s picture, a quiet solemnity, a solitude, a wonderful natural peace. When we examine it more

75

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

, . .. ‘ . . . ‘ ' ,. closely we discover that this feeling is created by
g _ v, ._ . - . _ . the landscape.

' ' Unfortunately the landscape has not been left
wholly untouched by strange hands. In particular
the background to the left of Christ, where over
the heads of the angels appeara broad, fertile val-
ley, and the wide bed of the river Jordan, bounded
in the distance by mountain ridges, has been (lis-
tinctly painted over and “ improver 3"” To make
the picture agree with Vasari’s story about Leo-
nardo completing the work, the mountains in the

 

background have been furnished with romantic
points and peaks such as are met with in land-
scapes that Leonardo painted after he had seen
the Alps of Northern Italy. But beneath the
disfigured surface, the eye can still discover the

 

original Verrocchiesque grounding, which is some-
what thick. The same character will then be found
in this part of the landscape as in the background
to the right, which has remained almost untouched. Of course the disfigured left of the landscape,
with the Leonardesque mountains, is supposed to be the finer. It should be remembered, however,
that when the boy Leonardo entered Verrocchio’s studio and, according to tradition, is said to have
executed this work, he had never seen mountains other than those about Vinci and the valley of the

(iIOT'I‘O: Joachim and the Shepherds. Fresco (1305). (lhurch of the Arena, Padua.

Arno, where there are no Dolomities.
“ John did baptize in the wilderness. . . . . And it came to pass . . . . that Jesus
came . . . . and was baptised of john in Jordan.” When a painter from the streets of Florence
wanted to imagine “the wilderness,” he would probably call to mind journeys or expeditions along the
Arno towards the foot of the Appenines. “ The wilder-
ness” began where buildings ceased, where the game was ,3'
left undisturbed, and little waterfalls foamed. Mountain
scenery and uncultivated ground were wilderness before

  

the romance of nature transformed the ideas of beauty in
landscape. In this picture one is sensible (even if we
imagine the Dolomite mountains obliterated), perhaps
for the first time in painting, of an effect which may be
called the romantic feeling for nature. There seems to
be a vibration in the air. The scene is peaceful and far
from human habitation. The sky shines like silver, and
the fir—trees stand out against it like bronze. Far off there
is a gleam from flowing water, and rich velvety reflec-
tions. The splash of the rapids is heard in the river,
the beat of wings in the air. In the distance glides a
white swan. Blocks of shale are piled into cliffs, and

DUCCIO : “Touch me not ! " (r310). Duomo, Siena.

76

"0"-

“R

.A—son —AA

..,-,.

GIOTTO AND THE SIENESE

 

SIMONE MARTINI : (inidoriccio, a Commander of Cavalry, outside Siena. Painted 1328, but restored. l‘alazxo l’iihlflico, Siena.

upon their summits rise the fir-woods, in which great birds seek shelter. Over its flinty bed the brook

flows, clear as crystal, and cool to the weary feet.

Formerly, when landscape was painted in Italian art, it was seldom so joyous. A landscape was
necessary because the subject required it; but the painters were not enamoured of their task.“3 Giotto
was one of the few able to put true feeling into natural surroundings ; but he treated landscape quite
symbolically. Two trees from a forest, and a couple of stony ledges indicate a mountainous district. One
must be very unimaginative. However, only an unimaginative person can deny the deep feeling the
painter has succeeded in expressing in the desolate, nocturnal scenes of the Paduan frescoes through
which the sorrow-laden Joachim wanders. The bare cliffs and the isolated trees create an atmosphere
of oppression in the picture where the poor, childless man goes out to the shepherds on the mountains.
The stillness of night and moonlight have rarely been expressed with greater intensity than in the
simple picture where Joachim falls asleep in front of the shepherds’ hut. An angel reveals himself in a
dream, while the shepherds, full of presentiment, listen to sounds they cannot explain.

None of Giotto’s successors surpasses him in poetic beauty and feeling in the representation of
landscape; but all aspire to greater external correctness. The further development of landscape art
must be sought principally upon Sienese rather than Florentine ground.

Duccio’s localising of the scenes of sacred history is in all essentials the same as in the best Byzan-
tine painting. He presents a clear and exceedingly decorative display of stiffly-formed rocks and trees
without any attempt to indicate distance. Duccio’s pupil, the great Simone Martini, made a consider-
able advance towards truth and reality in his heraldically monumental, highly decorative representation
of the condottiem Guidoriccio on horseback, with the camp and the Sienese towns in the background
(painted 1328). He has even touched upon the problem of light; a gleam from the dawning day rests
upon the head of the general and the towers of the town."” But the landscape is silhouetted against
the red atmosphere, and middle distance (most essential in landscape) is altogether wanting. The
next great name in the history of landscape art is Ambrogio Lorenzetti. In his huge fresco of the
Beneficent Rule in the council-house of Siena (about I340), the artist makes gigantic efforts towards a
truthful and trustworthy representation of a particular district. The fresco is a panoramic View of the
undulating country round Siena as seen from the walls of the town. It shows regular plantations and

77

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

ranges of hills divided into cultivated and enclosedtfields. The tOpographical interest is aroused, as
well as the perspective; but the concentrated light that forms the true method of expressing feeling in
all painting, and more especially in landscape painting, is still lacking.

Gentile da Fabriano (1370-1428) is an Italian painter, who, with the instinct of a genius, freed the
representation of nature from every kind of transmitted diagrammatic treatment. With enthusiastic
intensity he created a real school of landscape painting in the art of the south (northern art already
possessed it in the painting of the Van Eyck school). Gentile’s splendidaltar-piece, the Adoration
of the Magi, in the Academy at Florence (painted in that town in 1423) is, in other respects also,
an epoch making work, and we shall return to it farther on. \Vith its remarkable predellas, repre—
senting Christmas Night and the Flight into Egypt, it stands as a milestone in the art of depicting
scenery. The gleam of a winter’s moon in the one, and the morning light upon the summer’s golden
growth in the second of these two miniature pictures, are painted with inspiration, a bewitchingly
romantic power of narration, and above all with a true feeling for colour harmony. They are really
great works. Through the landscape travels a little company of wayfarers, Joseph and Mary with the
Holy Child seated upon an ass, followed by two ladies of rank as handmaids with baskets of food.
The countryside is no longer that of stage-scenery with improbable, piled-up pieces of rock, and trees
cut out of cardboard. It is a real and correct Italian vista rising and falling in hills and dales, with
hedges running along by the roads, cultivated fields, long avenues leading to villas and castles, and
fruit-trees with pomegranates or oranges glowing among their bronze-hued foliage. Astonishment
will probably be felt at the topographical clearness and the knowledge of perspective shown by the
graduation of the planes. Still more astonishing and captivating is the unity and consistency attained
in the illumination of this landscape as it lies glowing in the morning sun. With a direct simplicity
the source of light itself, the sun, is included in the picture, hanging in the left hand corner like a
clearly-modelled gilt button. This presence of the heavenly body is a remarkable testimony to the
artist’s realisation that pervading light is the first essential in a landscape. From the little gilt button

 

AMBROGIO LORICNZETTI : The l‘ienelirunl Rule, (About |fi40). l’i'vscu in (lie Palm/o l‘nliiuliro. Sienu.

 

GENTILE DA FABRIANO

  

I a:

CICN'I‘UJ‘} DA FABRIAXO: The Flight into 1‘1):pr Predella to an Adoration of the Magi (I425), Amademia, Florence.

in the corner ofthe picture, a warm, golden splendour streams over hill and field and meadow, throwing
forth a true morning sunshine, with sharp shadows and cold half-tones glazed over the wholly gilt
ground. We see the morning mist dispersing from about the castle on the distant hill. Of course
Gentile’s landscape cannot stand against pedantic criticism of its perspective and the correctness of
its dimensions ; but upon every mind with poetic feeling, and every eye sensitive to beauty of colour,
the warm, folk-song romance of the picture will act forcibly and indelibly. Compare this landscape
with one of Benozzo Gozzoli’s overloaded and drily-detailed representations of scenery, and it must be
quite clear which artist is simple chronicler and which inspired singer. V

It is difficult to determine how much of Gentile’s art can be traced back to the influence of northern,
Flemish, or perhaps Cologne painting. But whatever he learnt from foreigners he at least made
completely his own. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the itinerant Umbrian master himself
exerted a great influence upon contemporary and younger Italian painters both in the north and the
south. During the course of his roving life, he was friendly with Pisanello and Stefano da Zevio from
Verona, Jacopo Bellini from Venice was his pupil, and a number of Umbrian, Florentine and other
Tuscan painters came under his influence. Over the schools in Verona and Venice, Gentile’s teaching
must have'been decisive. In Florence too, his art made a deep impression. ' F'ra Angelico and Masolino
in particular, have much to thank him for, and even for the great Masaccio, Gentile’s landécape had
some significance. i ‘ ' . ' . .

The landscape element in Fra Angelico’s art forms a transition from the childlike and hesitating‘

representation of scenery of the trecento, to the scientific study of nature of the quattr0cento. No

    

’ Arm 1. Gilbert.
MASACCIO: Landscape from the fresco of the Tribute Money. Brancncci Chapel, Florence.

 

Photo. Alinari.

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

Photo. Alinari.

BENOZZO (lOZZOIlI : A section of the Procession or the Magi. Fresco (1459) in the Chapel of the Medici, I’alazzo Riccardi, Florence.

I

one expects a keen eye for the forms of reality, or for the character and details of a landscape, from
thepious painter-monk in S. Marco. His true home, however, was the garden of Paradise which he
has so often represented with fascinating naivete’, where angels and the blessed, with radiant nimbuses
about their heads, dance hand in hand through flowery meadows. All the more surprising are certain
pictures, especially some small predellas, with landscape backgrounds showing an unconscious dexterity
in overcoming difficulties in perspective, and actually resembling sublunary campaigns. We are
tempted now and then with the suggestion that he has taken his subject straight from the scenery about
the monastery at Cortona in which his youth was passed.105 Over the background of his landscapes
there is an everlasting blue sky and fresh colouring, which are incapable of adapting themselves to the
motive and feeling of the figures represented.

Upon Fra Angelico’s childlike delineation
of nature, BenozzoGozzoli builds alandscape
that does not approach any closer to reality.
He heaps detail upon detail from Tuscan
scenery, producing a veritable Noah’s ark of
plants and animals, a popular, broad, loqua-
ciously descriptive art,which entertains with-
out greatly enriching.

The next great and decisive step in the
development of landscape art was taken
by that young giant in Florentine paint-
ing, Masaccio, the thread of whose life was
broken in his twenty-seventh year, but whose
work for a hundred years afterwards inspired
all Florentine art. With a firm foot-hold
in the science of perspective, of which

FRA ANGELICO : Paradise. Section of the Last Judgment. The Academy, Florence.

80

 

7- «‘1...‘ “u..— __.______-i_,, .c

FRA ANGELIC(),—~BENOZZO—MASACCIO

 

7 4"“.

”WV.

PAOLO UCCl‘IlJiO: mule of (iualfonda (painted about I425). Uffizi, Florence. I’lmto. Alinari.

Brunelleschi in the meantime had laid the foundation, this “Giotto of the 15th century’

)

created an

entirely new and greatly expanded perception of space, and at the same time commanded with virilc
force and consistency the unity of light in his pictures. Although landscape plays the part merely of

 

 

 

(illllilfiR'l‘l : Story of Abraham. ’mmze relief from [he linplislery,
Florence (before 1447).

a background in his frescoes, the delineation of scenery
is raised from the minute detail and chance caprice of
the trecento, to great and united effects which are
monumental. It cannot be denied that in comparison
with the heavy seriousness and melancholy solitude
that meet us like a rough mountain wind in Masaccio’s
landscapes, even Gentile's lyrics of sunshine appear tri-
Hing. Masaccio’s landscapes undulate in heavy, simple
masses, with mountain-ranges and sea beneath an over-
clouded sky, like the heavily-breathing, giant breast of
earth itself. Bare peaks, drifting clouds, thinly-foliaged
trees, the slow beat of the waves upon the shore, as
seen in the Brancacci chapel, belong to no special
region; but are a far-resounding accompaniment of
musical rhythm to the heroic story of the Tribute
Money told by the groups of figures. Masolino cannot
lay claim to any independent, leading position in the
history of the development of landscape painting,

81 L

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

although, according to Vasari, he was Masaccio’s teacher. It is
true that in the little mountain town of Castiglione d’Olona in
Northern Italy he painted frescoes with interesting landscape
backgrounds, and, in the castle, a landscape without any figures
whatever; but these frescoes were not painted until the year of
Masaccio’s death, and are evidently influenced by works of the
gifted pupil. Masaccio’s work was not actually continued until
Michelangelo himself, as a humble apprentice, seated himself
with his sketch-book in the Brancacci chapel. Even Fra Filippo,
whose monk’s cell immediately adjoined the chapel and who
learned much there in the art of representing figures, does not
seem to have been alive to the greatness of Masaccio’s land-

l
~i-‘l
‘3.
33:
,‘l
:33
.)
.i
3’:
Q.
r;

’ scape. The simple-minded, amiable painter-monk was far more
inclined to go back to the trecento conception of nature, with
its abundant detail and primitive mannerism in the rendering
of form. Fra Filippo draws land and rocks with folded forma-
tions, just as did the old grotesque painters, in a peculiarly
angular and complex fashion; but he does not endeavour to
combine this archaism with the stricter requirements of the
new age in regard to perspective. It is chiefly in a little group
of pictures with the adoration of the Child (nativitzi) as their
subject, that Fra Filippo creates something new and peculiar

7 out of landscape, as he places the scene in the middle of a thick

HERO pm“ RANCH“;nComm,[Eifiiofiififiii' wood. The forest scene, with its net—work of trunks and a
FWO’ 31")”: ”55' “rem brook foaming in subdued light under the trees where the Child

lies upon the soft moss, whilst the Mother kneels in-adoration beside Him, owns a peculiar poetic
charm without parallel in Italian art. One must go to the copper-plate engravings of the old German
masters to find a similar romanticism and idyllic feeling for nature. Whether the composition is due
to northern influences or not, Fra Filippo did not follow up his artistic triumph, and his later works,

 

as far as landscape is concerned, are of no importance.

In Florence the plastic art took the lead in the development of the school, while painting
followed after, often with the interval of a generation. No feeling for nature can attain satis-
factory expression in the representation of scenery, unless a strong, clear idea of space is present.
In developing this aim, sculpture became the pioneer. Painting reaped where the plastic art
had broken new ground. In the history of the development of this feeling for space, the names
of Donatello and Ghiberti mean more than those of any painter. Donatello detached the
human figure from the wall-surface, and placed it freely movable in space. At the same time
Ghiberti, and Donatello too, in their reliefs hollowed the plane surface into perspective and
picturesque compositions. The first landscape-pictures bearing the stamp of reality and illusion
are to be found in Ghiberti’s reliefs on the bronze doors of the Baptistery. There background
and architecture recede in delicately-modulated planes, and straight pines with natural crowns
rise freely into the air. Abundance is given without overloading, and a divine rhythmic sense
raises the representation of reality into a higher beauty. With the roots in Giotto’s primitive

82

 

I:

v—uzq
A.

. ...—.___..A __-—-—.‘-

~A 4. .w

FRA FILIPPO—GHIBERTI——CASTAGNO—UCCELLO—DOMENICO VENEZIANO

idealism, Ghiberti’s art extends beyond the confines
of the quattrocento, and mingles its branches with
the classic art of the next century.

After the great inventive idealists come keen-
sighted realistic painters such as Paolo Uccello and
Andrea del Castagno, Domenico Veneziano and Piero
della Francesca, Alesso Baldovinetti and Antonio
del Pollaiuolo~all artists who play a part in the
development of landscape-painting. These older
contemporaries of Vasco da Gama and Arnerigo
Vespucci were discoverers by nature, who, fired
with a desire for knowledge, set about investigating
the whole of the visible world, studied the human
body and its anatomical structure, nature and her
optical laws, perspective and the foreshortening of
lines, light and atmospheric tone. In the earliest
of them, Castagno, the landscape is not conspicu-
ous, it is true. His grandiose, statue-like figures,
always in the plane of the picture, did not leave
much room for natural or any other surroundings;
but through the perspective problems that he solved,
and with the great extension of the feeling for space
that his art indicates, Castagno has indirectly
assisted in preparing the way for a realistic repre- 1,,mlmHMMUWL
sentation of landscape. , In a far fuller senSe, on the PIERO DELLA FRANCESCA: The Baptism of Christin the RiverJordzm.

National Gallery, London.

other hand, may Castagno’s contemporary, Paolo Uccello, be said to have contributed towards the
creation of a Florentine landscape. Uccello, strange'combination of empiric and visionary, does not
enjoy the fame he deserves as an artist.‘°" Subtle and idle though his ideas of perspective may often
have been, it must be admitted that his battle-pictures (1423-1425) in the Uffizi and in London, are
beautiful in colour and highly decorative in effect. Their numerous lances and banners, their varie-
gated dresses, and the delightfnl red and blue horses, drawn in every possible or impossible fore-
shortening, and looking as if they were carved out of wood, these battle-scenes really give a new and
very amusing illusion of crowds and masses. These pictures are also very remarkable in their con-
ception of landscape background. There is correct proportion in the way the figures are spaced, the
subjects are new and handled in an interesting manner, and the treatment of detail is broad. Uccello
does not build up the landscape with a literary chain of ideas, but is guided by his painter’s eye.
He hews his subjects out of reality. like patches of Tuscan country, in a modern and skyless manner.
Above the heads of the warriors and through the forest of lances are seen hills and cultivated land, or
a park in which fara way and diminutive foot-soldiers are roaming about with their bows. AErial per-
spective was not yet within his power, but linear perspective is carried out with obvious zeal. Hedges
and plough furrows are regularly employed as a linear means of foreshortening to make the planes
recede. The tone of colour is uniformly dark and brown, but in the foreground there is generally an
orange or pomegranate tree with bright fruit.’°7

 

83

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

Domenico Veneziano (about 1400-1461)
brought a new element into Florentine pictorial

   

i i' V y , I I, ‘ i art, of great importance in landscape, namely,
/ i _‘ ‘ the study of colour value. The Florentines had
k. j it} i _. ‘ " solved the problems of analysis of form and per-
, i .. ' spective since the time of Donatello and Bru-
. _ .. :.. " _ ' nellesehi. They were now to experiment with
i I ' i 7' i the breaking—up of colour under shifting lights,
and it was natural that their teacher should come
from the school of colorists in Venice. The é
most important of the existing works of Do-
menico Veneziano is the altar-piece of S. Lucia
de’ Bardi, in the Uflizi. The Virgin sits en-
throned amidst four saints. The architectural
forms waver between Gothic and Renaissance. ‘
As regards composition the altar-piece is a
very plain and ordinary picture. But even in

 

photomim. its present, highly cleaned condition it is re-

“ERO DELLA F1{“NC’{}T,E;‘,‘F'1::$:“0‘““1”Fed°rig°<Hést markable with regard to colour. The tone is

unusually harmonious throughout, light, clear,

cold, grey, mother-of-pearl, pale rose, milky green. Among other old pictures, this altar-piece gives a

startling impression on account of its well maintained open—air effect. The figures under the open

arcade stand in a diffused light interwoven with reflections from the light marble surrounding them.
Behind the Virgin, in the roofless, chapel-like recess with niches, the daylight enters from the open (.7

sky; and for the first time in Italian art, this light is morning sunshine. In a clearly defined ray it
falls upon the marble wall, is broken up in the niches
and fills the space with reflections. Although the tops
of some pomegranate trees growing outside in the

 

garden are the only signs of nature itself, Domenico
Veneziano’s Madonna in the Open Air is a decided
link in the development of Florentine feeling for nature.

When Domenico was working in Florence in the
forties of the 15th century, he had with him as his helper
a young Umbrian painter, who remained for about ten
years before returning to his native place in the Appen—
ines. This young painter was Piero della Francesca
from San Sepolcro. There are few names in the history
of the development of landscape-painting that deserve
to be so long remembered as his. The ideas Domenico
instinctively anticipated and carried out by suggestion,
namely the painting of light, became leading principles

 

in Piero’s talented and intensely personal art. In

l’llolo. Alinari.

Florence, PISFO d€lla Francesca had ITIZIStCI’eCl all that I’ORIISXICO Vl‘ZNI-IZIANO: linlhroned Madonna with Saints. L'mzi,

sa'\\r.a 4

84

 

1';

‘4‘ ‘JV— _

PIERO DELLA FRANCESCA

could be learnt of the culture and technique of
painting. He had studied anatomy and perspec-
tive, and the decorative attitude of early art. Both
theoretically and practically he was versed in the
artistic knowledge of his day; yet his genius seems
to have flowed straight from the fundamental rock
of the region in which he was born. Like a mighty
oak it stands alone. Piero della Francesca resem-
bles no one, and no one resembles him. He even
appears a stranger to the century in which he lived.
The great weightof his figures, their massive bodies,
and his own serious mind, have no counterparts
before Michelangelo. The fresco of the Emperor
Constantine asleep in his tent, while soldiers mount
guard, is a picture of tremendous originality. We
are dazzled and struck dumb by this marvel oflight.
Our feeling passes into deep satisfaction, as, bathed

 

in mystic light, we listen to dream words. And
meanvvhile, thought, uanilling to be left Isolated, ALESSO HALDOVINETTI: Nativity (in the background the valley of the Arno).

Fresco in S. Annunziaia, Florencefqéz).

Photo. Anderson.

speeds onwards through time towards the genius of

Rembrandt, touching on the way Leonardo, Giorgione and Correggio. So clearly does this picture
seem to be the foundation stone of all Chiaroscuro, that it is difficult to realise that all these artists,
and especially Rembrandt, could be unacquainted with it. To set down all that Piero della Francesca
has done for landscape painting is scarcely possible. Photography falls short in its reproduction of
the impression of light in his pictures. Before pictures such as
those in the National Gallery in London (Nativity and Baptism
of Christ), one does not stop, when seeking for points of compari-
son, until one arrives at Manet. It may be said of Piero della
Francesca that he rent the roof under which art had hitherto lived,
sheltered and gloomy, and flooded with daylight the people who
were standing free and plastic in the space. His gaze floated freely
across the aErial ocean, and grasped everything in a wide circum-
ference around it, as though they had been newly-discovered islands;
but this hardly suffices to describe the mountain atmosphere and
freedom with which this singular genius has succeeded in envelop-
ing his straight, large-limbed figures. In the Queen of Sheba
there is a tree standing against the sky, soft and leafy, with tiny
rustlings of the foliage such as never before were depicted in
painting. In the Burial of Adam there is a still grander dead
tree outlined against the sky, with bare branches. When this
Titan from the mountains steps down from his own sphere of
ANTONIO I,” POLLMUOLOIHmummmthe imagination, and takes commissions for portraitsfipaints a Duke
Hydmandcn‘g'i” Am” 1” '1'”""“kgmum‘l”mm” of Urbino and his Duchess, with their (lukedom as the background

 

of the Arno. Miniature in oils. Uffizi.

85

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

—only then does his art become so even and realistic that '
it can be reached by words and reproduction. In these por-
traits (in the Uffizi), which stand forth boldly against the light
sky, the background is a view of miles of hilly country with l
rivers and lakes and houses, topographical in a higher sense,
cold and objective, but magnificent in its realism. Upon the
back of the panels (which must have formed a kind of dip—
tych), Piero has painted the duke and duchess, each on a
separate allegorical triumphal car. He conveys the impres-
sion that in the panorama behind he has painted the whole of ‘
the dukedom—towns, rivers and harbours. In pictures like
these portraits of Federigo da Montefeltro and his wife,
Battista Sforza, Piero comes very close to contemporary
Florentine landscape painting. Landscape portraiture may be
called the characteristic of the scenery found in pictures by 2
Baldovinetti and Antonio del Pollaiuolo. The topographical
cross between a map and a painting, with which we are
acquainted from earlier art, is a stage that has been passed.
These artists actually sought out the difficulties of linear
perspective, and handled them with virtuosity. The effects
of aerial perspective over wide spaces tempted them again
and again, for their inclination for panoramic views was ever
increasing. They must have had eyes like falcons, and it
was their ambition to include the whole land. The valley of
the Arno, from Florence to Pisa, the Umbrian plain, the é
Campagna, a republic or a duke’s estate, seemed to them
suitable subjects for their insatiable miniature brush. They
compressed their panoramas into canvases no larger than ’
half a metre square. In Florence, Alesso Baldovinetti was
evidently the leader of this tendency. Clearly a pupil of
Domenico Veneziano, he inherited from his master a bright
, _ scale of colours, diffused light and several of Domenico’s
" a...“ types.“ Vasari noted his inclination for depicting scenery in

--

 

' K , its minutest details (di tutte minuzie 0116 la madm mmmz safcmz, l
e- 3.; ' 1‘ si sforzo‘ d’essez/e imitatore). “He took great pleasure in draw-
_‘1

-, ' i . ‘ ing landscapes from nature, making them exact copies of the

Photo. Hanfstangl. , . . . . .
I’IICRO DELLAivRANeicsoi;TheNativiiyorourrora. reality. One sees, therefore, in his pictures rivers, bridges, .
Demll' wammancry’LOW” stones, plants, fruits, roads, fields, towns, forts, sandy plains .
and innumerable similar things.”109 The correctness of this characterisation of Vasari’s may be $
seen to this day in Baldovinetti’s large fresco in the atrium of the Annunziata, a Nativity, painted in i

the year 1462. In the foreground is a rocky knoll, upon which the Holy Family have their abode,
and where the ivy fiings its cascades of pointed leaves over the walls of the ruin. To the left lies the
Tuscan plain, bathed in light, with the Arno winding like a silver ribbon between fields and plantations,

86

 

 

BALDOVI NETTI—POLLAIUOLO—BOTTICELLI

becoming fainter and fainter in the distance towards the Pisan
mountains. Against the wide expanse of sky stands a tree over three
times the height of a man (a more correct proportion between figure
and landscape than has ever before been observed), with lopped
branches and foliage drawn true to nature. The fresco has unfortu-
nately suffered so much from the peeling off of the colour, that a
photograph can only give a very imperfect idea of its reality and
naturalism. The same landscape character is found in the bad-
ground of Alesso’s smaller pictures, such as the beautiful Madonna
in London, in which there is also a wide view over level country
between hills with winding roads and rivers. In his pictures the
artist always emphasises the clear, pale tone of the atmosphere by
contrast with a dark silhouette, either a wooded height or a few
cypresses lifting their heads above a garden wall.”° This feature,
like many others, is easily recognised in the compositions of his pupil
Verrocchio, both those executed by Vcrrocchio’s own hand, and
others that only come from his studio.”1 We shall see later how this
motive of cypresses against clear atmosphere is transmitted to
Leonardo’s early works.

Baldovinetti’s pupils were Antonio del Pollaiuolo and Andrea del
Verrocchio, and neither of them failed their teacher in working for
the development of a Tuscan style of landscape. Pollaiuolo follows
his master closely in landscape, chooses his subjects as Baldovinetti
did from the valley of the Arno with extensive views, keeps his
landscapes in a 'uniform bronze-brown tone against a luminous
atmosphere, and pencils the details with a very fine brush. His tiny
Hercules in the Uffizi, and the Journey of Tobias in the Turin
Gallery, are excellent examples of this extraordinarily careful minia-
ture work. In pictures such as these one suspects the keen com-
petition the ambitious painters of Florence carried on with the
intruding Flemish art, which during those years—perhaps to a
disquieting extent—enjoyed the favour of patrons and compelled the
approbation of artists. Domenico Ghirlandaio was also Baldovinetti’s
pupil, resembling him in various ways, one being the treatment of
landscape. He too was dominated by Flemish influence. Icannot,
however, say that Ghirlandaio’s roughly-executed and not very
characteristic landscape backgrounds have any independent signifi-
cance in the development of landscape painting. In relation to men

 

Photo. Alinnri.

ANTONIO DEL POLLAIUOLO:
The Journey of Tobias. Detail. Royal Gallery, Turin.

such as Pollaiuolo and Verrocchio, who were superior to him both in originality and in artistic ability,
Domenico Ghirlandaio may be said to occupy an exaggerated position in the history of art. Botticelli
is more deserving of a place in the development of landscape painting than Ghirlandaio, notwithstand-
ing that he himself does not seem to have attached much importance to his landscape backgrounds,
and also that Leonardo mentions him as an instance of an artist who neglected the study of landscape.

87

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

Sandro Botticelli, the most soulful of the
quattrocento masters,found perfect freedom
for his genius in poetic composition, in
rhythmic grace of motion, and in beauty
of expression. He did not require the ad-
dition of landscape to express his delicate
dreams of beauty and the longings of his
contentious mind for harmony. Yet it was
Botticelli who painted the goddess of
beauty, as she rose one warm summer
morning from the sparkling sea on the coast
of Cyprus, beneath a rain of roses and
amidst the breath of zephyrs. It is he,
too, who painted Spring entering the grove
of the Graces, where Venus wanders pen-
sively among laurels and myrtles. In
pictures such as these, however, the repre-
sentation of nature is kept poetically
abstract, written with the brush in simple,
decorative symbols, as far removed as
possible from all realism and effect of
illusion. No judgment can be less to the
point than the unjust criticism Leonardo
incidentally pronounces in his Treatise on
Painting upon Botticelli as a landscape
painter, where the writer says that the
master used to fill a sponge with colour,
throw it against the wall, and call the
splotch a landscape.” It is quite true that
Botticelli,unlike mostofhis contemporaries,
. did not draw landscape with minute detail.

Photo. Hunfstiing]. On the other hand he could, with thrilling
ANTONIO DEL l’OLLAIUOLO:The Martyrdom of 5. Sebastian (1472). Detail. intensity, Suggest the feeling Of landscape

National Gallery, London.
with his opal-grey morning skies and a

 

black network of foliage against a clear evening atmosphere. Landscape occupies an important
place in the works of Botticelli’s anonymous contemporary and imitator, Amico di Sandro.“3 His
representation, in particular, of the Adoration of the Kings in the National Gallery, with its small
figures in a wide mountain landscape, shows a romantic feeling for nature and an ability for depicting
landscape, in the development of which northern art may have assisted.“4 By Sandro’s pupil,
Filippino Lippi, the landscape in the background is often treated with interest, sometimes with
earnest study; but Filippo does not seem to have possessed any very deep feeling for nature. It is
amusing to see him portraying the outskirts of his own town in the Madonna in S. Spirito, where the
background gives a peep of S. Frediano with the town gate and adjoining streets, (in which the

88

 

ANDREA DEL VERROCCHIO

commissioner of the picture must have resided), and where we see him
ready dressed for a journey, bidding farewell to his family. Filippo was
not alone in this kind of miniature topographical painting. In the
Annunciation in Berlin (p. 90), Piero del Pollaiuolo exhibits an almost
incredible subtlety in the treatment of the landscape. Through one of
the arched windows, we look far out over Florence with its cathedral
dome, the campanile, and the clock-tower of the Signoria; through the
other there is a View of the country immediately surrounding the town.
But the master of landscape drawing, who surpasses them all, con-
temporaries and predecessors, the master who creates landscape that
is pictorially mature and charged with feeling, is Andrea del Ver-
rocchio.“3 There are not many works upon which to buildvour appre-
ciation. The first and most important is the Baptism of Christ, which
in all essentials is from his hand. Others, more disputable, which the
present author is convinced should be attributed to Andrea, will becon€
sidered more closely in the following pages, and willhelp to throw light ;
upon the landscape painter Verrocchio. No predecessorhadbeen able
to find the deep, sonorous metallic tones in colouring, from the dark,
warm bronze in the forest gloom, to the bell-like, silvery tones in the
fading blue of the atmosphere. which distinguished his brush. No one
before him succeeded in connecting the foreground with the background
by means of an actual middle-distance with finely modulated transitions.
No one gave, as he, suggestive glimpses under the trees into the half-light
and solitude in which mystery unfolds her wings. Crowe and Cavalcaselle
have noticed how a poetic portrayal of scenery supplied the feeling in
Verrocchio’s pictures. They felt the consecration and sublimity that
descend upon the lonely region and the act depicted in the Baptism
of Christ.“6 But it is Bernhard Berenson in particular, who, in his
clever outlines of Florentine painting, has emphasised the feeling for

 

landscape as a predominant power in Verrocchio’s work.“7 Among

Photo. Braun.

Florentines, at any rate, he was the first artist to feel that landscape VERROCCHW

painting was something different from, and more than, a faithful repro- secunniigiiigiigiiiiei: Effiiiiiii/iéflomnin
duction of outline and distance in a piece of scenery. Verrocchio

suspected, at least, that landscape painting was probably a special kind of art, with special aims and
means of its own. Indeed, he evidently made up his mind that a complete and life-like represent-
ation of light and atmosphere in this kind of art meant infinitely more than the plastic formation
of detail.

A section of the landscape background of a disputed portrait of a woman is reproduced on this
page. If this portrait (to which we shall return later) is Verrocchio’s work, he was a true landscape
lyric poet. If the picture is his, then he was the first to grasp the mystic reciprocation between the
feeling in a landscape and the picture of a soul. Vegetation showing black against a cold, clear sky,
fading light upon still water, are the elegiac accompaniments to a captivating portrait of a pale, silent
lady outlined against a twilight sky. In reality the same artistic principle is employed here as that

89 M

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

which Leonardo afterwards followed
when he placed Monna Lisa against a
background of blue mountains. The
landscape no longer is concerned with
actuality, it is of neither topographical
nor biographical importance. The fir-
trees behind the “pale lady,” with their
delicate tracery against the evening sky,
spontaneously impart the impression of
extreme refinement and melancholy, at
which the artist aims. The mountainous
country behind Monna Lisa is no Tuscan
or Lombard scene,but the veiled dream-
land which strengthens the force of
, . mysterious personality. The woman’s
PIERO nm. POLLAIUOLO: View throughawindow, golden maturity iS outlined against the “REESE?ifgi‘iiiiiiliif-L?i Vie:Vt]hrough
blue-green semi-obscurity of the moun- ’ i mm. mm
tains; but a puff of cold air from Cliffs and ravines blows over her sweetness and desire. None
of Verrocchio’s pupils except Leonardo comprehended his poetic landscape art. Neither in
Alunno’s nor in Lorenzo di Credi’s landscape backgrounds is there any trace of their master’s
animating power. Credi’s landscape is as tame and trim as an old maid’s garden. The simple-
minded Lorenzo comprehended none of the master’s romantic longings, and did not suspect his
talented fellow—pupil’s intimate, mysterious companionship with nature.

Leonardo, with full consciousness and an enormous amount of experience, brought the representa-
tion of nature and landscape painting into altogether new lines. Here, as in other fields of painting,
he is the genius who finds the narrow pass, beyond which open the vistas of a new age.

 

 

 

in an Annunciation. Berlin.

 

LORENZI DI CREDI:

View through a window. From a Madonna
in Turin.

 

l

”A

 

Photo. Alinari.
VERROCCHIO 2 Landscape. Section of the Annunciation from Monte Oliveto. Uffizi.

X

And if thou seest that old age consumes the store of wisdom, thou Shouldst
so manage in thy youth that this thine old age doth not lack nourishment.

LEONARDO DA VINCI.

 

MONG the pictures which in recent times have been attributed to the young
Leonardo, are two kindred representations of the Annunciation, one in the Uffizi,
the other in the Louvre. Both pictures are of an unusual shape, being low and
very long; in the manner in which the Annunciation scene is enacted, upon a
garden terrace in front of a palace door, and with a view of landscape in the back-
ground, there are important resemblances in the two compositions. But while the
picture in the Louvre is small and long like a predella (for placing at the foot of
the frame of a large altar—piece), the Annunciation in the Uffizi is a painting of considerable dimensions

 

 

 

 

with half life-size figures.
The Louvre picture came to the Museum with Napoleon IIl’s collections, and with Lorenzo di

Credi’s name assigned to it. This name remained for a considerable time in the catalogue, notwith-
standing that the great Italian connoisseur, Giovanni Morelli, in 1875, had recognised the hand of the
young Leonardo, and converted the directors of the Louvre to his opinion.“8

The second picture was formerly hidden away in the sacristy of a monastery church on Monte
Oliveto outside Florence, under the traditional name of Ghirlandaio. With this attribution the
picture was admitted into the Uffizi in 1880, but soon after, at the suggestion of the German amateur,
Baron von Liphart, the painter’s name was changed to that of Leonardo da Vinci, adesignation

which the directors immediately accepted and still retain.
Whereas Senator Morelli’s suggestion for the painter of the little Louvre Annunciation was soon

91

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

Photo. Alinari.

VICRROCCHIO'S STUDIO : Annunciation from Monte Oliveto. Uffizi.

approved of by all experts, so that up to the present the picture has been looked upon as indisputably
an early work from Leonardo’s hand, Baron von Liphart’s “attribution” became the subject of grave
doubt and opposition, and the Annunciation from Monte Oliveto is still an apple of discord among
art-historians.

When the picture came to the Gallery under the traditional designation of Ghirlandaio, it was
certainly Domenico Ghirlandaio who was intended. The well-known historians of Italian painting,
Crowe and Cavalcaselle, however, maintained that the work should really be attributed to his son,
Ridolfo Ghirlandaio.“9

Strange to say, Morelli also considered this late and not very characteristic eclectic (1483-1561),
(who first saw the light a few years after Leonardo had left Florence for Milan),”° and held obstinately
to his opinion until his death. His assertion has since been defended by his pupil, Dr. Frizzoni,‘“
and found adherence in Adolf Rosenberg’s Ktinstler-Monographi.”2 On the other hand, the American
critic, Bernhard Berenson, who with greater talent and finer intuition has carried on Morelli’s critical
labours, has in this case keenly opposed his master’s hypothesis, which he characterises as absurd.
He himself ascribes the picture to Verrocchio.”3 Georg Gronau is evidently of the same opinion;
he does not, at any rate, mention the picture in his well-written little book on Leonardo, and therefore
cannot reckon it as one of Leonado’s genuine works.”4 W. Schmidt of Munich takes a middle
course, as he assigns the picture to (Lredifz5 Against these critics, however, stands a compact body of
art—historians, pricipally German, with Dr. Bode and the deceased curator, Bayersdorfer at their
head—Muller-VValde, Schmarzow, Makowsky, Friedlander, and others, who with Baron von Liphart,
maintain that the Monte'Oliveto picture is undoubtedly an early work of Leonardo. The English
connoisseur of drawings, Sidney Colvin, has recently subscribed to this View, as he thinks the
authenticity of the picture may be founded upon a genuine drawing by Leonardo.”6 He has been
contradicted, however, by the German amateur, A. von Beckerath,”7 who considers the two Annun-
ciations irreconcilable in style, although he does not venture to determine the painter of that in

92

THE ANNUNCIATION FROM MONTE OLIVETO

 

Photo. Braun.

LEONARDO: Annunciation. Louvre.

the Uffizi. Among Frenchmen, Baron Geymtiller”8 and Gabriel Séailles”9 have adopted the general
belief that Leonardo was the author of the picture, while Eugene M'L'intz endeavours, as he so often
does, to conceal his uncertainty behind a mass of words, which leads him into actual self-contradiction,
as he doubts Leonardo’s authorship of the picture, but refers to several of his drawings as original
studies for it 1’30 Where opinions differ so widely, it is allowable to build one’s own upon bare
ground, that is to say upon an unprejudiced examination of the picture itself.

The painting represents the Virgin as a young lady of rank, sitting outside the door of her palace
upon a terrace looking on to a flowery meadow with a descent to a park in the background. She is
seated in front of a richly-sculptured antique reading-desk of marble, turning over the leaves of a
folio, when the angel suddenly kneels before her with his stalk of lilies and his message. She does not
start up from her seat—a proceeding, indeed, which would be difficult enough, considering the
numerous yards of material in which she is wrapped, but contents herself with a slight movement of
the hand as an expression of surprise, a surprise that is hardly to be read in her face. Nor has she
any reason to be alarmed. The heavenly messenger is a very tactful person, who behaves well and
kneels at a befitting distance from the noble lady. He has no resemblance to the furious Gabriel in a
contemporary Annunciation, which Leonardo describes with so much sarcasm in his Treatise on
Painting (Chap. VIII), a celestial visitant, who, “while he announces her fate to the Virgin, seems
trying to chase her out of the room; for in his movements there appears to be a wrath such as one only
shows towards the most contemptible of one’s enemies, and the Mother of God looks as if she could
throw herself out of the window in despair.”

This Gabriel is a beautiful Florentine youth with a broad, pale brow, delicate hands and long, fair,
curly hair. Over the entire picture there is a certain cool, aristocratic restraint, an impression of well-
being far removed from anything like burning intensity. The characters are richly clad in fine linen
and silken mantles, the palace is well kept, and solidly built with heavy quoins of freestone, there is not
a speck of dust on the tiled floor of the terrace, and the elegant reading-desk is draped with a gauzy
veil to protect the covers of the book. The garden is in the best of condition. The flowery expanse
is crowded with tulips, daisies, and delicate bell-shaped flowers, the dark cypresses in the park are
planted in rows at symmetrical distances, whilst the spaces are filled with soft cedars or fir trees,
whose branches grow in order, one above the other. Paths are discernable, winding through the
shrubbery, and in the distance there is a View of a sun-lit sea and a sea-port town at the foot of high,
romantic-looking mountains. Evidently a prosperous commercial town lies at the mouth of the river,
with towers and spires, a lighthouse and busy shipping in the roads.“ Our Virgin clearly belongs to the

93

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

highest aristocracy of the town, a
young lady, who, with an inclina-
tion for a contemplative life with
literary studies amidst natural sur-
roundings, has withdrawn from the
bustle and restlessness of the city
to her pretty villa. Such is the
story and atmosphere of the pic-
ture. They have little in com-
mon with the tender, simple scene
Leonardo has portrayed in his
Louvre picture, where the deep
seriousness of the angel finds re-
sponse in the humble heart-felt joy
of the kneelingMary. The tendency
to represent the Virgin as a noble
Florentine lady in well-to-do cir-
cumstances is not peculiar to this
artist. In Pollaiuolo’s picture in
Berlin, the Annunciation takes

place in a room decorated with
princely splendour. The walls and floor are overlaid with veined marble, the pilasters adorned with

bronze capitals and delicate ornament, and the Virgin herself, arrayed in a dress of brocade, is seated
on a chair inlaid with pearls and precious stones. Gabriel, too, is an aristocratic person with
jewelled raiment and peacocks’ wings; an angelic orchestra discourses music in the distance while
he makes known the promise. The artist, moreover, has not been afraid to localise the scene. Through
the arched windows and the arcades of the loggia, a well-known landscape is visible, in which
Brunelleschi’s dome, Giotto’s campanile and Arnulfo’s clock-tower on the Signoria rise above the
white walls of a town (see p. 90). We are in Florence, and we are also in Florentine company in the
Monte Oliveto picture, although the distant sea-port can hardly be Porto Pisano, as Baron Geymuller
thinks, and the mountains are rather those of an imaginary country than of Tuscany.

But who painted the picture? The great care with which the reading-desk is drawn, in antique style
with lions’ feet, acanthus foliage, garlands and scallop shells, indicates an artist with archaeological
tastes and training in ornament. Its kinship with the Marzuppini tomb and the ornament of the
Medici sarcophagus is striking, and would point in the direction of Desiderio and Verrocchio. This
reading-desk, however, has been specially brought forward as a document indicating another
direction.

In holding so firmly to his assertion that the picture was the work of Ridolfo Ghirlandaio, Morelli
based his view, inter alia, upon a rough pen-sketch of an Annunciation in the Uffizi (No. 287), that is
indisputably from the hand of the father, Domenico Ghirlandaio (p. 95). Here too the Virgin is
seated by a reading-desk with an antique, carved marble foot, and Gabriel, in profile, is kneeling on
the other side of the desk, which is the central point in the composition. The son, Ridolfo, is said to
have used this sketch as the foundation for his picture, and the design of the desk is brought forward

 

Photo. Hanfstiingl.

PIERO DEL POLLAIUOLO: Annunciation. Berlin.

94

RIDOLFO GHIRLANDAIO

as proof. The rough sketch, how-
ever, can at most only prove
that Ghirlandaio studied antique
ornament with the monuments
of Desiderio and Verrocchio as
patterns. The connection,
moreover, which actually existed
between Domenico Ghirlandaio’s
art and Verrocchio’s studio,
might be supported by various
other more weighty documents
than the pen-sketch with the
reading-desk}? Nor is the re-
semblance between the sketch
and the picture so great that any . g
influence should be necessary to l i i , i i l i I Mow-12mg,
explain it. When Studied more DOMENICO CHIRLANDAIO: Pen-sketch for an Annunciation. Uffizi.

closely, the desk, which had so much to do with Morelli’s decision, is found not even to be the same ;
in the picture it is a rectangular altar, in the sketch the triangular foot of a candelabrum, which has
been converted into a desk. In the sketch a third figure is indicated, not to be found in the picture,
nor will the sketch’s traditional dove in the rays of grace be found. The Monte Oliveto Annunciation
seems to have been painted in a rationalistic moment, for the artist excluded all sacred apparatus
except the angel’s wings and the faintly indicated nimbuses. Above all, the picture differs in artistic
execution, in types, in landscape, and most of all in colouring, from everything that issued from the
Ghirlandaio’s studio. .

A firm Morellian may offer objections. It is not, he will say, a question of Domenico’s hand
and colouring, but of the carrying out by Ridolfo Ghirlandaio of an idea borrowed from his father.
It is true that this dependent eclectic artist, among other painters, also imitated Leonardo. There
are pictures such as the famous Portrait of a Goldsmith in the Pitti Gallery, which long bore Leonardo’s
name, and is now universally acknowledgedto be the work of Ridolfo.‘33 It must certainly often have
happened that this imitator borrowed types and details from Leonardo. For example, in the picture
of Christ on His way to Golgotha ‘(in London), he painted a Roman soldier with contorted face like
one of the combatants in the Battle of Anghiari. In common with the other eclectics of the end of
the century (Granacci in particular), this painter was able to change his style in a bewildering manner.
Like Granacci, he shows in certain pictures a tendency towards archaism, which seems at one time
to have been the prevailing fashion in Florence. But this highly unoriginal artist, a pupil of the eclectic
David Ghirlandaio, and the changeable Granacci, a contemporary of Franciabigio and Andrea del
Sarto, an imitator of Fra Bartolommeo and Raphael, this vacillating transitional always betrays him-
self as the decadent he really was. Even the Goldsmith portrait, where his imitation most nearly
approaches Leonardo, does not allow us long to doubt that a cinquecentist painted it (p. 96). The
form is round and loose, notwithstanding the careful modelling, and the landscape, which gives the
surest hold for a determination of the works of this chameleon-like transformation artist, changes
character least and is easiest to recognise, being essentially different from the solemn landscape of

 

95

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

the Annunciation with the cypresses in the background.
This smoky landscape of Ridolfo’s, painted with a thin,
almost colourless glaze, and a light yellowish-brown tone
merging in pearl grey and melting into milky green, pos-
sesses no thoroughly worked out form. A conventional brush
filled with thick, dark bitumen has placed a little stiff vegeta-
tion, the ray-like, bristling bush that is seldom absent from
the landscapes of the Florentine cinquecentists from Piero di
Cosimo to Sarto, and the unnaturallyslim tree with its thread—
like trunk and a tassel of leaves at the top, embroidered
with bronze upon the pale sky. This landscape, embellished
with an arched bridge and a few tiny Florentines taking
a walk in the country, is far more like Franciabigio and
Sarto than Leonardo and Verrocchio. It hardly supports
the wild hypothesis that Ridolfo was the painter of the
Annunciation. If Granacci had been suggested, the attri-
bution might have been worthy of consideration #34 but
Ridolfo, and his heavy, thick-nosed types, with their swollen
mouths and stiff forefingers, is out of the question. The

 

RIDOLFO <,;H1RI..\N1>A10;portraitamidiiziiioivfum' name of Ghirlandaio must be relinquished in connection
Pimrmuccmlomnce. with the Annunciation from Monte Oliveto. The picture
is an unmistakable quattroeento work, and scarcely from the last years of that great century. The
feeling, it is true, is not so fresh and simple as in the conquering years of the century; a mortal combat
is no longer being fought for artistic gain ; but the composition still retains the regulated dignity, the
form, the stiffness, the thinness no longer to be found at the opening of the next century. The picture
can scarcely be later than about 1480, at which time the young Ridolfo had not yet seen the light.
(He was born in 1483, the year of Raphael’s birth.) Where then is the painter to be sought? The
ornament of the reading-stand points in the direction of Desiderio and Verrocchio. There is another,
more important witness to the same end, namely, the actual scheme of composition.

That the scene has been moved out from the Virgin’s chamber into the open air, with God’s
beautiful nature as a background, is in itself highly worthy of remark. At the same time the whole
theological apparatus, the dove, the host of cherubim, the rays of grace, is omitted. Fra Angelico,
however, had already let fresh air into the closeness of the bed—chamber by placing the scene of the
Annunciation in an open loggia looking on to the grass-plot of the courtyard, and the wooden fence
of the garden.‘35 Here the last remnants of the medigeval hortus Conclusus‘35 are swept away, and we
look for miles into the world.

In the next place, the effect of the shape of the picture is new and striking. Is it an altar-piece?
It would be difficult to point to altar-pieces of this low long shape. Besides predellas, the oblong
form in Renaissance paintings occurs only in panels for bridal chests (cassoni) or other private objects
of art, and the subjects are generally secular or mythological.

There is, however, an earlier representation of the Annunciation of the same long, narrow shape.
The angel kneels, in profile, at one end, and the Virgin is seated in! a full-face position at the other.
This is the composition of Baldovinetti’s representation of the Annunciation (about I466) in the

96

l

.:_.-_-3. t“ m - -...

.y .

-4- rung—h._,-;f v;- A. '-

_ . var “an“... _.r_..-.-_...... . I. ‘

‘-""‘"“"“"V“L_‘ - u ”.1.

* nets. :‘.-.‘....-u.-

_.-

‘ ‘ ,rr

 

BALDOVINETTI—VERROCCHlO—CREDI

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALESSO BALDOVINETTI: Annunciation of the Virgin Mary. S. Miniato al Monte, Florence.

Portuguese chapel in S. Miniato al Monte. The shape and arrangement were governed chiefly by
the application of mural painting to architectural surroundings; but nevertheless the resemblance is
well worthy of notice. The outline of the angel and the position of the Virgin’s knees with the
intervening deep fold of drapery are not the only points which provoke reminiscence. The long,
straight line of the stone bench in the S. Miniato picture answers to the long stone parapet of the
garden dividing the 'Monte Oliveto picture so sharply into two horizontal parts, and the cypresses of
the garden play a part in both compositions. Now Baldovinetti was unquestionably Verrocchio’s
teacher in painting, and we have already seen (in the Baptism of Christ) that the latter inherited his
schemes of composition from his teacher. This then would point in the same direction as the reading-
desk. Nor, in reality, is the idea of Verrocchio as the originator of the picture contradicted by the
types of the figures. The slightly affected, aristocratic Florentine lady, with the high forehead, the
loose locks about her temples, and the long delicate hands, who is sitting at her reading-desk in the
bright morning light (p. 102), might very well be a humbler sister of La Donna alle Belle Mani. The
hands with the arched wrists are actually identical in form, although affected in motion. This book-
loving Virgin at her reading-desk is a younger, spoilt but refined, rather insignificant daughter of the
Baldovinetti type of woman. If our glance wanders over the stone parapet, under the bronze-brown
trees, and floats through the silver shimmering air, we feel for the first time thoroughly convinced that
only Verrocchio could have been the painter. The landscape has nothing in common with Credi’s well-
shorn garden, nor with the blue dreamland in which the sphinx Gioconda draws her breath. Neither
is it the landscape from Leonardo’s little Annunciation in the Louvre, notwithstanding the cypresses,
rather resembling the landscape in Verrocchio’s Baptism of Christ, with its tranquil, almost solemn,
and yet natural poetry. Verrocchio’s own hand can surely be recognised in the charming middle
distance with its masterly, representation of varied scenery. Notice particularly the portion to the
left, under the angel’s wing (p. 91), and also the storeyed fir trees, so delicately outlined, that we
fancy we can see the points of their needles against the sky. We can even find traces of gold in the
deep bronze tones. Truly the great Florentine master of landscape has been at work here.

Yet there is something that holds us back when we attempt to affix Verrocchio’s name to the picture.

97 N

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

Something cold and paralysed touches us,
like a breath of icy wind. Feeling has
stiffened into ceremony; and the form is
ornamental more than graceful. We be-
come aware of the tiny gathers in the
Virgin’s under—robe, and the finical high-
lights on the locks of the angel’s hair.
The flowers in the grass curl and bend
unnecessarily. The sharply-broken, stiff
folds in the garments are not Verrocchio’s
full, swelling, almost baroque draperies.
Several hands have been at work here,
and not the master’s only. He certainly
designed the composition, but had assis-
tance in its execution. Which of Verroc-
chio’s numerous pupils can be assumed
to have had a share in the work? Was it
his favourite pupil, Lorenzo di Credi? A
, couple of paces from the picture, in the
- Phot. Braun- same room in theUffizi, hangs adelightful
LEONARDO: The angel Gabriel, mm the Annunciation in the Louvre. picture by Credi with the same subject,
the Annunciation (p. 100). The composition is totally different. The scene is laid indoors, the Virgin
receives the message standing and in a state of alarm, the angel does not kneel, but runs towards her.
The types are not the same, being, like all Credi’s, short and the reverse of slender. The sharply-
illuminated, broken folds alone, in the Monte Oliveto picture, and the silky materials,would forbid any
thought of Credi. With him all materials are woollen and soft, and he never drew a fold that did not
end in a round, soft curve ; breaks and hard edges were contrary to his nature. Credi was an excellent
technicist; the colour in his picture is finely graduated, the paint itself being spread over the surface in
a thin film as smooth and firm as enamel. His pictures therefore are in excellent condition. In the
Monte Oliveto picture, on the contrary, experiments have been made with the oil-colour, and the surface
is by no means well preserved. The balance of colour in the two pictures could hardly be more
dissimilar—in the Verrochiesque Annunciation rich in contrast, deep and velvety; in Credi’s shadowless
light and cool. How unlike the background of the Monte Oliveto picture is this landscape of Credi’s
that is seen through the arches, with the bee—hive trees and the trim garden paths, the prim, prosaic
park—like landscape, which is Credi’s regular formula for scenery.
So Credi cannot be its author. But what about Leonardo? Is it possible to trace his hand in
the disputed picture? The usual opinion as to Leonardo’s authorship must have some basis, and is

 

founded in the first place upon the general impression, upon the similarity in arrangement between the
Louvre composition and that of the Uffizi picture. Upon a closer study this momentary similarity offers
insurmountable differences. One important factor is the perspective. In Leonardo’s little Annuncia-
tion in the Louvre, the perspective is managed in a masterly manner (see p. 93). There is space upon
the terrace; the stone balustrade, the wall of the house, and the simple wooden benches in front of the
door, are sufficient to give an impression of depth to a surface of I4>< 59 centimetres. All lines converge

98

 

THE ANNUNCIATION IN THE LOUVRE—A COMPARISON

towards a vanishing point that lies to the
left in the upper edge of the picture, above
the angel’s shoulder. In the larger pic-
ture (p. 92), the painter has had to resort
to the heavy quoins to mark the per-
spective direction of the lines inwards;
but in spite of the numerous vanishing
lines in these, he has not succeeded in
giving a reliable impression of correct
perspective. The lines seem to have
several vanishing points, and yet they
meet in a point that lies on a line exactly
through the middle of the picture, just
at the cleft in the conical mountain
behind the town, i.e., below the horizon
of the picture. The centre of vision is
too low and too near, hence the false im-
pression. A similar uncertainty is obser-
vable in the figure construction. The
reading-desk stands in the foremost
plane of the picture, far in front of the
Virgin’s knees and feet ; and yet her more distant (right) arm is placed in front of the book upon the
reading-desk. In reality the more distant arm and hand are closer to us than the nearer. Faults such

 

Photo. Braun.

 

LEONARDO : The Virgin in the Annunciation, Louvre.

as these paralyse motion. Nor does the head move in organic connection with the body. The Virgin’s
arms are uncommonly long; the figure must measure a goodly number of heads. The wings of the angel
are too erect, as well as too small to carry him and his heavy clothing. The flowery ground is over-
loaded with flowers. The light surface of the long, stone balustrade, which runs right out of the picture,
spoils the effect, and has an indistinct or meaningless connection with the palace wall, whilst the opening
in it is in the wrong place. If the angel entered there he must have come straight towards us and then
faced to the left. A person does not come on to a stage so awkwardly when effect is desired. How more
naturally all this is arranged in Leonardo’s little Annunciation. There the steps to the terrace face the
Virgin opposite the door of the house. The angel comes that way and immediately kneels down in
profile. The Virgin responds by falling on her knees opposite him. The desk is a little at one side
and not in the way. The terrace is carried in a sensible and, as regards perspective, favourable way
round the house. The long, horizontal line of the parapet becomes a zig—zag. There is no bewildering
confusion of flowers, but a few tall flower-stalks rise, light and graceful, against the dark stone wall.
The villa is no princely palace, and the reading-desk no museum specimen. Neither is the impression
disturbed by the tiresome lines of the quoins, nor the eye distracted from the sacred episode to critical
studies of antique ornament. The seats along the wall make the terrace a comfortable place to sit in.
There is on the whole a noble simplicity and plainness in this, a youth’s sincerely-felt picture, from which
no boasting can detract. The colours glow in this little five-inch high picture ; faces and hair shine, and
the light of the sky between the dark tree-tops is full of brightness. The very colour, brick-read inclining
to brown, that we know from the Madonna in the Grotto and other Leonardos, we find in the angel’s

99

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

Photo. Alinari.
I'ffizi.

LORENZO T)I CREDI: The Annunciation.

dress.

ing.

Even in the somewhat limp supplencss of the

hands we Inay trace the struggle of the immature artist
with form; but we nevertheless see feeling in the draw-

It is this little jewel that is to be looked upon as

an insignificant preliminary study for the larger picture
from Monte Oliveto.

In I47o—it is suggested—the eighteen-year-old
Leonardo painted the Louvre picture, and two years
later, on the basis of this “preliminary work,” he is
said to have executed the large Annunciation in the
Uffizi.‘37

account for such a conclusion.

A want of psychological instinct can only
It is impossible that

the same artist—brain and artist-heart that had con-
ceived and carried out the idea for the first—named
picture, could two years later have been able to throw
overboard the whole conception, and paint the same sub-
ject with suchadirectly opposed feeling for the humanity
and sentiment that the subject implies. The artist could
not have forgotten this kneeling, deeply affected, happy
and humble woman, for the calmly-seated, phlegmatic
rather interested, but cool and self-possessedyounglady.

Besides disparaging the subject, could he also commit
errors of form in the repetition, which he had not been guilty of in the first attempt? Leonardo never
touched the picture in the Uffizi. The painter who composed and painted the smaller picture, could
not’possibly have had anything to do with the essentially different larger one. Some critic may object
that the drawing by Leonardo’s hand in the library of Christ Church College, Oxford, gives incontro-

vertible proof, being a study of the angel’s raised
right arm and sleeve.‘38 The source of the drawing,
he will affirm cannot be contested; and there can-
not be any stronger evidence of Leonardo’s author-
ship of the picture than the fact that he can be proved
to have drawn studies for it. The logic may be good,
but I wonder whether it is so certain that the sim-
plest conclusion is the right one. In the first place,
can we be so positive that the drawing belongs to
Herr von Beckerath thinks‘39
differently. As regards the similarity in the dress

Leonardo’s youth ?

and movement of the arm, it must not be forgotten
that the archangel in the little Louvre Annunciation
is lifting his hand in benediction in the same way,
and has the same dress as in the Uffizi picture
sleeve turned up over a close-fitting under—garment

 

21

of which the sleeves are slashed on the under side.

;
l4,
i
ll
i.
l

    

g Ex 2 <. , ‘ ‘
l/ 4. r V
- “ ‘ 1‘5' ‘

Vé '
V -57,”

After s. Coivini
LEONARDO, after VERROCCHIO: Pen-drawing of the arm or an Annunciation angel
(original size). Christ Church College, Oxford.

- 1.»

IOO

 

THE ASSISTANT

If the study really belongs to Leonardo’s
youth, why not refer it to the picture that
is certainly Leonardo’s as well as the
disputed one ? The only difference in
the dress of the two angels is that the
Monte Oliveto angel has a ribbon with
fluttering ends bound round his upper
arm, while the Louvre angel has not.
This ribbon round the arm, however, is
not, as has been maintained, peculiarto
Leonardo; it is often found in the
schools of Verrocchio and Botticelli,
(Lg. in the angels of the Forteguerri
monument. How is it with the character
of the rest of the draperies, and the
drawing of the folds in the two pictures?
Do they agree with one another, and do
they both agree with authentic drapery
studies by Leonardo? In the Louvre
Annunciation, the folds have a decided
Leonardesque character, but of a very
early type. The materials have a wool-
len softness, follow naturally the lines of
the limbs, and spread out in a fan-shape
over the floor or grassy carpet. But as
yet, the system of folds lacks the Vivid
life, the dignified power, or the light ser-
pentine grace that makes the draperies
of Leonardo’s riper years (pp. 71 and 73) MW. Hm.
a pleasure to behold. Something is Still ALUNNO DI ANDREA: Studyof drapery see the Virgin in the Monte Oliveto Annunciation). Uffizi.
left of the long, tube-like folds of Verrocchio’s “first style,” and the breaks at an angle of 60 degrees,
such as we saw in the Baptist’s garment in the Baptism of Christ. This dependence on the teacher,
like much else in the Louvre picture, is a sign of the extreme youth of the painter. In the Monte
Oliveto picture, on the contrary, the drapery has a different and unLeonardesque character. The
cloaks fall in sharp, angular folds, edged with light, and breaking in triangular figures. The materials
have nothing woollen and soft about them, but fall rather like a somewhat stiff silk. As the angel’s
garment drops back over the hip, showing a yellow lining, it has almost the effect of paper or of
being starched. If we compare the fall of the draperies over the Virgin’s knees with Leonardo’s
splendid study of drapery for a sitting figure in the Louvre (p. 73), we soon realise the immense
difference in artistic value. In a meaningless manner the superabundant material is flung over the
arm of the chair, so that between the arm and the Virgin’s knee a deep hollow is formed, which bears
an unfortunate resemblance to the fold in the lap. As, in addition to this, the drapery bulges for no
apparent reason over the body, falls sharply and angularly over the knee, and is heaped up in confusion

 

IOI

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

upon the floor, it cannot conscien-
tiously be ascribed to any great mas-
ter. It would seem rather as if the
hand of an assistant had been at work
here, and, unless greatly mistaken, we
have already seen work from this
hand. In the collection of drawings
in the Uffizi, the above-reproduced
study of drapery for a sitting figure
is to be found, executed with a brush
in monochrome upon canvas, like the
previously-mentioned studies in the
British Museum, Louvre, etc. The
figure, of which only the lower part
is completed, is enveloped in a volu-
minous cloak, and turns towards the
left, like the Virgin in the picture,
with one leg outstretched. The gar-
ment falls in a large angular fold over
the lap, and is caught to the right on
the seat in a manner similar to that
of the Virgin’s cloak in the picture.
Of course in the Gallery it is known
as a Leonardo. Even Morelli, how-
ever, noted it as “nicht Leonardo,”
and Professor Wickhoff maintains
that this, and the entire group of
kindred drapery-studies en grisaille
I’hoto.A1inari. on canvas, are the work of Domenico

VERROCCHIO’S STUDIO: The Virgin in the Monte Olive to Annunciation. Uffizi. Ghirlandaio.I40 Like Berenson, I am
unable to agree with the Viennese professor’s decision. The points of contact with Ghirlandaio are of
ordinary character and a consequence of the marked influence that Verrocchio also exerted upon this
artist in his youth?“ for the Verrocchiesque character of the drawing is evident without sufficient ground
for ascribing it to Verrocchio himself, to Leonardo, or to Credi. On the other hand, both Berenson
and I see the same hand in the execution as in the drapery-study for a kneeling figure in the British
Museum (p. 70), namely that of Alunno di Andrea. It is my opinion, moreover, that the same hand
has also determined the character of the draperies in the Monte Oliveto picture, and that thus Andrea
has employed the same assistant to finish the painting of the Annunciation he used for the angel in
Baptism of the Christ. The work of this assistant is especially observable in the execution of the
figure of the Virgin, in the precise painting of the gathers in her cherry-coloured under-garment, and
in the threadlike treatment of the hair with its brassy yellow high lights. A painful quality of over-
minuteness and mannerism also attaches to the unnatural, flowery grass. Distant or near, the
flowers are painted with the same glaring edges of light, and, in their crumpled appearance, look as

 

102

 

,, J

 

LEONARDO : Female head. Silver-point study on tinted paper. Louvre. Photo. Braun.

if they were made of tissue paper. There is something German about this artistic industry, which
cannot be attributed to Leonardo; indeed a long series of studies of flowers and herbs that are
really by him (at Windsor and in the M88. in other libraries), prove the impossibility of his being
able, even when young, to paint such formal, sapless plants. For Alunno they seem almost too insig-
nificant. We are tempted to think of a German or Flemish imitator in Verrocchio’s school, and
involuntarily recall some carnations in a bottle by the side of a Madonna in a picture Munich with
which we shall be obliged later to concern ourselves?” But to assert that the assumed Leonardo

103

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

WWW?" ” ' ’" "“‘Z’kvaé picture in the Uffizi is the work of three hands, and three

 

decidedly different hands would perhaps be too bold a state-
ment to win general credence. In the mean time it will be
quite sufficient if our investigations show that the Monte
Oliveto picture is the work of more than one hand and that it
must be referred to Verrocchio’s school. One of these hands
is evidently Verrocchio’s and is thus, in the truest sense of
the term, what is understood by a “studio-work.” It has
nothing however to do with either Credi or Leonardo, the

Lflmm. n...” .

nameless assistants who gave it the “school” character.
Even if the Monte Oliveto picture is not to be credited to
Leonardo, ourinvestigation has not led to a merely negative

. . ..".a._u.' Huang“

result. In the course of our enquiries we have made the
acquaintance of one of the few really great landscape
painters that Florentine art possesses—Verrocchio, the final
conqueror of light in painting, the pioneer in the represent—
ation of “ stimmng,” the teacher of Perugino and Leonardo.
In the next place we have been involuntarily led into a con-
sideration of the earlist existing authentic picture from
Leonardo’s hand, in the little Annunciation in the Louvre.
Leonardo undoubtedly painted this while still a pupil of
Verrocchio, and it has evidently been based upon a sketch from the teacher’s hand. There is no

Copy of Verrocchio or Leonardo. Drawing in the Ufiizi.

objection to offer to the suggestion that the year 1470 was the probable date of the picture.I43 Radiat-

ing with a warm, lovable boyishness, it could scarcely have been painted later.

A few words must be said about a drawing supposed to be a study by the artist for the head of the
Virgin, and which is preserved in the Uffizi under Leonardo’s name.144 The drawing is of the head of
a young woman, inclined downwards and almost in profile, as in the picture. The hair is arranged in
graceful plaits and held together by a ribbon with a winged clasp above the forehead, the remainder of
the abundant locks falling freely over the temples, cheek and neck. The expression is very gentle,
but at the same time bland. The execution is painfully careful, the details being picked out as if with
a graver on hard metal. This dry, chiselled treatment is foreign to the art of Leonardo, and indeed
unlike any independent artist: it betrays the copyist. The face is weakly proportioned, the forehead
exaggeratedly high, the mouth unreasonably small, the heavy Verrochiesque eyelids so exaggerated
as to become caricature, the nose without character and vaguely foreshortened on the under side;
on the whole, too much of the averted side of the face is visible. Even if the latter fault may
also be found with the painted head of Leonardo’s Virgin, it is unreasonable to consider the
youthful Leonardo weak enough for a drawing such as this. In the collection of drawings in the
Louvre, there is a study by Leonardo of a female head in the same position as the above-mentioned
drawing, a marvel of silver-point technique (p. 103)}45 It belongs to Leonardo’s early years, although
not to so early a period as the Annunciation ; but beside the copyist’s drawing in the Uffizi, this fine
drawing in the Louvre speaks the same language as that of a genuine document beside a forgery,
convincing by its handwriting, temperament and character, and stamped with the seal of genius.

104

 

 

    
 
   

Wm

XI

Therefore, () enquirer, put no trust in authors !

LEONARDO DA VINCI.

 

N the Liechtenstein Gallery in Vienna, there are many masterpieces by Flemish
painters (Rubens, Vandyck), while early Italian art is comparatively poorly repre-
sented. The gallery possesses, however, one picture by a Florentine master, from
the latter half of the 15th century, which attracts much attention, the portrait of
“ the pale lady in the fir grove.” She had long hung there, comparatively unnoticed,
when Dr. Bode, in I882, ascribed the picture to“ the young Leonardo” as a work
painted in the early seventies of the quattrocento.”6 Before that time, indeed, the
picture had been connected with Leonardo’s name. The interesting portrait had not escaped the
attention of the old Berlin connoisseur, Director VVaagen, when he wrote his book Kimstdcn/cmiilcr zu
Wiw; but his thoughts concerning the painter of the picture took rather the direction of Leonardo’s
Milanese successors, among whom he came to a stand at Beltratfio.”7 Professor Falke, in his catalogue
of the gallery, concurs with VVaagen's view that Leonardo could hardly have painted the picture
himself,iadding as a suggestion to \Vaagen’s remark about Beltraffio, “ zvz'ellcz'c/zzf 7’z'c/zlfigcl’ Gianantonio
Bazzi” (Sodoma). But after the Annunciation from Monte Oliveto had been brought to light and
christened a Leonardo, the connection evidently existing between that picture and the Liechtenstein
portrait could no longer remain unnoticed, and the prince’s Florentine lady had to join company with
the Virgin of the Florentine Annunciation. If the young Leonardo had painted the one, he must

 

 

 

 

have painted the other.
In this decision Bode was immediatelyjoined by Bayersdorfer and Muller-\Valde, and subsequently

by this entire staff of pupils and adherents. As a suitable date they gave the period after the
Annunciation, which they fixed at 1472.‘48 Here, as so frequently in other cases, Morelli opposed the
Berlin View. In the second edition of his Critical Studies from the Berlin Calla/33149 he gives a picture

105 o

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

of the portrait, simply saying that from the idea he has formed of Verrocchio’s art, the portrait must
be the work of that artist and not of Leonardo, and he further recommends the picture to the careful
study of lovers of art. Bernhard Berenson has come to the same conclusion,‘30 while Verrocchio's
biographer, Mackowsky, follows Bode, and gives the picture to Leonardo. This author, indeed, not
content with handing the work over to Verrocchio’s great pupil, is logical and bold enough, as we shall
see, to draw further conclusions from such an attribution.m

Once more authorities differ. “Therefore, O enquirer, put no trust in authors! ” was even in
that early age Leonardo’s advice. True to our mode of procedure, we will neither build upon
authority nor upon a fleeting general impression, but will endeavour to come to an independent result,
founded upon analysis and the picture itself.

Even at the first glance the impression made by the portrait is peculiar and arresting. Artistically
and humanly, it is a great work. That it could come from the brush of a clumsy workman is
not possible; there can be no question of any but a master. The striking effect of its strong
contrasts, the face shining white against a dark background slashed with gleams of light, reveals
the original, self reliant master. Fair, of a waxen transparency and an almost ghostly pallor, the
face emerges from the deep bronzy darkness of the grove. Behind it the fir-needles are delicately
outlined against a cool evening sky. The fading light falls upon the white face, imparts a metallic
glitter to the blondc-ccndi’c’c curls, and floats away upon the still water in the background. Two nut-
brown eyes look calmly out of the white face with unapproachable gaze, mysterious reserve. Even
the trees, with their lancet-shaped needles, seem to be trying to shut in and screen the mistress of the
garden from the outside world. She is evidently a lady of rank. Her dress is simple but tasteful,
in the fashion prevailing in Florence about 1480. She wears no jewels. Perhaps we may conclude
from the landscape, which acts as a foil to the silent face, that she was fonder of nature than of
pomp and circumstance. Aristocracy, intellectual distinction, and indeed learning, are also indicated
by the unusual way in which the back of the picture is decorated. The portrait is painted upon a
poplar panel,rthe back being stained a reddish colour like polished porphyry. Upon this ground is
painted in monochrome a device consisting of a laurel-branch, a palm-branch, and a branch of some
species of fir, bOund together by a ribbon ; and upon the fluttering ends of this ribbon are the words:
VIRTU'I‘EM FORMA DECORAT (p. 105). Who then is this “virtuous and beautiful” unknown of the
Florentine aristocracy? And who painted her ?

In a short and categorical article, in 1903,152 Bode declared that the subject of the portrait was
Ginevra dei Benci, whose portrait, Vasari tells us, was painted by Leonardo.“ Concerning this same
Ginevra, Vasari declares in his biography of Ghirlandaio that she is among the Florentines in that
artist’s fresco in S. Maria Novella, which represents the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth (see
p. 108). Vasari adds that “at that time ” (the fresco was probably painted in 1486) she

“ was a

77

beautiful young girl. This last statement by Vasari is at variance with the truth, for Ginevra dei
Benci is known to have been dead in August, 1473. The supposed Ginevra in the fresco, says Bode,
is no other than Giovanna d’ Albizzi, who married Lorenzo Tornabuoni, while the real Ginevra is to
be found in the Liechtenstein portrait, which, in that case, Leonardo must have painted before August,
1.173. About Ginevra dei Benci it is further known that in 1472 she married one Niecolini, and that
she was only seventeen when she died. At that time Leonardo was four years older, that is to say
twenty-one. It is true the lady in the Liechtenstein portrait is young, but she looks older than

seventeen. Her bosom and shoulders already show an incipient fullness. A look of weariness and

106

L‘w— _.__._

“91-

___.. .— _...'.__A

p

'3‘ ”we, r'
~ 5' .
(\‘115'.

\' [C K IUK '(H [0: Hurt-mine1nd);

 

],i<'r'hwn\lL-in 1mlh-r)-.\‘imnm.

l’lmm. l‘mum,

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

experience rests upon the pale features. This woman can
scarcely be a virgin. \Vho would think, moreover, of
furnishing the portrait of a virgin with a Latin inscription
such as the abovementioned? If she is Niccolini’s wife,
then the picture must have been painted during the last
year of her life. Opinions are divided as to the beauty of
the model. One writer, who, however, (lees not carry
much weight as a judge of art (Rosenberg), speaks slight—
ingly of “this portrait, which is devoid of all attraction,”
giving in the first place the lady’s stzmzfifsimzigcs Geszic/zt
as the reason.“ On the other hand another writer (Muller-
\Valde) is loud in his praise of her charm and dzn’c‘lzgcz'sz‘zgz‘m
Aztsdmc/e, considering her on the whole prettier, wiser and
more imposing than almost any woman that Florentine
art has glorified.155 Now men’s taste and liking as regards
women are more capricious than their taste in art, but
probably most of those who can interpret the speech of a
work of art, will be sensible of a remarkable and refined

 

. _ , type in looking at this face with its expression of disillu—
DOM"3N'CO ”REEL“?\Lllheplmltl']" “m““f‘m‘e‘wi” sioncd calm. It is possible that the oval of the face is

too short, the cheek—bones too large, the eyes too long
and too wide apart to accord with the prevailing ideas of beauty; but at any rate these features
give the face a stamp of something rare and foreign to the race, something that recalls the Slav type,
and we are involuntarily startled by it.

But soon we recognise those features. It is not the first time that we meet the fair unknown in
Florentine art. We have seen her once before with thinner shoulders and a more vernal expression
about the corners of the mouth. The broad oval of the face, the high forehead framed by curls,
the finely cut eyes under the arching eyebrows proclaim la domm (1116 [96116 mam' herself from the
Bargello (pp. 59—60) l It is Verrocchio’s maiden, she who in her budding youth pressed the bunch of
primroses to her breast with her beautiful hands. Here she appears a few years older, but many years
wiser, colder, a little weary, richer perhaps in gold, and certainly in
disappointments. She still wears her hair in the same way, with
curls upon her cheeks and gathered into a little silk cap at the
back of her head. Now, as then, she is wearing a gauzy chemisette,
fastened at her throat with a pearl; but instead of the thin muslin
dress gathered at the neck and falling softly over bosom and
shoulders, she has a more sober velvet dress of reddish brown
colour, fitting like a glove over the firm bosom and laced in front.
A narrow black scarf hanging over her shoulders, enhances their
whiteness. How much one would like to see her hands again, those
hands with the arched wrists and the almost unnaturally slender
fingers. But she hides them from us; the picture is cut off just
below the breast. Bode, indeed, declares that the picture once had (;,O,.an;,arrombuoni, 1486,

 

108

 

-M gram—r < ‘-

.... 1.--—_..._...._. a a

THE PALE LADY IN THE FIR GROVE

hands, and that they have been barbarously cut off with
the lower part of the picture. He even says that the
wrist of one arm rested in the hand of the other, which is
their position in the portrait of Monna Lisa. He thinks
he has found the study for these very hands among the
Leonardo drawings in the Royal Library at Windsor.
Personally I place no reliance upon this assertion. If the
hands were to be included as in the bust or in the Monna
Lisa portrait, the picture would be half as long again, and,
with its present breadth, would be of quite an unnatural
shape unknown in early art. Even the Monna Lisa por-
trait is unusually long, the proportion of the breadth to the
height being as 100 to 142. If the Liechtenstein portrait,
with the same proportion of the body, were to be added to
so as to become a half-length figure With hands, the propor-
tion of the breadth to the height would be as 100 to 175. It
is only necessary to draw that shape to find how impro—
bable and meaningless it looks. Possibly at some time,

 

for some inexcusable reason, a little has been cut off the
picture ; but it is hardly likely that it has ever been a half- W“"3NZ”M‘:}‘flf;:‘ij:ig “10:23: of “NW
length portrait like that of Monna Lisa. The high horizon

of the landscape is also against this idea. There can be no doubt that the studies of hands at
\Vindsor (p. 111) to which Bode and his followers point, are Leonardo’s, drawn, like all his genuine
drawings, with the left hand, and possessmg every indication of having belonged to the artist’s early
and Florentine period. Their severe, thin, quattrocento shape vouches for this, as also does the
type of hand, which directly recalls Verrocchio’s. The technique too, with the bright lights upon
the buff paper, points to Verrocchio’s school and the period before the journey to Milan. There can
therefore be no question here of a study for the Monna Lisa, as has also been asserted. But is there
nothing that the study can belong to but the portrait in the Liechtenstein Gallery? Bode and
his pupil, Fritz Knapp, think they have found a proof of another source in a portrait of a woman
with her hands crossed upon her breast, belonging to the Marchese
Pucci’s collection in Florence. Berenson had already dated the
picture as a late work by Lorenzo di Credi ,‘56 but the Germans
look upon it as “a free copy” of the Liechtenstein portrait.
The two pictures differ very greatly. The lady turns the opposite
way, wears a different dress, has a long, narrow face, and on the
whole resembles the pale lady in the Vienna portrait extremely
little. But behind her in the landscape they think they see the
same fir-tree as in Prince Lichtenstein’s picture. This tree, accord-
ing to a German art-historian, Dr. \Varburg, is thejuniper (Italian,
gimp/7;), and must be taken symbolically as a reference to the
name Ginevra. As Dr. Sode has moreover seen the name Ginevra

77

 

d’Amerigo Benci on the back of “ the copy, in old writing, there is

Nonnina Strozzi, x489.

Iog

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

no longer, in his opinion, any room for doubt; both portraits represent the lady mentioned, the
Liechtenstein picture being Leonardo’s original portrait mentioned by Vasari, and the picture in the
Palazzo Pucci a remodelled “ school copy.” The hypothesis would have much in its favour, were it
not at variance, partly with critical, partly with documentary facts.

The lady in the Pucci portrait is dressed in black, with a long veil over her head, and is holding
a wedding-ring between her finger and thumb: her hands are brought into the picture for this reason.
There can be no doubt that she is a widow; but nothing is known as to Amerigo Benci’s daughter,
who married Niccolini, and died a year later at the age of seventeen, having in so short a time lost
her husband.

Bode himself states that Ginevra dei Benci died in August, 1473. Therefore, he says, she
cannot be portrayed in Ghirlandaio’s fresco of the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth, which could
not" have been begun before 1486. The Liechtenstein lady’s style of dress and hair, however, is the
same we are acquainted with from Ghirlandaio’s frescoes. The proud patrician lady in the above-
mentioned fresco, who, according to Vasari, is Ginevra dei Benci, but who can he proved to be
Giovanna Tornabuoni,‘57 wears her hair in the same fashion (p. 108.) There may possibly be a
difference of opinion as to how long this fashion lasted, but it is certain that it belonged to the eighties
of that century. The well-known medal of Giovanna Tornabuoni, which cannot at any rate be
earlier than the year of the Lady’s marriage, 1486, shows the same style of hair-dressing. \Ve even
find the hanging hair and the little silk cap on Nonnina Strozzi’s medal of 1489. Is there not then
sufficient reason, in the costume only, to put both the Liechtenstein portrait and the Bargello bust
much later than Bode and his followers maintain, later than 1473, the year of Ginevra’s death? Even
if importance is attached tothe tree behind the lady, classifying it as juniper, and taking for granted
thatrthe lady of the portrait is named Ginevra, why should she be Amerigo Benci’s Ginevra? The
name was‘not at all uncommon in Florence, and 'the inscription upon the back of the Pucci portrait
proves nothing.‘ It is of course a later addition and untrue, as Ginevra dei Benci was not a widow as
the lady in the portrait. ,

-It is by no means absolutelycertain that the tree behind the Liechtenstein lady is really juniper.
I have put the question and the two portraits before the highest Norwegian authority on botany,
Professor Wille, and he is inclined to think that the tree in the Liechtenstein portrait is a species of
fir.‘58 If this can be proved, the Ginevra theory collapses.

Everything considered, it is idle at the moment to endeavour to determine the lady’s name.
Mackowsky admits that “all attempts to identify the person have failed.” He only maintains
decidedly that the original of the picture is identical with that of the bust. Strange to say he sees in
the painting the young maiden, although die Amnut dcr reifcn Fl/(lH seems to him to smile from the
bust l‘59 In reality it is impossible to be mistaken; the pale lady in the fir grove is the same as the
“lady with the beautiful hands,” by Verrocchio, a few years older and undoubtedly married. We
know that the Bargello bust once stood in the Medici palace. This gives us a good reason for
guessing the name of a lady was in some way or other more closely connected with the Medicis than
Amerigo Benci’s daughter. Why not suggest Lucrezia de’ Donato, the young Lorenzo de’ Medici’s
lady-love? We know that Verrocchio painted her portrait for Lorenzo il Magnifico.‘60 It is useless to
dispute about names. Whether she belonged to one Florentine patrician family or another, her nobility
is of the kind that never fades. Let her keep the charm of namelessness ; a great artist has ennobled
her. Who this artist remains is the more important question? “ Leonardo I ” exclaims the German

110

THE PALE LADY IN THE FIR GROVE

school of art historians almost in one voice.
“ Verrocchio l ” says Morelli and his adhe-
rents, and they rely upon the unmistakeable
kinship between Verrocchio’s bust and the
portrait. Verrocchio’s German biographer,
Mackowsky, has not been blind to the
artistic similarity between the two works,
and he cannot deny their common origin.
Here the painter is the sculptor, and the
sculptor the painter. But Mackowsky’s
whole conception of Verrocchio as a painter
is so entirely determined by Bode’s con-
clusions, that he cannot imagine Andrea as
the painter of the Liechtenstein portrait.
He is rightly unable to believe the painter
of this refined picture as the creator of the
ugly Madonna in the Berlin Gallery (No.
104A), which Bode and his school, notwith-
standing Morelli’s vigorous protest, con-
tinue to ascribe to Verrocchio. Mackow-
sky’s clear sight when dealing with the
sculptor Verrocchio and his importance in
the history of art, fails him directly the
painter is concerned. He cannot imagine
any artist but Leonardo having painted the
picture, and with rash courage he takes the
consequence of this determination and

 

assigns the bust in theBargello to Leonardo
also. Even at the risk of breaking the
inviolable circle of Verrocchio’s recognised
plastic works (David, the Dolphin Boy, the Thomas group, the bust in the Bargello) he presents
Leonardo with the mostLeonardesque of Verrocchio’s works. This action provokes endless rearrange-
ments. If the Bargello bust is to be taken from Verrocchio and given to Leonardo, it is quite
impossible to let the former retain a work such as David, where the shape of the hand is almost
identical, and the smile, the treatment of the hair, and the folds, of the same type. The very feeling
of intrepid youth and timid chasteness that forms the charm of the one work meets us, fresh and
bewitching, in the other. And nothing can be more natural. The great master of the close of the
early Renaissance created both the lad with sword in hand, and the maiden with the bunch of prim-
roses between her slender fingers. Separation is impossible here; they are flesh of flesh, and blood
of blood, owing their creation to the same master, Andrea Verrocchio.

\Ve cannot fail to be conscious of the gulf between this painter and Leonardo, between [a domza
alle belle mrmi and Monna Lisa. Study the drawing of the hands alone. Those of the maiden are
slender, elastic, energetic; Monna Lisa’s are mature, voluptuous, slow, goddess-like. Compare the

LEONARDO: Study of hands. Silver-point drawing at \Vindsor. ”0‘0- “raun-

III

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

expression of Monna Lisa’s face, the seductive fascination, sweetness and danger, with the silent,
reserved, almost repellent expression of the pale lady. Never has any artist entertained such different
ideas about woman and woman’s nature.

The painter of the fair unknown is moreover evidently an older, mature artist; a man of experience,
not an enthusiast of twenty. 1f the work is to be attributed to Leonardo it would be quite unreason-
able to assign it to so early a stage of his production as before 14.73. Nor has the picture technically
kinship with any of Leonardo’s genuine productions. The cold pallor of the skin, the sharply
chiselled treatment of the hair, the minute detail of the pine-needles in the trees against the sky of
the background reveal the brush of an older artist than Leonardo, and the resemblance to the
Annunication from Monte Oliveto is apparent in many ways. The landscape especially, with its
peculiar note of quiet poesy, speaks strongly in favour of Verrocchio. Certainly Morelli’s instinct was
not at fault when Andrea’s name came to his lips in connection with the pale lady of the fir trees. It
is probably Verrocchio’s latest painting, and may be dated about 1480, shortly before he left. Florence.

Botticelli’s masterpiece, Spring, must have come into existence about the same time, and
undoubtedly was greatly influenced by Verrocchio's art. Every figure testifies to the influence of the
Verrocchiesque circle, the two .Graces with their ornamentally dressed hair, Mercury’s powerful
figure, and the mystic smile upon the facetof Spring herself

 

a forerunner of the Monna Lisa smile,
Venus, in the middle of the picture, is placed against a background of dark myrtles silhouetted with
the delicacy of lace against the luminous sky. This is another sign of the same influence, and forms
a somewhat analogous arrangement to the picturesque effect in the Liechtenstein portrait.

 

BOT'I'ICELLI: Venus. Detail of “Spring.” Accademia, Florence.

i
g
_z
i
l
i
l
i
I
1
¢

,* 5.-.

Pa: a...

. -......_ .__........—V.-. «g;

.. WNW -._.__.-‘-—~.~M a _ A“..-

~, ”era‘s ;. in...

9.... «MM—”N... 4....—

i ,. "I. “a: ~(.T_7;-n\.....;vmgw—wmw~

an? s” ‘

 

LEONARDO: Landscape study from the Valley of the Arm). Pen-drawing from 14,73. UITIzi. Photo. Brogi.

XII

Kind Nature has furnished the world in such a manner,
that everywhere you will find something to imitate.

LEONARDO 11.x VlNCI.
PEN-DRAVVING in the Uffizi, representing a landscape, is the earliest work by
Leonardo to which a date can be assigned. In one corner of the drawing is inscribed

 

in mirror script the words:
Di cli sta Maria della neve
addj 5 dagosto 1473‘“
(Drawn on the day of 5. Mary of the Snow, the 5th August, 1473.)

 

 

 

This explains that the drawing was thus a little act of sacrilege committed one

 

sunny holy day during an expedition into the T uscan mountains Somewhere in his writings Leonardo
vehemently defends such sins, exclaiming: “ l‘oolish hypocrites are they who reprove the painter for
busying himself on holy days with the study and true understanding of nature, in the endeavour to
acquire this knowledge to the utmost degree.”

W’ith such a drawing we are able to follow the artist on his lonely wanderings among the hills on
the south side of the Arno. If we are to believe a learned Italian investigator, this landscape may be

113 1)

 

 

~ K‘f»g

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

found in the neighbourhood of Montelupo, and the Pisan mountains form the background.“ The sun
is in the west, throwing slanting shadows between the clefts of the rocks. The day is declining. \Ve
are standing high, and, through a ravine in the middle distance, look down towards the plain where
the broad and glittering Arno flows through cultivated lands. The river curves round a steep,
projecting headland on the left, crowned by a strong fortress, which dominates the whole plain.
Though it is high, we, behind it, are still more elevated, and can look into its courtyard. The castle
is rectangular, with several strong towers and steep tali outside the walls. It recalls the rocca di
Montclupo, the fortress on the “Wolf Mountain,” built by the Florentines in 1203 against the hostile
Capraja, and concerning which there was a saying: [Jar distrztggcr qzzcsta Capra, non vi mole altro 5110
ML lupo. If this topographical ascription be correct, the ridge rising highest in the background must
be that of Monte Albano, and we are near Leonardo’s birthplace. The headland with its castle
occupies one side of the middle distance. On the other side of the ravine is a hill of considerable
height, rising precipitously in layers of limestone and with scattered trees upon its summit. A
mountain stream threads its way through the ravine, embracing in its course a little waterfall from the
hills, with swift rapids in the centre of the middle distance, finally disappearing in the depths of the
landscape. Perhaps this is the river Pesa hastening towards the Arno. On the left, the eye roams
above the towers of the castle, over wide stretches of flat, rectangular fields, until low hills on the
horizon obstruct the view. The drawing has evidently been rapidly and easily done, so rapidly that
the pen has not had time to leave the paper, making a continuous hatching stroke, which, in the
conventional drawing of the treetops, resembles revolving wheels. Yet Leonardo was able to depict
every detail of the scene in his sketch.

The limestone mountain on the right recalls slightly the rocky cliff in Verrocchio’s Baptism of
Christ; but elsewhere the geological formation of the landscape is seen and rendered with a sharpness
and precision hitherto unknown. On the distant plain the draughtsman has emphasised the perspec-
tive vanishing lines in order to obtain an effect of great distance. On the whole it is astonishing to
find in so young an artist such ripeness of perception and ability in the rendering of a comprehensive
and difficult landscape. The drawing is however deficient in its lighting. The hills of the middle
distance lack a tone that would have given to the shining plain a clear and powerful frame; and the
different values between land and reflecting water are not sufficiently indicated.

The weaknesses and imperfections of this youthful effort can only be referred to in comparison
with the heights Leonardo subsequently reached in the representation of landscape, notably in the
Virgin of the Rocks, Monna Lisa, and the divine red-chalk drawing ofa
cloud burst in the Alps. By the side of contemporary Florentine landscape
drawings “the day of S. Mary of the Snow” is by no means weak. On
the contrary it is the most truthful and natural of any landscape in Tuscan
art up to that time, although still a trifle lifeless. There is already
promise of the phenomenal skill he displayed in the management of the
planes in a gigantic View, and the captivating impressionism of the
representation gives to the red-chalk drawing of the cloud burst a vivid
grandeur. In a drawing such as this (which of course belongs to the later
Milanese period) Leonardo surpasses both Hokusai and Turner. As a
poet of nature he approaches the English Shakepeare or the Norwegan
\Nergeland.

 

H4

. .a—o—n—.————

.QVMA-..‘ .

.._. ..,.—_-. .

.__._,

 

LEONARDO : Cloud burst over an Alpine valley.

Red-chalk drawing: from the Milanese period.

‘ W >
Photo. New Gallery.

\Vindsor.

A

 

 

 

 

 

‘ LEONARDO DA VINCI

Camille Corot the great French landscape painter of the 19th century, made no casual remark when ’
he said : “ Leonardo is the inventor of the modern landscape." Leonardo felt with full consciousness
that to render the character and true beauty of a landscape was one of the most serious aims in his art.
“ The painter,” he says in his Tmttato della Pittwa, “ who has not as much taste for one branch of
painting as for another is not versatile. If, for instance, he is one who does not care for landscape, he
is accustomed to declare that the study of landscape is a very simple and easy matter. It was, for
instance, the custom of our Botticelli to say that the study of landscape was waste of time, it being
sufficient to dip a sponge in various colours and throw it against the wall, when you had a landscape in
the mark it left. But then they were sorry landscapes that he paintedlm63 In another place he
exclaims: “A painter must be versatile! . . . To me, who know that painting embraces
everything that nature has created and man produced, everything indeed, that can be comprehended
with the eyes, he seems a poor artist who cannot paint more than a face. For do you not see how
many movements man alone can make? Do you not see how many different animals and also
trees, herbs and flowers there are, how many varieties of country, mountain and plain, streams,
rivers towns and buildings?” A very large section of Leonardo’s Treatise on Painting deals 2'
exclusively with the theory oflandscape painting, with aerial and linear perspective, with the laws
of the growth of plants, the branching of trees, the breaking-up of light upon foliage, the shapes v

i of clouds, the consistency and shades of light. These theoretic laws were not prefunctory
l academy rules, but the wisdom of years of persevering study of the details of landscape and the
l simple forms of nature. Among his drawings at Windsor and in the manuscripts of other libraries
l are to be found many single studies of trees and bushes, various kinds of garden and wild flowers, ';
lilies and violets, marsh-marigolds and wood-anemones, blackberrys, oak-apples and maize. Each i
plant is drawn with the most wonderful care and sense of beauty, with the outline and veins of the
i leaves exact, and the petals and stamens of the flowers, the buds and berries, methodically accurate
, to nature. These drawings are as satisfactory to the scientific mind of the botanist as to the eye g‘
, that only looks for beauty and grace of nature. As Leonardo studied the vegetable and animal
l kingdoms, so he became absorbed in geological stucture, in the formation of mountains and the
composition of minerals. From his youth Leonardo was unwearying in his search for the innermost ’3.
mystery of the spirit of the earth.

   

 

 

VERROCCHIO: Study for a Madonna. Silver-point drawing. Dresden.

XIII

IDDEN in one of the portfolios of the Dresden Gallery collection of drawings, is
a small Florentine silver—point drawing from the 15th century, which has occa-
sioned much wrangling and disturbance in the camp of the art historians.164
Measuring exactly 18.8 by 16.6 centimetres, it is drawn with silver-point upon
buff-tinted paper, and represents the half-length figure of a young woman with
bent head and downcast eyes. A naked child is so faintly drawn on the left by
way of experiment, as to be scarcely Visible, but enough to show that the artist
thought of representing a Madonna. The young mother has a delicate, almost super-sensitive face,
a weak mouth, and enormous eyes. Her hair hangs loose about her temples, her bare neck is round
and full. The thin under~garment, which falls loosely over her swelling bosom, with a fold in the
middle, is pointed in front at the neck, and held together by a large brooch set with pearls. The
cloak is flung over one shoulder, and turned back to show the lining.

3, nocsupu—b

C:
r1
1

As she appears in this delicate, grey, silver—point the young woman is a charming being, of no
great importance, gentle and tender, a dliecate indoor plant. The style of the drawing is adapted to
its subject, being weak and a little timid, but sensitive.

117

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

It was acquired by the Gallery before 1800, perhaps as early as 1728, from the Wagner collection

in Leipzig, at that time bearing Verroechio’s name.‘65

Subsequently, for some unknown reason, this
plausible ascription was changed to the more famous name of “ Leonardo,” and remained unaltered
for many years. In 1880 Morelli recognised its incorrectness, and proposed Credi as the author.‘66
\Vhen the great connoisseur saw the drawing again nine years later, he arrived at the conclusion
that'he had made a mistake, and that the drawing was from Verrocchio’s hand rather than from
that of the heavier and less spiritual Credi. The opinion Morelli holds and strongly defends in the
second edition of his Critical Studies published in 1891.167 About the same time Morelli’s constant
opponents, Bode and Bayersdorfer, championed the view in the Gazette des Beaux Arts (1890)
that the drawing must of course be ascribed to the youthful Leonardo. This attribution was
very useful to them, as it formed one proof of the genuineness of the so-called Bayersdorfian
Leonardo in Munich, which we shall discuss later. Other experts follow Bode and Morelli, while
Professor VVoermann, the director of the Gallery, supported by Von Seidlitz168 and \V. Schmidt,“
incline to the intermediate Credi. This last attribution has since been strengthened by the adherence
of so eminent an authority as Bernhard Berenson, who in this case deserts Morelli and exerts his
influence in favour of Credi.”o

Morelli supports his attribution principally upon a splendid chalk drawing in the British Museum,
universally acknowledged to be by Verroechio, representing a woman’s head with downcast eye
and artificially dressed hair, without doubt a study for a Madonna. In spite of scratches and injurie
this drawing is one of the finest examples of the master, and probably one of the studies Vasari
refers to in his biography of Vetrocchio: “I have in my book some drawings from Verrochio’s hand
which are executed with the greatest patience and skill. Among them are some female heads
beautiful in expression and in the arrangement of their hair, which Leonardo da Vinci constantly
imitated on account of their beaUty.” Morelli considers the Dresden drawing to be akin to this head
from the Malcolm collection. Berenson partly admits this, but considers the blood relationship
debased and detiorated. He considers that the author of so feeble a work must have used the
Malcolm head, or something similar as a copy. And, after a sharply depreciatory analysis of the
details of the Dresden drawing,” he concludes with the name of Credi, who does not stand
particularly high in the opinion of the American critic.

For my own part, a careful study of the original drawing in Dresden has led to an altogether
different result, and I am compelled to declare myself of quite another opinion from that of my friend,
the great American connoisseur. Possibly Berenson wrote his sharp criticism, not with the original
before him, but with the not entirely successful Braun photograph. In my opinion the drawing is so
excellent in quality that it cannot possibly be by Credi. Indeed an attribution to Leonardo can be
more easily justified. When has there ever been seen in Credi’s pictures that almost Corregian
charm, that smile with tears bedewing the eyelashes? As we shall now see, to suggest the youthful
and still dependent Leonardo would be natural enough if the Leonardo hypothesis did not lead to
such unfortunate consequences. But personally I am convinced that Morelli is right, and that the
drawing is the production of Verrocchio’s later years. Its kinship with the Pistoian Madonna is a
'decided proof. The widely rarnifying direct and indirect uses that are made of the drawing, in
pictures and other drawings coming within the periphery of the Verrocchiesque school, distinctly
indicate the same origin.

The first and most important use that we can prove to have been made of the silver-point study

118

 

 

 

Berenson.

After

 

British Museum.

Malcolm Collection,

Black chalk drawing (somewhat worked over by another hand)

Female head.

VERROCCHIO

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

in the Dresden cabinet, is not in any picture by Leonardo, but in one of Verrocchio’s own works, the
fine, beautifully coloured altar-piece in the sacrament chapel of the cathedral of Pistoia.

This picture, which represents the Madonna enthroned between 8. john the Baptist and Bishop
Zeno, in front of a marble colonnade opening on to orange trees and a wide landscape, was formerly
considered to be a work by Lorenzo di Credi. \Vith his customary keen intuition, Morelli, shortly
before his death, recognised the true painter, and attributed the altar-piece without hesitation to
Verrocchio himself.”2 His view must be said to be fully corroborated by documentary evidence
regarding the genesis of the picture, which the Italian archivist, Alfredo Chiti, was enabled to publish
eight years after Morelli’s death (in Bullctmo Storico Pistoiese I, 1899).

According to Chiti’s document, dated November, 1485, the altar-piece was ordered from Verrocchio
for a sum of sixty guldens by the executors of Bishop Donato de’ Medici,and therefore probably not
long after that prelate’s death in 1475, or at the latest in 1476. At that time Lorenzo di Credi was
an apprentice of sixteen or seventeen years of age, and would scarcely have been entrusted with the
execution of such an important commission. The document is a demand from the parish council to
operai del duomo, with an injunction to see to the completion and delivery of the altar-piece. It tells
us that the painting had stood for more than six years almost finished in the master’s studio. but had
not been delivered because a part of fee was still unpaid. Thus in 1478-79, the picture was standing
“almost finished” in Verrocchio’s studio, and still we hear nothing of Credi. It can be demonstrated
that from about 1478 Verrocchio’s school, with Lorenzo di Credi at its head, was at Pistoia, where
Credi worked upon the Forteguerri monument, among other things. During these and following years
the master himself was occupied in Florence with important commissions, notably the silver relief for
the reredos of the Baptistery, completed 147780, the Thomas group for the Or San Michele, 1476-83,
and preliminary work for the Colleoni monument, I478-8o. From the autumn of 1481 until his death
in I488, Verrocchio was indeed resident in Venice and engaged upon the Colleoni monument, and
therefore his work upon the Pistoian altar-piece had to cease for a while. Undoubtedly the master
himself commenced it, and even carried it on to the “almost finished ” condition in which it stood in
1479. And we may assume that he intended to complete it himself, otherwise there is no good reason
why the picture should have been set aside for six years. If Verrocchio had entrusted his apprentice
Credi with the completion of the picture, he would not have allowed the pupil to idle over it for six
whole years, particularly as the payment of the sum still due for the picture depended only on its
completion. If Credi became responsible for the picture, why did not the Pistoians remind him of it?
He lived in their midst. If any reliance can be placed in archives, the Chiti document settles the
question, and the Pistoian altar-piece is a work by Verrocchio, to which Credi put the finishing
touches when the cathedral authorities became insistent in I485 and demanded the picture. Credi
must then have done the necessary touching-up, or finished the painting of some minor parts, and
delivered the picture on behalf of his absent master, perhaps, indeed, not until after Verrocchio’s
death. In this way Credi’s name has become associated with the altar-piece, an example of the
manner in which incorrect but quite reasonable tradition may be formed.

In spite of the Chiti document Dr. Bode continues to ascribe the work to Credi,”3 and much to
my surprise he is followed by Berenson.‘74 It does not astonish me that Bode should be positive
and mistake Verrocchio and his pupils; for that art historian has made it something of a life
work to transform the conception of Verrocchio by new attributions (e.g. the Tobias picture in the
Academy of Florence, the smaller Journey of Tobias in the National Gallery in London, and the

120

.1. wwww

t)

(a

 

THE PISTOIAN ALTAR-PIECE

 

 

 

 

.,/'»’//1,/,',_ Ir "' .
'1’ all!-

’ f'dll/l' I

WM
,

 

Photo. Alinari.
VICRROCCHIO : Madonna and Child enthronetl, with SS. John the Baptist and Zeno. Altar-piece in the Cathedral of Pistoiztl

unlovely Madonna, No. 104 A, in Berlin), and he seems to have a difficulty in admitting his mistakes
even when they are proved. He bases his assertion that it was Credi and not Verrocchio, who painted
the Pistoian altar-piece upon another statement, namely, that Verrocchio did not work with his own
hand as a painter after the beginning of the seventies of the 15th century. This conclusion he deduces
from the abovementioned Verrocchios invented by himself, and all dated by him in the sixties. The
argument carries little weight, as the Verrocchios which Dr. Bode maintains to be the only genuine

121 (,3

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

examples, are one by one proving themselves to beworks of Botticini and other pupils, while the centre
of gravity in Verrocchio’s real artistic production is moved to works of the seventies and eighties, such
as the Monte Oliveto Annunciation and the Liechtenstein portraits. The fact that Morelli, in his
dispute with Bode about Verrocchio and Leonardo, was right in the main whilst Bode was wrong, is
gradually becoming more apparent. Moreover, returning to the picture at Pistoia, Bode entirely
fails to appreciate the highly picturesque quality of the altar-piece. He carelessly places it with a
variant in the Naples gallery that goes under Credi’s name, but truth to tell is only the poor pro-
duction of a third-rate artist like Raphaelino dei Carli.

In reality, the Pistoian altar-piece speaks no uncertain language. As a composition the picture
is actually paradigmatic of Verrocchio and his school. The arrangement, the Madonna seated in the
middle distance upon a throne of marble connected with a marble wall or colonnade looking on to a
garden, while the saints are placed one on each side in the foreground, is solely that of Verrocchio and
his studio. There are many similar altar-pieces, and the idea of nearly all can in some way or other.
be traced back to Verrocchio’s studio. But none of them can compare with the altar-piece at Pistoia.
Why then should not this, the best of its kind, be the master’s own work? If the picture could rightly
be claimed as Credi’s, that artist would have produced his finest composition before he was twenty, and
there would be no question of any further development. If we turn from the composition to the execu-
tion, the mastery is no less apparent. The fine detail of the classical ornamentation of the throne, the
beautiful marble floor, the costly oriental carpet, are in keeping with the temperament of an aristocratic
artist such as Verrocchio. With delicate judgment the foliage of the orange trees and the myrtles in
the stone vases are made to alternate against the clear sky, whilst the fair Virgin, in light garments, is
placed against the dark background of the throne, and the weatherbeaten dweller in the wilderness and
the old bishop stand darkly out from the sky. These are contrasts Verrocchio revelled in. The land-
scape is rich as in the Annunciation, and far superior to Credi’s tame scenery. The Baptist’s sinewy
arms and legs are drawn by the same strong hand of a capable anatomist, that drew the Baptist in the
Baptism of Christ. The dignified bishop agrees with Verrocchio’s other productions in type of face,
form of hand, and folds of drapery. I do not of course refer to the more than problematic productions
with which Dr. Bode has endowed the artist, but to Verrocchio’s timehonoured and undisputedly
genuine works, the Baptist and Christ in the picture of the Baptism of Christ, Christ in the Thomas
group and the head of Goliath at David’s feet.

Lastly there remains the Madonna herself with her Child. The Child, it will readily be admitted,
is not treated so freely or in so masterly a manner as the Dolphin boy on the fountain in the Palazzo
Vecchio; but neither is it so clumsy and ill-proportioned as the generality of Credi’s boy-children
The type is much the same as that of the studies of children on a famous leaf from Verrocchio’s
sketch-book in the Louvre (p. 161). The Virgin herself is the best proof that the silver-point in
Dresden belongs to Verrocchio, if the altar-piece at Pistoia is his. She is a melancholy, elder sister
of the Virgin on the Dresden sheet. Every detail corresponds, the position, the form and inclination
of the head, the dress, the brooch and the lacing of the bodice, the fashion the cloak is flung over the
shoulder; as the upper part of the body agrees with that of the Virgin in the Dresden drawing, so do
the draperies of the lower half agree with other drawings by Verrocchio. Thus we venture to assert
that the Dresden drawing is not Leonardo’s work, nor Credi’s, but was executed by Verrocchio about
1476, being used as a preliminary study for the altar-piece at Pistoia, which practically is also from
Verrocchio’s own hand.

122

a...

.- rh“"‘"' .

 

, Madonna and Child with S. John.
liorghese Gallery, Rome.

LORENZO
l)l CREDI

 

XIV

Those who only study other painters and not the works of
nature are in art the grandchildren of nature and not her sons.
Nature is the instructor of all good painters!

LEONARDO DA VINCI.

N the year 1860, the Dresden Gallery acquired from an English collection a small
picture of a Madonna seated in her bed-chamber with her Child upon her lap and
offering Him cherries, while the little S. John presses forward at her side to
worship (p. 125). The picture was purchased as a Credi, but shortly after, for
reasons unknown, was rc-christened a Leonardo da Vinci. Herr H‘L'ibner, the old
director, was a man of poetic temperament, which he readily displayed in the
catalogue of the gallery. Presumably the more brilliant name of Leonardo
accorded better with his imaginative disposition than the modest Credi. However that may be, the
picture was called a Leonardo for many years, until Lermolieff, in his Critical Studies from the
Galleries of Dresden and Munich, published in 1880, strongly protested against such a promotion.
He declared the picture to be nothing more than a copy, by a northern imitator, of a picture by
Credi, and be vigorously repudiated the insult to Leonardo’s great name by burdening it with such
productions. At that time it was not definitely known who was concealed behind the revolutionary
Russian pseudonym “ Lermolieff,” and Morelli’s assertion was received in no very respectful manner
by the learned German professors. Morelli nevertheless succeeded, by his personal influence upon
the new director of the Dresden Gallery, in getting the name of Leonardo removed from the picture.
In the new edition of the catalogue of the gallery for 1887 we find the little Madonna given back to
Credi, but still as an original, not a copy.

Morelli’s reason for maintaining that it was a copy of Credi was that at the moment he saw in
the silver-point study in the Dresden cabinet of which we have just spoken (p. {17), an original
drawing by Credi, and not by Verrocchio ; for the close connection of the drawing with the picture
must be instantly apparent to the eye. The Madonna’s position is the same, the head only a trifle

123

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

LORENZO DI CREDI : Madonna with \Vild Flowers. Turin.

as
also the plaiting of the hair and the short, sloping

neck. The dress, too, is alike, the low neck and
the lacing of the bodice, the fall of the drapery, and
the cloak thrown over the left shoulder. But in the
picture everything is conceived in a more common-
place manner, making it several degrees poorer in
artistic quality, this being especially apparent in
the figures of the two children. The Child Jesus,
who is naked, is clumsily formed, with no neck and
with deeply marked parallel folds of fat across the
stomach. His right hand is like the paw of some
animal, and the big toe of one foot stands erect.
The figure of S. John is still weaker, and is
awkwardly placed in the corner of the picture; he
wears a sheepish eXpression, and has an arm like
a badly drawn sausage. In the background we
see a large four-post bedstead with red curtains
fastened back ; through the double-arched window
(without a centre shaft) there is a View of a
northern and almost Memlinc landscape, in which
stands a Gothic country palace with pointed
towers. The whole arrangement of the bed-chamber
is pleasant and intimate, but the painting is

more inclined; the oval of the face is similar
‘ )

laboured and Wives an im ression far from Italian. Corn are Credi’s Annunciation in the
b p
Uffizi (p. 100). The architectural feeling and refinement of a genuine Florentine artist’s interiors

are much deeper. In the gallery in Turin
there is an early picture by Credi, a Madonna
‘with Wild Flowers, and this, together with
Verrocchio’s silver-point drawing, has served
as a pattern for the Dresden copyist. The
action is the same: in both pictures the
Madonna is giving the Child a berry, which
she holds between her finger and thumb.
The posture of the Child is the same, and
the Madonna’s hand with the berry is copied
line for line. Here too she is sitting in a
room, and there is a landscape view through
the window in the back wall; but no attempt
has been made at an interior, there is no
bed, and only a little space between the
figures and the wall. The landscape, with
its green slopes, bushy shrubs, and smooth

 

LORENZO DI CREDI: Studies, Uffizi. Photo. llrogi.

124

n

 

THE MADONNA IN HER BED-CHAMBER

shining water is very
reminiscent of Credi.
The Madonna with Wild
Flowers and the Madonna
in her Bed-chamber are
based upon a scheme from
Verrocchio’s studio, and
Credi is the pupil who
has made most frequent
use of it in pictures and
drawings.

In Credi’s own studio
the motive continued to
live, and we can trace
the transmission of the
composition, entire or
fragmentary, to succes-
sors and new pupils.
A number of pictures and
drawings can be shown,
in which the Madonna
and Child appear together
and separate. Even
though the quest may
lead us rather far from
Leonardo, it will be in-
teresting to make a slight
digression in order to
trace this Verrocchiesque
subject among the less
famous Florentine artists,
and to demonstrate its
vitality. In additionto the
abovementioned picture

 

IMITATOR OI“ VERROCCHIO: Madonna in her bed-chamber. Dresden. l’hoto. Braun.

in Turin (I), the motive is found-in a similar Madonna in the same gallery, also under Credi’s
name'(2), the composition in this case being reversed from right to left. The picture is too weak to be
by his own hand, and must be looked upon as a studio work. However the beautiful, clear-toned tondo
by the youthful Credi in the Borghese Gallery in Rome (3) is genuine, and entirely Verrocchiesque in
spirit and style (p. 123). The twochildren combine with the figure of the Virgin to form a harmonious
triangular group, a composition scheme that Leonardo especially favoured. In this picture, too, we
find the glass of wild flowers, and through two windows, one on each side of theMadonna, are views
of a landscape differing widely from that of the Dresden picture. There is another tondo, presented
to the Edinburgh gallery by Mr. Laing in 1879, which stands midway, as regards subject, between

125

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

,.

1. . - . Jafifi'fil‘tv . , ‘5

ALUNNO DI ANDREA: Study foraMadonna. Uffizi. Photo. Brogi.

 

the Borghese tondo and the Dresden picture. It is
called a Lorenzo di Credi, but is evidently by a
later Italian artist, in my opinion Granacci (4). The
grouping is similar to that of the Dresden picture,
and the position of the Child is exactly the same.
Through two large arched windows, one on each
side of the Madonna, we look out upon a landscape
with water, slender trees, distant blue mountains.
Strange to say, this picture seems to have escaped
the notice of Bernhard Berenson during his search
for works of this eclectic who was a late pupil of
Credi.“- One variant of the Dresden picture, a
Madonna in her Bed-chamber, can be seen in
the Galleria Colonna in Rome (5) under the
meaningless name of Fra Filippo. The cold lilac
of the dress contrasting with the dragon’s blood
colour of the bed and the bluish green cloak,
the landscape visible through the windows, and
the unlovely types, betray a northern imitator of
Verrocchio’s school. From the pictures let us
pass to the drawings. In the Uffizi, No. 1202,
there is a sheet of studies by Credi (6), which,
in addition to a drapery study for a sitting figure,
shows two drawings of a child’s bare arm ex-

tended towards a pear (p. 124) as in the Edinburgh tondo. In contrast with the clumsy arms

of the Child in the Dresden picture, the well-articulated,
slender arms in the original drawing, with their soft
but mobile little hands, are very striking. A good,
old copy of this sheet (7) is exhibited as No. 1201,
also under Credi’s name.”6 In other studies we find
the Child in exactly the same position as in the
Dresden picture. The first of these is a silver-point
drawing with sepia and plaster on pink paper (No.
247); in the Uffizi the drawing is ascribed to Credi,
but is without doubt by a later imitator, in my opinion
Granacci (8)177 A similar Child is to be found in the
Uffizi, roughly sketched on another sheet (No. 314)
by Granacci (9), but exhibited under Credi’s name.‘78
Once more (10) we meet with the Child in a Granacci
drawing, this time as part of a composition, in a
pen-Sketch for a Praesepium or Adoration of the
Shepherds (No. 373, shown on p. 127). The drawing
formerly bore the inscription “zguoto fiorcnrzfz'no,” but now

126

    

, Photo. Brogi.
FRANCESCO GRANACCI: Study for a child. Uffizi.

_._.,.._.. .‘ .. .- ‘1

*.

 

 

THE MADONNA IN HER BED-CHAMBER

has a place in the category “ Maniem del Verrocchio ;”
it has moreover been photographed as a Fra Bar-
tolommeo, a designation that is not so out-of—the-way,
considering the cinquecentist form of the composition.
It seems to have been intended for a tondo;
Granacci’s Holy Family in the Pitti Gallery (No.
345) comes nearest to it. But all these are distant
off-shoots from the Verrocchiesque root. Nearer to
the parent stem stand two rapidly and feelingly
sketched full-length figure-studies (11 and 12) in
black chalk for a seated Virgin and Child, found in-
the Uffizi under Verrocchio’s name (No. 443 and 444).
The studies are shown here (pp. 126 and 127), both
because we again find the same Child and more
especially the similar movement of the one drawn
up knee, and because the drawings in themselves are
valuable examples of the style of the Verrocchio
school, and closely allied to the master’s own work.
They were evidently drawn at the same time, from
the same models. In one study the Child is try—
ing to reach the Mother’s breast, in the other He
is sitting upon her knee in the attitude of blessing.
The position of the latter particularly recalls the
studies of children already mentioned. The same
draping of the lower part of the figure is found in the Virgin in the Pistoian altar- piece (p. 121), and in
Credi’s picture in the Louvre of the Virgin between two saints (1,263); it also agrees with drawings of
draperies by the same artist in the Louvre (No. 506), and in the Uffizi (Nos. 476, 433 and 218). It is
however decidedly not Credi who has drawn the two studies; they are too spiritual for him. Nor are
they like Verrocchio, being rather too tender in feeling,
and somewhat too modern in treatment. Berenson
refuses to name the master, hesitating between Leo-
nardo, Botticelli and Credi?” We come nearer to the
truth by classing them with the little silver-point draw-
ing for the London Madonna (p. 66), and giving the
drawings to Alunno di Andrea. They may date from
about the time of their Pistoian altar-piece, 1480; and a
drawing for the Virgin in that picture (p. 121), by Verroc-
chio himself, may be the original inspiration. As the
result of the investigation we maintain that the Dresden
picture is neither a Leonardo nor a Credi, but an eclectic
work by probably a northern painter, based upon motives
that long continued to be the common property of the

Photo. Brogi. ' ‘
FRANCESCO GRANACCI : The Holy Family. Pen-drawing. Umzi. SChOOl Of verrOCChlo'

 

ALUNNomDI ANDREA: Study for 21 Madonna. Uflizi. Photo. Brogi.

 

    

127

 

 

 

 

’ There will be little good in the work of the artist who takes his types from the paintings of others. But if he lets himself
be instructed about things by nature herself, his work will bear good fruit. LEONARDO DA VINCI.

 

N the little town of Gunzburg, near Ulm, in Bavaria, an acquisition was made in
I 1889 for the picture gallery of Munich, which at the time made a considerable
' stir, and has since occasioned much dispute. For the modest sum of 800 marks, a
. well preserved half-length Madonna was purchased there for the Munich gallery.
' In Giinzburg it bore the great name of Albrecht D'Lirer, but in the Munich gallery
wasinstantly re-christened underthe still greater name of Leonardo da Vinci.
Herr A. Bayersdorffer, the custodian of the gallery, performed the ceremony, and
Dr. Bode from Berlin was godfather. The German press proclaimed the joyful news that, thanks to
Hauser and Bayersdorffer’s clever discovery, the gallery in Munich possessed like other great
museums, a genuine Leonardo.

-T»he' Virgin is represented in her chamber, with the nude figure of the Child in front, while she
holds in her left hand a pink; a glass vase containing other flowers is beside her. The subject
naturally gave the picture the title of the Madonna with the
Pink, and connected it with the lost Madonna with the Bottle
of. Water, .which Vasari says Leonardo painted for Pope
Clement VII.. The authorities concerned agreed .in consider-
ing the picture to be an early work from the period of Leonardo’s
apprenticeship in Verrocchio’s studio, of about the same
time as the Monte Oliveto Annunciation, or in any case before
I475. As such, under" Leonardo’s name, the picture still hangs
in the gallery. This view was maintained by Bayersdorffer and
Bode, as also by W. Koopmann, and gained the adherence of
H. de Geymtiller, W. Lubke and Mtiller-VValde.‘8° But it was
almost simultaneously contested by Franz Rieffel in an excellent

 

 

 

 

article in the Repertorium, and by Giovanni Morelli in his Critical
Studies, 1891.18‘ Independently of each other, these two authors, by
criticism of style and aesthetic analysis, reached the same conclusion,
namely, that not only was the work quite unworthy of the young
Leonardo, but that it was not even an Italian picture, but an COPY OF CREDL Silver-pointdrawing. UM

128

 

 

I;

THE MADONNA \VITII TIIE PINK

imitation of Italian painting
by a northern painter, either
Flemish or Rhenish, who had
studied in the south, and
based his composition upon
Verrocchiesque studies.’82 Its
Italian origin was maintained
by W. Schmidt, who has de-
clared the picture to be a
Credi,‘83 and recently by
Berenson, who. in the second
edition of his Florentine
Painters, has expressed (not,
indeed, without hesitation) his
concurrence with the idea that
the picture might be by Credi.
I’ersonallyI must here, even
more decidedly than in the
case of the Dresden picture,
subscribe to the view taken by
Morelli and Rieffel, and pro- ‘
test, not only against the name ‘
Leonardo, but against that of V ~ 7
any other Italian painter. To ’ 7, Q
connect Leonardo’s name with V

this dull and lifeless produc- r
tion of an international va-
grant who has done his best to
disown his nationality without
success, is sheer profanation.
In the first place the picture

 

lacks action and coherence in

 

compOSition- This is natural GERMAN IMITATOR OI“ \‘ERROCCI‘IIO: Madonna with the Pink. Picture Gallery,Iliidiiiigclifansmngei‘
enough, as it forms a patchwork

of pieces from a variety of sources. The Virgin is sitting (or standing?) with downcast gaze and
expressionless face, holding in an affected manner a long stalked pink between her finger and thumb.
In front, upon a parapet, the naked Child is sitting upon a cushion, with arms and legs extended in
purposeless fashion, while He gazes upwards distractedly. The Child is intended to be stretching
out His hands for the flower, but his ecstatic, squinting gaze actually passes the flower and wanders
into space. We instantly recognise this Child with its formless body as a reflection of the Child in
the Dresden picture (p. 125). The drawing of the arms is particularly clumsy; the left arm has no
connection with the body, and the hands appear as if they were trying to grasp some rounded object
to convey to the mouth. This is indeed the case, for in the Uffizi collection of drawings thereis

129 n

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

a silver-point drawing (p. 128) corresponding line for line with the child in the picture, but in the
former the child’s hands are grasping .the mother’s breast. Thus in both cases the figure of the
Child is taken from another represented as being suckled by its mother; and the position of the
arms and hands, as also the direction of the gaze, has been transferred or traced without true
assimilation. In the same manner the mother, with her round face, high, square, German forehead,
small and no less German cherry-mouth, and adorned hair, is the result of a northerner borrowing
from some Verrocchiostudy of the nature of the Dresden drawing. The dress with the pointed
opening at the neck, the oval brooch and the tied-up sleeves also point distinctly in the direction of
Verrocchio and Credi; but the arrangement of the folds is badly understood and thoughtlessly
imitated. The confusion of small folds over and round the Virgin’s left breast reveal fully the
copyist, and no less painful and unnatural is the large bunch of bright yellow material taken from
some other composition and heaped together upon the parapet in front of the Madonna. An
unnecessary cut glass vase containing flowers is inconveniently placed beside her as if to fill the
space. The shape of the vase is improbable, and recalls the silver—smith work of German engravers
of ornament. The bunch of flowers is crushed and not painted with freshness, and this, as Rieffel
says, is the surest criterion of the northern character of the picture. The background is formed by
a dark wall, in which are windows with a view of mountain landscape. The style of the arched
windows, with their slender central shafts, recalls the Dresden picture (where the central shaft is
absent), and has not a convincingly Italian effect, on the contrary rather resembling the first faltering
Renaissance forms of Flemish Romanesque architecture. In a rather inexplicable way, a piece of
the wall projects as a background for the Virgin’s head, and cuts into the arched windows. The
landscape beyond is evidently copied from Leonardo’s landscape backgrounds of the Milanese
period, with their blue, misty, mountains, but kept to a weak and watery bluish-green tone which has
an unnatural effect. The woolly, blurred treatment of the trees and bushes alone should be enough
to forbid any thought of Lorenzo di Credi. The colouring of the picture is repellent and un-Italian,
being unusually gaudy and abounding in contrasts. A carroty-red under-garment, together with an
over-garment of cold bluish-grey colour, a blue mantle with a glaring yellow lining, produce an effect
as harmonious as that of tin trumpets at a fair. In addition, we note the ruddy colour of the skin,
like the complexion of a blond and freckled northerner, and the bluish-green mountains.

The picture came to the gallery under a German artist’s name, and even though its painter may
not be Albrecht Di‘irer, there seems to be no doubt as to its northern origin. Even in the technique,
in the strangely puckered colour of the shadows, there is something un-Florentine and yet not
Milanese.

It is to be hoped that some day the united exertions of northern and Italian art research will
reveal these northern eclectics, who spent long years in Italy in studying and imitating the great
masters of the Italian Renaissance. In the meantime we know hardly anything of them. We have
little information, for instance, of what Jan Gossart was doing during the eleven years he lived in
Italy (1508-1519). We are even more ignorant about his immediate predecessors and successors,
some of whom probably never returned home. We only see that Italian influence, Especially that of
Leonardo, was strong and lasting, even in the case of those northerners who shook the dust of
Italy from their feet and tried to regain possession of their northern personalities upon their native
soil. A picture such as Gossart’s Danae in Munich, painted as late as 1527, seems to reflect the
Credi—Verrochiesquc type about forty years after Verrocchio’s death.

130

d r—m ‘.

... ———————._..._..- ._._ __

1“" N..._.A _-_.-____

 

‘ '" wk“ — w——‘

1

——————-— ——~.———-\ ————v—V—————-——v-—~——'

. "r... ww“z_ 4H .__...

A .. AV,__,_..______

.~'._

, Medal struck in commemora»
tion of the Paul Conspiracy

BER'I‘OI.I)O DI
(; I O V A N N I

 

XVI

A painter‘s mind may be likened to a mirror that constantly changes
colour with the object it reflects. And being always filled with the image
of the thing nearest it, becomes like a second nature.

LEONARDO DA VINCI.

 

S the Pazzi conspiracy against the life of Lorenzo and Giuliano de7 Medici in
I478 is so well known and has been often described, it is unnecessary to repeat
the story of that event in the history of Florence #84 but the tragedy cannot be
altogether disregarded, as it also affected Leonardo’s life and art. The traitorous
deed was only half successful. While Giuliano was struck down in the cathedral
before the high altar, at the very moment of the elevation of the host, that solemn
instant being the pre-arranged signal, Lorenzo, though wounded, succeeded in
escaping from the murderers’ daggers. As the conspirators had miscalculated the attitude of the
people, the attempt was a political triumph for Lorenzo. With ample justification as well as the
approbation of his subjects, he was now able to crush his enemies and at the same time revenge
the crime. Eighty of the conspirators were condemned to death, and their leaders were practically
lynched from the Council Hall itself. With ropes round their necks, they were thrown from the
windows of the Signoria before the eyes of the rejoicing multitude. In the square below, the
blood-thirsty mob could watch Salviati, the traitor archbishop of Pisa, in full canonicals, hanging by
his neck and struggling in death agony by the side of the avaricious banker Francesco de’ Pazzi.
Among the crowd assembled on the 26th April, I478, to witness the horrible scene was the
painter Sandro Botticelli. This we gather from a document showing that Lorenzo commissioned
this favourite artist with the painful task of immortalising the occurrence by painting portraits of the
conspirators as they hung in front of the facade of the public building. There are indications that
Leonardo was also among the spectators on the same occasion. In any case, when the scene was
repeated a year and a half later, with the last of the conspirators captured, Leonardo was undoubtedly

 

 

 

 

in the square.
The writer Politian, a friend and contemporary of Lorenzo, tells us in his account of the Pazzi

conspiracy: “ ll Bandino, a bold profligate, involved in every manner of crime, was the first to pierce
the breast of Giuliano with‘ a dagger; and not content with having murdered Giuliano, he rushed

131

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

towards Lorenzo, who escaped Into the sacr1sty together With a few others. Bandino, however, ran

his sword through Francesco Nori, a partisan of the Medicis, who had hastened to their aid.” The

murderer 0f Giuliano, whose full name was Bernardo di Bandino Baroncelli, HOIIZO sce/emto, audace e

e/te non eonoseeva [mm/(t, is the man we see dangling from a rope in a pen-drawing from Leonardo’s
hand. Amidst the tumult that ensued in the church, he was one of the few conspirators who succeeded

in escaping, and he did not
stay his flight until he arrived
in Constantinople. For more
than eighteen months the
avenger’s arm could not reach
him; but at last, by diplomacy,
Lorenzo succeeded in extra-
diting the assassin, and on the
29th December, 1479, Baron-
celli suffered the same igno-
minious death as his fellow—
conspirators. Richly dressed,
but with his hands tied behind
his back and a rope round his
neck, he was thrown from a
window in the Bargello Palace.
In the street below, on that
cold December day, stood
Leonardo with his sketch-
book, drawing the criminal.
Baroncelli dangles at the
rope-end like a miserable,
draggled bird of prey. Against
his sketch the artist, with a
firm hand and in his usual
script, has made the following
notes :

“Small tan-coloured cap,

Dortblet of black satin,

Lined black jet/em,

Long blue cloak

Lined with foxes’ breasts,
‘ and the cloak-collar trimmed

with black and red

velvet;

Bernardo di Bmzdino
Bm/oneigli ;

black hose.”-

 

I.l€()NARI)O : “ 'l‘he hanged conspirator.”

Bernardo di llandino Haroncelli, Giuliano de' Medici's murderer,
hanged December 2Q, 1478, in Florence.
Pen-drawing; in the lioniial Collection, I‘nlyonne.

132

It reads almost like verse.
Thus clearly and coldly did
this young man of twenty-
seven look upon the scene of
an execution that wrought the
inhabitants of Florence into
a wild excitement. There is
no caricaturing, no preconcep-
tion in the representation of
the malefactor, tnvolto 2'71 ogni
sorte di scelemtezza. On the
contrary, when Leonardo drew
the face of the hanged man
a second time with greater
detail in one corner of the
page, he did so rather from
a certain gentle sympathy,
accentuating the beauty of the
expression and the sadness of
death. No sentimentality,
however, dimmed his obser-
vant eye; not even the velvet
trimming on the criminal’s
collar escaped him. As he
had forgottten to note the
colour of the stockings, he
adds this detail after the
name.

Mt‘intz, amongst others,
has suggested that the cir-
cumstantial notes upon the
drawing relating to the col-
ours of the clothes prove that
Leonardo, like Botticelli, had
been commissioned to pre-
pare portraits of some of the
hanged conspirators, certainly
Baroncelli, and that heactually

 

!

 

 

Silver-point drawing in the Malcolm Colloctiun7 British Museum.

The Condottiere (about 1478).

ARDO :

LEON

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

undertook it. There is no reason for rejecting such an assumption. In the first place, it was not unusual
in Florence for artists to receive and accept such commissions. Even so refined and sensitive an artist
as Botticelli did not refuse to paint the bodies of the Pazzi conspirators. Three months after the
conspiracy he received a grant of forty florins for his pictures of proditorcs. Vasari, moreover, relates
in Andrea del Castagno’s memoirs that that painter also received an order to paint some of the Pazzi
conspirators; but this is one of Vasari’s numerous inexactitudes, as Castagno died twenty-one years
before the Pazzi conspiracy took place. There is, nevertheless, a nucleus of truth in his statement.
In 1434 Castagno did actually undertake to paint the exiled Rinaldo degli Albizzi and his adherents,
who were condemned as rebels and hanged head downwards. Long before Castagno’s time the
trccmto painter Giottino was given a similar commission.

Leonardo was certainly not influenced by what was customary among the painters of his city.
If he consented to become a painter of criminals, it must have been because he found the task
congenial rather than repulsive. With him scientific knowledge always went hand in hand with
artistic pleasure. His enquiring mind and eye found a twofold intellectual pleasure in studying
the last flicker of the flame of life before it was quenched for eternity. With eagle gaze he must
have followed the progress of the death struggle, analysing its brief final phases, and watching the
convulsive twitchings of the body. Then we can imagine him returning home to the solitude he
loved and extolled, with a mass of observation, sad in spirit, but not altogether without enjoyment of
the scene he had witnessed.

With all the gentleness of his nature, there was in Leonardo’s artistic soul a touch of cruelty.
The horrible drama of life, and the terrors of nature, attracted him as much as beauty and grace.
As an artist he added the profoundest contribution to the psychology of the smile that art can make.
He also artistically dissected the expressions of hatred, rage, and animal ferocity. The cruel trait in
his character was also unconsciously revealed when his imagination found recreation in the invention
of weapons and engines of war. He designed weapons so fantastically cruel, engines of such murderous
refinement, that from sheer elaboration they were absolutely inapplicable for purposes of slaughter or
war. Even if these productions belong to a later period of his life, strong animal instincts must

always have been hidden and repressed, behind his gentleness and sympathy, his love of nature, and
his dreams.

 

LEONARDO : Design for an engine of war. Pen-drawing in lhe'l‘urin Library.

 

4am

 

 

XVII

 

 

ATIENCE does for injuries what clothes do for the cold. If you increase your
clothing with increasing cold, the cold cannot harm you. Similarly, in face of
great injuries, clothe yourself in patience, and the injuries will not be able to wound
your spirit.” Such words of wisdom do not fall from the lips of a youth. With
Leonardo they are probably the fruit of the bitter experience of a long life, as an
experienced physician would write a prescription for a well-known disease. He had
early experience of injuries. Among the very few biographical data that we have
from the time of his youth in Florence, is a legal document of the most detestable kind, an accusation
hurled by an unknown coward tending to rob him of his honour as a citizen.

During the age of Leonardo there was a vile contrivance in Florence popularly known as “the
drum” (fl tcmzbm/o), a kind of letter-box fixed to the wall of the Signoria, known to all, and intended
for the secret letters of informers. Its original purpose was to give every well-intentioned citizen
an opportunity of fearlessly reporting anything he might learn concerning secret and criminal designs
against the State and the house of Medici. But the republic’s conception of justice became so corrupt
under the new “ tyranny,” that the dispensers of justice considered themselves obliged to take notice
of every cowardly accusation against the citizens that came through the “drum.” The usual con-
sequence of an accusation was an investigation, and the accused was summoned to answer the court.
An anonymous communication was found in the drum in April, 1476, mentioning the name of Leonardo
di Ser Piero in connection with a number of young men, whose names are now unknown. The crime
was veiled, but a certain Jacopo Saltarelli was accused with them of every variety of wickedness.

It is not worth while to give this cowardly accusation verbatim. The document is worded in the
intricate and concerned style that soured and evil minded hypocrites have always employed. The
writer made an attempt to involve Verrocchio in the sentence : Lionardo di serpieiro dauici sta co andrea
del uewocc/Lio.

The defendants were examined, and acquitted cum conditione Mt retambwmtm (on condition that

 

 

 

they were not accused again). The accusation was repeated two months later, in a still coarser form,
but the authorities considered that it offered no ground for taking action. An Italian biographer of

135

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

Leonardo (Solmi), who quotes the accusation (which was not 1
printed until 1896 in the Archivo Storico dell’ Arte, because, 3
ridiculously enough, for years the authorities had tried to keep ‘
it secret), ends his account as follows: “ Even at that time his
contemporaries treated this slander as it deserved, and thus

the historians of our day have nothing to do but to state the

fact merely as a fresh proof that uneducated persons will throw

stones at every person who does not wear their clothes and

speak their language.” The purpose of this volume is not to

relate anecdotes, but to elucidate Leonardo’s art, and the
annoymous accusation would not have been mentioned in

these pages if it had not given occasion for reflections upon

Leonardo’s artistic peculiarities and the scope of his genius.

The greater number of Leonardo’s biographers, and most

writers of art history who have dealt with the subject, con-

tent themselves with indignantly repudiating the accusation.
Lawyer-like, they bring forward a number of passages from

Leonardo’s writings to prove that their hero was an ascetic,

untouched by sex, and morally whiter than a lamb.‘85 Leonardo’s writings give no information

regarding the conduct of his life. His journals are the most reticent and reserved that have ever

been penned. We may play the spy, we may listen and peep through key-holes, but we shall seek in

vain for the slightest indiscretions. On the subject of his own private life, and of his loves, he

preserves an absolute silence. The fact has been pointed out as a proof of his sexual indifference,

In the five thousand manuscript pages he left behind, he has only once mentioned a woman’s name.

and then merely to note that “ Giovannina has a fantastic face ; she lives in S. Catherine’s hospital.” '
Evidently this is the address of a model he wished to keep in
mind.

 

LEONARDO : Head of a youth. Red chalk drawing. \Vindsor.

But the observation that Leonardo never writes about women

or feminine beauty is purposeless. He has drawn scores of

women, nude and draped. He has painted woman as child,
l maiden, mother, queen, and mistress. Only the blind can imagine
i Leonardo as sexually indifferent. His keen delight in feminine
beauty does not preclude the possession of a sensuous apprecia-

tion of manly beauty, and, if we may conclude anything from his

l art, that was exactly what he possessed. Solmi comically assures
us that “Leonardo was so entirely devoted to his art and the

worship of nature, that he never gave a moment of his life or a

fraction of his strength to transient pleasures.” This assertion

he supports by a Tolstoyian remark made by Leonardo in old

age, “that man would soon become extinct if propagation were

‘ not an old, inherited custom, and if there were not still pretty . _ _
; faces and sensual tendencies.” The paradoxes that the aged 7 3:" v "17',

.,- «.4 -- ’ » *

Leonardo may have \Vritten ill a peeViSh molllent 0n the SUbjeCt LEONARDOzHead ofanoldman. Redchalk drawing. Windsor.

 

  

136

 

 

 

———-—~ << 1-

LEONARDO AND THE SEXES

i

 

of the essential source of nature cannot serve as a proof
of their author’s personal indifference any more'than the
absurdities of the Kreutzer Sonata. If we would wish to
study Leonardo the human being, we must not be contented
with a patchwork of aphorisms and fragments of manuscript.
We must go to his art, that bubbling spring of eternal youth,
and there we shall learn all we need to know about his
complex personality.

Leonardo loved female beauty. He had an eye for
feminine charm, purity, motherliness and sensuousness, such
as no other artist in the world has ever had. No one has
understood and fixed the conception of woman as truly, as
delicately, and with as fine gradations as he. At the same
time his conception of man is not excelled by any artist as
regards firmness, strength of will and concentrated force.
His art recognises the wise, the strong, the stem, the fierce,
the cruel in man. Beyond these marked sexual types, his
art has mixed examples of feminine and manly character,
youths with faces as smooth as a girl’s, with large eyes, soft ,
sensuous lips, masses of curling locks. He knows and LEONARDOflwmges.
admires the supple, almost feminine beauty and elegance of
body in these adolescents. His eye follows with delight the curving line of the hips, and the elastic
but still softly rounded muscles of the leg. When the gaze of the youth swims in half-conscious
desire, Leonardo sees in it, especially when an elderly man, a bi-sexual charm of undifferentiated
humanity, which attracts and intoxicates. His platonism finds something glorious in the fact that

there are ages in life when the antagonism of the sexes has not yet been
aroused to consciousness, and he loves this vague promise of Spring before

i
‘ , , l
. . .5"!
Legged

Red chalk drawing from the Milanese period.
Uffizi.

, (47:) sex has opened its petals. Call it depravity or by any other name you will,
‘ x§V§NW the soul of every person of strong feelings hides the elements of a like
(‘9: 7 emotion.

    

it EN 5, Finally another point that must not be overlooked. Age plays an exceed-
, ‘ ‘ ingly important part with Leonardo, so that the distinction of years often over-
shadows the differences between sex. The man of science observed that if
sex is not very marked old men and old women often become so alike as to i l
he more or less the same. The old man becomes old-womanish, and the
old woman’s face become like man’s in the marked lines of the features.
Similarly there is an early age when the sexes are not entirely separate,
and when mind and eye can still enjoy the boyish slimness and angularity in
the young girl, and the girlish softness and grace in the youth. Leonardo
delights in bringing contrasts face to face, the angular, rather decrepit old
..'_.;._Z_.,f_,f._;-MM man, and the brilliant sensuous and seductive youth in all his intoxicating
LEONARDO:Ayouth. Demimpasmdy beauty. Socrates would have understood Leonardo. But then they have

for the Adoration of the Magi.

Walraff—RichanzMuseum,Cologne. both been the victims of anonymous accusations. ;

  

 

137 s

 

 

r41

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

Leonardo’s relation to the sexes and his View of masculine beauty must be considered in connection
with the intellectual atmosphere in which he lived. The revived Greek spirit, with its virtues and
vices, was the spirit of the age in the city of Lorenzo the Magnificent. All higher intellectual life was
gathered under the sign of platonic philosphy, and the worship of beauty had become a passion. We
know how Lorenzo himself and those who stood nearest to him confidently extolled the platonic Eros,
and how warm, enthusiastic friendships, often of a most sentimental nature, were formed among them.‘86
It would be foolish to deny that the vices of a few cast their shadows over the high ideals of the
age and contaminated its cult of beauty; but there is nothing tojustify the conclusion that its greatest
and noblest men, and among them Leonardo, were under the dominion of similar \veakness.‘87 The
platonic idea of love propounded by Socrates in the Symposium, is of a religious nature; beauty has
its origin in God and is the earthly reflection of the divine. The worship of beauty was therefore a
religious cult with these Florentine platonists.

 

LEONARDO :7 Allegorieal drawing of the battle of
the sexes. Pen-drawing. Oxford.

.A__. L __‘<A_. —————.A

.1»

 

 

-_.__u

 

’e

 

 

(llOTTO : Adoration of the Magi. Fresco (cire. 1307) in the (‘hurcll of the Arena, I’adua.

XVIII

It will be seen how Leonardo by virtue of his genius as an artist,

began many things, but never completed anything, as it seemed to

him that his hand could not attain to the artistic perfection in his

works at which he aimed, because in his mind he formed and created

such subtle and marvellous difficulties, that they could never be

expressed by the aid of hands, no matter how excellent the capa-

bility of which they were possessed. VASARI.
N the Ioth January, 1478, when Leonardo had been a member of the Painters’
Guild in Florence for about six years, he received an order from the State. He was
then rather more than twenty-five years of age. In the minutes of the transac-
tion preserved in the State Archives of Florence, we find a few items of information
regarding this commission in the form of a contract. It concerned an altar-piece
for the chapel of S. Bernard in the Florentine Council House, the present Palazzo
. Vecchio.‘88 The contract says nothing as to the subject of the picture, nor yet as
to its price; but on the other hand it appears from the documents that it had originally been ordered
from Piero del Pollaiuolo, and that for some reason or other the order was transferred to Leonardo
scarcely three weeks later.’89 It further appears from one of the entries that Leonardo had received
the sum of twenty-five florins on account “for a portion of the altar-piece,” so it may perhaps be
assumed that the picture was taken in hand. The work was certainly never completed. Leonardo’s
name does not occur again in connection with the commission ; and four years later it was placed in

the hands of Domenico Ghirlandaio.

Leonardo, indeed, had left Florence late in the autumn of 1481, and entered the service of Ludovico

I39

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

Moro. It is not probable that from
that time he put the Signoria off with
promises, but as the years passed and
nothing was obtained from him, the
lords of the Council were compelled
to apply to another artist. The
Commission seems to have been
under an unlucky star, for it does
not appear that Ghirlandaio fulfilled
the contract or delivered the picture.
He was an extremely busy master, at
the head of a large studio, and in
this case we must suppose that he
was unable to set his apprentices and
assistants to the work, as was so
often done. If we may believe
Milanesi’s Anonimo, the picture was
finally executed by Filippino Lippi
“from Leonardo’s drawing.”‘°° The
picture by Filippino that has been
connected with this order from the Signoria for the chapel of S. Bernard, now hangs in the Uffizi (No.
1,268), and represents the Virgin enthroned, with four saints. The signature is dated the 10th
February, I485. It has been thought possible to conclude, from this picture, the subject of the picture
for which Leonardo received the commission. From the documents, however, it appears that
Filippino’s altar-piece with the four patron saints of Florence, SS. John the Baptist, Zenobius, Victor
and Bernard, and with the arms of Florence attached to the vault above the hovering angels, was not
ordered for the S. Bernard Chapel, but was intended for the Sala del Consiglio, the large council-
chamber, also called the “lily—chamber.” There the picture hung until recently transferred to the
Uffizifg‘ No question can be raised here of any drawing or idea for the composition from Leonardo’s
hand. Filippino’s picture is a traditional, old-fashioned composition in the spirit of Botticelli?”

What then was Leonardo’s picture to represent? And is there no trace of any work for this com-
mission? The artist spent nearly four years in Florence-after receiving the order. Is it possible that
he did not even make a sketch for the satisfaction of the great council? Is the Anonimo’s statement
about Filippino a pure fabrication?

 

LORENZO MONACO: Adoiation of the Magi (circ. I420). Uffizi.

There exist two unfinished pictures by Leonardo, cartoons in brown monochrome of two fully
worked out compositions, which never
arrived at a life in colour. One in the
Vatican represents S. Jerome in his
hermit’s cave, doing penance before a
crucifix. The other picture, now hanging
in the U ffizi, is a very large composition,

 

containing a greater number of figures

than any other work Leonardo executed,

Adoration of the Magi. Early Christian sarcophagus relief in the museum at Ravcnna.

I40

 

THE ADORATION OF THE MAGI

and represents the Adoration of the
Magi. Both belong to the first period
of Leonardo’s production, the Florence
period before 1482393

Can either of these pictures be that
intended for the S. Bernard chapel?
The S. jerome is out of the question.
The Council of Florence would never
have ordered any picture of that
eminent ascetic (who had nothing to do
with Florence), for a chapel dedicated
to another saint. There is more to be
said in favour of an Adoration of the
Magi in the Council Hall of the re-
public. Giotto, in his representation
of the subject in the church of the Arena
in Padua, had already given it a typical
form for the composition. Even there
we can trace the dramatic character, and the foreign romance that should distinguish the procession
of the “wise men from the East,” who follow the star until it comes to the humble stable. Since then,
artists such as Gentile da Fabriano, Lorenzo Monaco, Fra Angelico, Benozzo Gozzoli, Botticelli,
Filippino, and above all Leonardo, have each in their way contributed towards the further development
of the story in the direction either of dramatic life and narrative, or of pomp and splendour with
a reflection of the life of the period.‘94

The Adoration of the Magi is an old and favourite subject in Italian art. Like most other Biblical
anecdotes it came as an inheritance from early Christian art and the Byzantines. On the walls of the
catacombs and on early Christian sarcophagi, we see for the first time these romantic Wise Men, Magi
from the East in Phrygian caps and long trousers, hastening by the light of the guiding star towards the
wonderful Child at Bethlehem. On the church walls in Ravenna they are mosaically represented in
the same eastern apparel; bearers of offerings, large vessels of gold in their hands, they hasten with
fluttering garments and eager steps towards the throne on which the Virgin Queen of Heaven awaits
them with her Child, surrounded by a guard of angels. As yet there is nothing to indicate that the
three wise men are kings, and they are not distinguished one from another in race, age or dignity.
Little by little the subject of the gift-bearing magi is merged in that of the Nativity. Joseph is added
and the angels disappear, the throne of the Queen of Heaven gives place to the manger, to the stable
shed with its thatched roof, to the ox
and the ass as spectators. As the con-
ditions of the Child become poorer, the
splendour of the strangers increases.
The wise men become kings, their
Phrygian caps crowns; their garments

‘\A‘T‘\“A\r\.\\s\\\x\\\"' ,
.. . -..x

 

GENTIIJ‘L DA FAURIANO 2 Adoration of the Magi (1423). Accademia, Florence.

 

are longer and richer, their retinue

Adoration of the Magi. Byzantine mosaic (about 560, restored) in S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna. n’lOI‘C ”TIPOSlng‘ At laSt they appear

I41

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

as three travelling monarchs, a bearded old man, a young king, the third a inoorish or negro prince,
accompanied by a crowded court and train of horses, mules, camels, giraffes, monkeys, leopards, falconS,
besides a considerable amount of baggage. Like a tail, the procession winds along the roads. \Vhen
it settles, in the old ruin, where the Virgin has sought shelter with her Babe under a temporary
thatched roof, the scene becomes busy, whilst the walls resound with the shouts of men and the cries
of animals. The act of adoration takes place in the foreground, with genuflexions and bowings
The oldest of the kings salutes the Child in oriental fashion by throwing himself on the ground and
kissing the hem of the Mother’s garmentj while the two younger kings, the youth and the negro, stand
behind expectantly in admiration. 7

Florence, a commercial city with numerous wide-spread trade connections, a town to which gold
and gifts flowed from East and \Vest, was a natural centre for the legend of the Three Kings to
acquire a certain patriotic symbolism, and not least for the merchant-family whose members were its
uncrowned rulers. Even a score of years before the date of which we are writing, when old Cosimo
desired Benozzo to decorate the chapel of the Medici palace with frescoes, he selected the journey of
the Three Kings as the subject of the frescoes (p. 144). By attaching himself, with other members of
his family, to the retinue of the Magi, the cunning merchant succeeded in immortalising the house of
Medici by their portraits, while at the same time he managed to indicate to whom all this gold was
really dedicated. When, in the year 14.78, a faithful adherent of the house of Medici determined to
present an altar-piece to the church of S. Maria Novella, and at the same desired to honour the
powerful ruling family, he commissioned Botticelli to paint an Adoration of the Magi. \Vith such a
subject the painter could bring the entire family into the sacred drama, the grandfather Cosimo and
his two sons as the three kings, the grandsons Lorenzo and Giuliano as young princes in the splendid
retinue (p. 146).

As a subject the Epiphany was fashionable during these and succeeding years. One representation
after another came from the studios of Botticelli, Ghirlandaio and, Filippino some by the hands of
those artists themselves, others the work of pupils and assistants such as Amico di Sandro.

A reason for this popularity is to be found in the fact that the composition gave scope for the high
animal spirits and realism that attracted and delighted the minds of men. Here the Florentine
aristocracy, who had long since overcome all shyness of sacred things, could enter into close prox-
imity to the Mother of God and her Son. Upon the pretext of bringing gifts, they stood on an
intimate footing with the celestial world. .

There is much to favour the assumption that the Signoria in I478 may have ordered a picture of the
Adoration for the Council House, and that Leonardo’s cartoon is that picture. There are only two
objections to be offered against this suggestion. The first is that the chapel was dedicated to S. Bernard,
and therefore the subject might be expected to be one in which that saint figured. The only subject possible
in such likelihood would be one Filippino Lippi ten years later handled with such success in his well-
known Badia picture, in which the Virgin Mary manifests herself to the Cistercian monk as he writes.
But there is not the slightest indication of such picture in the whole of Leonardo’s production.“

On the other hand that the subject of the Epiphany is suitable for any chapel. There might more-
over have been room for other pictures in which S. Bernard was the subject. So the objection as to
the name of the chapel carries little weight. It would be different if, on closer investigation, it were
to appear that Leonardo’s cartoon could be connected with another order, and this is the direction the
general assumption takes.

142

 

 

MASACCIO Z Adoralion of the Magi. l’redella(painted 1426). Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin.

XIX

AN SCOPETO was the name of a monastery standing outside the Porta
Romana to the south of Florence, and dedicated to S. Donate a Scopeto. The
monastery has long since disappeared. When, during the death-struggle of the
Republic in I529, the Florentlnes expected to be surrounded by the imperial
army, and, “seized with a strange madness,” blindly destroyed every building
that might possibly become a stronghold of the enemy, this monastery was also
levelled to the ground.‘96 The Memorialc, in the monks’ journal, has been
preserved. \Ve know from other sources that Leonardo’s father, Ser Piero. was on very good terms
with the monks. As early as 1469 he was connected with it as notary, and he retained this office,
which brought him in a good annual income, for a long while after Leonardo had disappointed the
monks and left Florence ; for Ser Piero’s connection with S. Donato had also procured for his son a
commission from the monastery.

Under the date of July 2-5, 1481, we read in the monks’ journal: “Leonardo di Ser Piero da
Vinci has undertaken since March, 1480, to paint a pain (altar-piece) for our high altar. This he
must complete within twenty-four, or at most thirty, months, and if he has not completed it he will
have forfeited his right to what he has done, and we shall be at liberty to do what we like with
it. For this altar—piece he is to receive a third part of the property in the Val d’Elsa . . . .‘97
This property, however, the monks reserved the right of buying back after three years for the
sum of 300 florins, which must thus have been its minimum value. In the meanwhile, Leonardo, in
addition to finding his own painting materials, was to provide a dowry of 150 florins for a certain
young girl named in the contract. Finally it was stipulated that the painter—the monks evidently
knew him of oldfimust not undertake any other work at the same time. It is doubtful whether
Leonardo found the conditions particularly favourable. In March, I480, he undertook the work, and
through financial documents we can follow its progress step by step up to the 28th September, 1481.
On that day the artist had a barrel of red Wine sent him from the monastery to his house in
Florence; and then Leonardo’s account disappears from the monastery books, probably more or less
simultaneously with his own disappearance from Florence. On the 25th February, 1482, we find him

143

4~/

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

with Ludovico Moro in Milan hard at '
work upon the Sforza monument. This
we know from an epigram that the poet
Francesco Arrigoni sent on that day to

Ludovico for the base of the equestrian
statue.“ Thus the monks of S. Donato
were no more successful than the Sig- ~
noria in obtaining an altar-piece from

Leonardo. He began, as he so often
did, with vigour and pleasure in his

'

work; but as the work proceeded he
made difficulties where they did not
present themselves, was always busied

with fresh problems, and worked under

 

an ever-increasing burden of criticism.

I’hoto. Alinari.

FRA ANGELICO:Adorationof the Magi(circ.145o). Accarlemia,Florence). 1X1: last, \Veary of it all and POSSCSSBd
with some new idea, he left the work unfinished and his patron in the lurch. \Vhat did this unfin-
ished altar-piece for the monks of S. Donato represent? That the picture was begun we cannot

but believe, judging from the numerous payments in money and in kind, among them (contrary to
to the terms of the contract) one for pigments. All that can be. said is that when, after waiting
patiently for fifteen years, the monks transferred the com-
mission to Filippino Lippi, the subject was an Adoration
of the Magi. In 1496 they received the picture that now
hangs in the Uffizi, in the same room as Leonardo’s unfin-
ished cartoon, which testifies with sufficient distinctness as
to who created the ideas and who borrowed them (compare
pp. 147 and 148). This would seem to favour the sugges-
tion that the original commission given to Leonardo was
also for an Adoration, and that Leonardo’s cartoon is the
monks’ picture. The monks might have altered their
minds on the subject during those fifteen years. Perhaps
their first order was for something quite different, cg, the
holy hemrit with the lion, S. Jerome performing acts of
penance, a very suitable subject for world renouncing
ecclesiastics. But the fame of Leonardo’s Adoration,
which, as Vasari tells us, remained in Florence and was
admired there, may likely have inflamed them with a desire
for something similar, and they possibly commissioned
Filippino to paint the same subject. There is no lack of

 

possibilities. In itself there was nothing remarkable in

 

countermanding a commission after waiting for so long a

Photo .Alinari.

period, and giving it to another artist. If an example IS BICNOZZO GOZXOLI: Processingofzpe))lagi(wilhportrairsolthe
, , . Medici ‘ami y

necessary we can find one In Leonardo’s own experlence. Fresco(x463)in the Chapel of the Medici palace, Florence.

144

 

.-,«-—‘——-———. -——_ -—.._.

 

THE TWO CONTRACTS—THE MONKS’ PICTURE

 

AMICO DI SANDRO: Adoration of the Magi(circ. 1480). Uffizi. Photo. Brogi.

The Servite monks in Florence had ordered an altar-piece from him for the Annuziata. Leonardo
executed the cartoon, which is now in London and represents S. Anne with the Virgin upon her lap,
and the Infant Christ. The cartoon was exhibited and much admired, but Leonardo took it no
further, and the monks had to relinguish the thought of a picture from him. For the third time it
fell to the lot of Filippino, as a prompt deliverer, to profit by Leonardo’s shortcomings. When the
commission came to him, however, it was no longer the same; the picture now to be supplied was a
representation of the Descent from the Cross.‘99

Filippino did not succeed in finishing the picture before his death in 1504, and it was completed
by Perugino, now hanging in the Academy in Florence. It has been brought forward as a proof of
the Donato theory that the shape of Leonardo’s and Filippino’s Adorations is the same. This would
only be a positive proof if the measurements were exactly similar and determined by one frame or
one altar in the Donato monastery, which is not the case.“ The shape is similar and that is all, and
the reason is only because Filippino has allowed himself to be altogether influenced by Leonardo’s
composition, and has also imitated its square shape.

There is one point in the journal of the Donato monks that is perhaps worthy of notice, and it
does not favour the Donato theory. An entry appears under June 25, I48I, of an outlay of
4 lire IO soldi for an ounce of blue ((1221570) and of4 lire for an ounce of yellow (gial/olino) for the
painter Leonardo da Vinci. But where in the Adoration of the Magi, which is executed entirely in
monochrome ground-colouring in bitumen tones, is there any blue or yellow? Are we justified in
simply supposing that Leonardo procured colours at the monks’ expense and did not use them for
their picture? Judging from the notes of disbursements, he still continued to work at the picture
for at least three months after this. Is it possible that even then he had had no use for the monks’
expensive blue and yellow pigments ?

Thus it appears that one argument is met by another, and proofs are altogether wanting.
Investigators and authors are therefore divided in opinion, or hesitate between the two hypotheses.
Vasari, unfortunately, is very brief. He merely says that Leonardo began a picture of the Adoration
of the Magi full of beautiful details. “ This picture was in the house of Amerigo Benci opposite the
Peruzzi’s loggia ; this picture too, like so many of the master’s works remained unfinished.”

He says nothing as to who had commissioned the picture. As a matter of fact, Vasari’s information
would indirectly tell against the theory about the monks, for according to the contract, the picture
was to belong to them even if unfinished; and we may be certain that they would assert their right,

145 'r

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

SANDRO BOTTICELLI : Adoration of the Magi (circ. 1478). Uffizi. Photo. Alinari.

perhaps through Ser Piero, the manager of their affairs. If, therefore, the picture Vasari speaks about
as being in Amerigo Benci’s house is that commenced for the monks, it could only have come there
by subsequent transference or sale from the monastery. If, however, the monks had got rid of the
picture they would scarcely have waited fifteen years before giving a new commission.

Nor is the laconic statement of the Anonimo in favour of the Donato theory. He simply says:
“ He began to paint a picture in the above-mentioned palace (Signoria) which was afterwards finished
from his drawing (5le mo disegn) by Filippo di Fra Filippo” (w, Filippino Lippi)?“ If we here
especially emphasise the words sul suo dz‘segn, it is because they have more or less bearing upon the
resemblance in composition between Leonardo’s and Filippino’s Adorations, a resemblance that may
easily have led to the mistaken belief that Filippino’s Adoration of the Magi was also painted for the
Signoria chapel.

It is true that the majority of recent art—historians hold the. Donato theory, and a few of those

r

Lu

 

Vag~w 41A

\VHEN DID THE IDEA ORIGINATE?

who favoured that of the Signoria com-
mission havejoined them. That the car-
toon in the Uffizi is identical with the
picture ordered by the monks, is the
opinion held by Milanesi, Crowe and
Cavalcase’lle, Richter and Mt‘intz,
Se’ailles and Rosenberg, and now also
by Bode, Miiller-VValde and Gronau,
as also, with certain reservations, by
Berensonf‘”

Several of these writers, however,
formerly identified the Adoration with
the Signoria picture. Dr. Bode, the
editor of Burckhardt’s Cicerone, even
in the fifth edition’of that work, held
the opinion that the Adoration was
probably the picture ordered in 1478 for
the Palazzo Vecchio. Only recently has
he gone over to the opposite View, now
suggesting—somewhat thoughtlessly—
that the S. Jerome in the Vatican might
be the Signoria picture. It will cause
little surprise to find that M'Liller—Walde runpmo um, Adomfion of we Magi.
has veered round in exactly the same
way. In his life of Leonardo (1889) he brings forward the Signoria hypothesis; but in his Barrage of
1897, where he abandons so many of his former assertions, he arrives at an opposite conviction”?

 

Altar-piece about 1496. Umzi.

Berenson, in his Florentine Painters (1899), also gives the Adoration as begun in 1478, consequently
as the Signoria picture; but in his great work on the Drawings (1903), he too has gone over to
Milanesi’s Donato theory. Berenson’s acquaintance, however, with the drawings connected with the
picture is far too intimate for him not to have noticed a connection with studies that are earlier than
1481. He guards himself with the remark that Leonardo had evidently been considering an
Adoration long before he received the order from the monks.

This is the heart of the argument. When did the idea of the Adoration of the Magi occur to
Leonardo? The question as to who ordered the picture might in itself be a matter of complete
indifference, were it not that it, too, is a question of date; and the date is of no little importance in
a case where the most important years of Leonardo’s artistic career are concerned, the years in which
ideas fermented and welled up within him, and fought their way to a fixed form. For we shall see in
the following pages how the date question ramifies and throws light upon the development of his art.

It is therefore more than a mere question of illuminating clearly an important point in a great
man’s progress. It is a question of dating correctly one of the greatest achievements ever witnessed

in the history of art a work which, in spite of its unfinished state, revolutionised Florentine painting

 

and through it marked an epoch in European art.
By degrees we shall see clearly that the development turns as upon a pivot. The mediem‘al

I47

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

ceases and the modern begins. To date this moment, the very birth year of modern ar

t, is surel
worth some trouble, and we will not rest content with an approximation. But in order to arrive a);

what is historically true it is not sufficient to operate with fragments of documents more or legs
doubtfully interpreted. From the written letter we must turn to the artistic productions themselves
)

 

and only upon a thorough study of their mutual connection—logical and psychological can a true

comprehension be based. This investigation may with truth be said to be the Chief aim of this book

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI : Adoration of the Magi. Unfinished altar-piece in the Uffizi.

 

 

 

LEONARDO: Pen-drawing about 1478. Uffizi.

XX

Therefore, 0 painter, if thou wilt escape the blame of those who understand,
be‘diligent in drawing all things from nature, and despise not studies, as those men
do whose sole object is the making of money. LEONARDO.

 

N the course of my studies in Florence, in 1901, on the drawings of the Florentine
painters, and especially the productions of Leonardo da Vinci, I re~read Jean Paul
Richter’s fundamental book on the literary works of Leonardo da Vinci, and made
the following note: Richter finds no occasion for discussing the studies for the
Adoration of the Magi, as there are no written notes in any way connected with
that picture. He might, however, have found occasion in the authentic drawing
dated “ . . . mbre 1478,” in the Uffizi, of two‘ profiles—an old man with an aquiline
nose and projecting nether lip, and a youth with face raised in foreshortened profile. Both these
are undoubtedly, and evidently, connected with the Adoration. In style also, the sheet of studies
agrees exactly with the well-known sketch for the composition, which has passed from the Galichon
collection to the Louvre, and which in my opinion should also be referred to the same early period
of Leonardo’s career. The Adoration of the Magi, generally considered to have been begun only in
1481, ought to be dated—as an idea, in any case—three years earlier. The correctness of this
assumption may be proved by comparative studies of drawings, and ought to be carefully gone into.

The drawing that forms the starting point for our investigation (see p. I50) is to be found in the
Uffizi, in the room containing the drawings of the great masters. The leaf of a sketch-book, of
white, rather thin, ribbed paper, it measures 20 by 26% centimetres. Unfortunately, a large piece of
the right lower corner has been torn off, and with it part of the inscription; so that the studies
of machinery that have filled the right half of the page are no longer entire. This important sheet
must be examined and described as carefully as possible. The authenticity of the drawing has been
placed beyond doubt by the inscription in Leonardo’s own handwriting, thus providing a peculiar
biographic and historical interest.”4

 

 

 

 

I49

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

‘,',..
,..
\

     

3;, - ,
«few, \ .

_ $’ .Ikfi . .-- -
{fines ’W‘fif'fif'. - t .
: . 1-,: V, ,ff )1“ . S; ,3” _:.

 

 

 

' , _ . i ;.3 ‘i’ x l'
" ,,. i, ‘I V as
: -;:.v‘ ‘ . 9" ‘u
, ' in L. 'i ,t :3 _ __
s 1 ‘1‘?“ " ' ;, ‘-

LEONARDO : Leaf of a sketch-book of 1478. Pen-drawing in the Uffizi.

 

Photo. Iirogi.

With bold, rapid strokes of the pen, two heads have been drawn in the middle of the paper, an
old and a young man, both in profile, facing one another. The old man is aged, as is shown by his
sunken upper lip, his hooked nose and wrinkled throat ; but the glance of the deep set eye is keen,
the carriage erect, and the expression characterised by great firmness. The hair is still abundant
upon the high, round head, and falls forward in a thick, waving mass over the forehead. A brow
that looks as though it had often been knitted in wrath, overshadows the large, black, sunken eye.
Here the vigorous strokes of the pen run together into a black pool of shadow. The nose is long and
bony, and, as is usual in Leonardo’s heads of old men, curves down over the sunken-in mouth, almost
touching the upward thrust of the lower lip. On cheek and neck the skin hangs in folds, but the bony
structure is prominent and gives firmness and energy to the face.

Opposite this powerful profile of an old man, the head of a youth is sketched with a few masterly
strokes, in foreshortened profile, seen a little from behind on the left. The line of the nape and
shoulder show that the figure is bending, but the eye is raised and fixed upon its object as if in
adoration; and the angles of the face are thus greatly foreshortened. In this position, the obtuse
angle of the forehead, the acute angle of the nose, and the round projection of the chin are set down

150

 

1A DRAWING THAT GIVES A CLUE

in three or four wonderfully sure strokes, and a single stroke
Of the pen has been sufficient to give to the eye an expres-
sion of ardent devotion A few more light touches, and the
head is furnished With an abundant growth of hair falling
in heavy tufts over the brow. We will call particular
attention to this manner of drawing the hair as an easily
recognised detail of style constantly to be met with in
~Leonardo’s early pen sketches. There is absolutely no
ground for believing that the two profiles have any direct
connection; but as they face each other on the same
sheet of paper, they form an effective contrast between
age and youth which Leonardo at other times in his life
sought and consciously emphasised?05

The other half of the paper, as also the back, is
covered with studies for machinery. The problem that
has here occupied the artist is evidently the cog-wheel
and its application to a turbine-like engine. The upper-
most drawing shows an apparatus for stopping a revolving
wheel, a curved arm of iron, which, with a double claw,

 

engages in curved hooks on a wheel. . 7 . . .

Finally, the sheet has a very extraordinary value to 1‘1‘30NARDOII’7‘FWO“ Cha‘kdmwmg' “Ti”
students on account of the words written at the top and bottom in Leonardo’s peculiar mirror script,
giving inter alia a date. , 4

At the top may be read: Fiemumztj di domcnj c/zo j firenze ed; apv ammztz‘ssimo qua/ll mj ej Vergz'n
chjjmnj; and beneath, in a line by itself, in def 7107711726, and below that again the words mmmzf quanta
are repeated. . ,

At the bottom may be read: . . . bra I478 j c/zomz'cz'aj. [(3. 2. S. Vginc. Maria, and beneath, written
with many graceful flourishes : 6 Mafia j pisstoja.

The inscription, very difficult to decipher and doubtful in places, has not previously been given in
its entirety, or correctly copied.” I read it as follows: Fiemvmzti di Domenico in FIE/61126 6 0/16 (rpm/716
mnmztissimo quanta mi 6 mm (i or jzmm) verging 0126 i0 ami, or translated: “ Fieravanti, Domenico’s
son, in Florence, who showed himself as extraordinarily affectionate towards me as a maiden, I could
love”; and further: “ (Settem) 121/0 I478 i0 cominciai [6 due Vergz'nc Marie . . . e comfiagna in Pistoja,”
or translated: “ In September, 1478, I began the two Madonnas . . . and a similar one in Pistoia.”

What is the meaning of this fragmentary and obscure note, which seems to be the beginning of
a letter; and can enquiry produce any result at all from it ?

The fact that Leonardo, who so rarely mentions contemporaries or people in his writings, here
mentions by name a young man of his acquaintance, and moreover one who has stood in a certain
relation to his erotic sense, of which he still more rarely speaks, may be worthy of notice; but as
long as we know nothing more about this Fieravanti di Domenico, we can hardly come to any
definite conclusion from this ambiguous sentence.

I have tried to follow up the clue, and have found that the name Fieravanti or Fioravanti belongs
to an old noble family in Pistoia, which can be traced back to 1267, when a Fioravanti d’Accorsa

151

 

 

I fl‘l

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

was a member of the Council.“ Several gonfaloniers, members of the Council of Elders, o/m/m' d,‘
5.](160/20, or canons of the cathedral of Pistoia, belonged to this family, and one or two of them even
became gonfaloniers under the Florentine republic?“ At the time of the siege in 1529, mention is
made of a “ Capitan Fioravanti da Pistoia,” who was killed in 1530. A statico Bastimzo di Loy/£11120
Fiomvmzti is also mentioned in 1529, and a Jacopo Fioravanti was killed in 1537.“) The arms of the
family, moreover, show Pistoian origin, as the coat-of—arms of the town of Pistoia is a chessboard
pattern with red squares upon a white ground, while the Fioravanti arms are a similar red and white
check S. Andrew’s cross upon a yellow shield.

More important, however, than the note about Fieravanti are the two lines at the foot, which, in
spite of their fragmentary nature, contain three important items of information: (I) The date I478,
(2) the information that the artist was then beginning two Madonnas, and (3) their connection with
Pistoia or a man in Pistoia. (It is obvious that the two incomplete lines should be connected by an
addition which would make them say that the two Madonnas that Leonardo began in September,
I478, were an order from Pistoia.)

, The Pistoians, as we know, at this period were accustomed to apply to Verrocchio and his studio
when they had commissions to give for the decoration of their town and its churches. About 1476,
the altar-piece for the sacrament chapel of the cathedral was ordered from Verrocchio, and in the
year following he was entrusted with the execution of the great marble monument that the Pistoians
had determined to raise to the memory of their fellow-townsman, Cardinal Forteguerri. We might
also mention other smaller commissions, such as the City arms upon the Council House, a bust of
Christ, etc. We find, therefore, in 1477-78, that Verrocchio’s studio had been moved to Pistoia,
where, under the direction of Lorenzo de Credi, these commissions were being carried out. '

Leonardo, it is true, was no longer one of Verrocchio’s apprentices or assistants. Verrocchio was
a teacher and master whom few of his pupils willingly left; but after the anonymous accusation in
I476, Leonardo seems definitely to have left Verrocchio’s house and set up a studio of his own. For
all that, he may very well have kept up his connection with his old fellow-students, and, for instance,
have visited Lorenzo di Credi in Pistoia; and when on such a visit, he may have formed the
acquaintance of the Pistoian family of Fieravanti, and possibly also have received commissions for
two Madonnas.

The two Madonnas that the artist himself says he commenced cannot be identified. With our
knowledge of Leonardo’s manner of working, we cannot be sure that because the pictures were begun
they were ever finished. In any case the original pictures are no longer to be found. To form some
idea of their composition and contents, we must institute a critical search among Leonardo’s
drawings, and see whether we can find anything that may agree in motive or style with the note of
I478. An investigation of this kind, to be undertaken later, will not be altogether without result.

The most important information that Leonardo’s autograph note on this particular sheet gives is
the year 1478. With this date and the sheet in our possession, we shall be able to group and date
a whole series of Leonardo’s most interesting and beautiful studies, which, by their contents or
stylistic resemblance, are closely connected with one another, and must therefore date from that or
the succeeding years. In the second place we shall also be able, from the results thus obtained,
to assign the precise date to the disputed picture of the Adoration of the Magi. Finally, in the
course of our investigations with regard to this picture, we shall come upon a fresh clue that will lead
to another and still more important result concerning Leonardo’s work.

152

 

 

———» w o

.a an»...

 

 

 

 

Never has any one equalled him in such perfect representation
of naturalness, goodness, beauty and grace. VASARI.

N the Royal collection of drawings at Windsor is the richest mine in the world for the
study of Leonardo da Vinci’s draughtsmanship. Among a multitude of later studies
and sketches (for the Last Supper, the Sforza monument, the S. Anne, the work on
anatomy, etc.), the collection includes the leaf of a sketch-book, thickly covered on
both sides with studies, which, it is immediately apparent, belongs to the period of
the artist’s youth in Florence (pp. 155 and 162). This impression is given in the
first place by the markedly Florentine or, more definitely characterised, Verroci
chiesque nature of the numerous clean lined, severe profiles scattered over the sheet, and also by an
incontestable likeness to the Florentine sheet of 1478, on which “the two Madonnas ” are indicated.

Like those on the Florentine sheet (p. I50), these drawings are pen studies—youths, young girls,
and old men. The paper is of the same white, rather thin, ribbed kind. Measuring the Windsor
sheet, we find that it is exactly twice the height of the Florentine drawing, and very nearly the same
width (40 x 28), so that if the Windsor sheet were folded in two, it would be of about the same shape
as the sheet in the Uffizi. If we look carefully, we shall find that it has been so folded, for the paper
is worn and inclined to give way in the middle, as if it had lain in a book or portfolio for a long time.

The Windsor sheet contains so much that is interesting, that one turns it over and over in doubt
as to which side is to be given the distinction of being called the “front ”; but the richest, at any
rate, is the side with eleven profiles. Eleven heads all turn'the same way, towards the right; and
although they represent now quite a young‘boy, now a youth of riper years, now a budding maiden,
and now a fine old man of seventy, the impression they convey is that/of a master’s variations upon
one and the same theme.

It is reminiscent of a Beethoven sonata. Sweet, tenderly outlined boys and girls begin the
movement. From andante and adagio-tempi the drawing rises to a vigorous presto in hard
masculine profiles, and culminates with a hissing furioso of snarling beasts of prey; but the leading
motive is always the same, the profile, which follows a consistent course of development. The youth
in the middle is charming, with gently waving locks and softly curving lips. No one in the world
has ever understood as Leonardo the art of endowingi a face with the fresh perfume of youth.
The expression of this young face is open and tender, confidingly pure, and melting into unconscious

153 U

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

sensuousness. The boy and the maiden approach one another in
this glowing representation of youth, and the boundary between the
sexes is almost obliterated. Immediately below the head of the boy,
are drawn, feature for feature, the same soft profile with the clear
dreamer’s eye, the full, fresh lips, and the beautifully rounded chin.
But the face is that of a girl. The sister—involuntarily we call her
so——is as fascinating a handmaiden as her brother the page. Her
throat is bare, her hair falls in ringlets about her temples and is
gathered under a little cap behind, as in Verrocchio’s bust. Her
body is slightly protruding, as was the fashion with young ladies of
that time (see Ghirlandaio’s frescoes). The features are the same,
2k 47) ...\ but how feminine and girlish. The womanly quality is revealed more
-' ,\‘.~\ g“ :- clearly in the little sketch beside her, in which the same young girl is
_/ NR\ ~».\> drawn with inclined head, like a young mother bending over the babe

If / %\\\\\\ at her breast. In another profile the type has developed into the
LEONARDO; Fmasheetofstudies. Windson profile of a self-reliant, handsome Roman emperor, touched with
sensual cruelty. In this way the type changes and grows over the

Sheet from the child to the old man and back again to the child, and then spreads to the other side
of the paper (see p. 162) with heads of dragons and lions. Does it not seem as if in these outlines
the artist had pondered and sought for a connection and a truth that he wished to impress upon
himself and others? “Man, man, how like yourself you always are! The years pass, the body is
changed, son follows father, sister follows brother, the
youth becomes a man, the maiden becomes a mother.
You can even become like an animal. And yet your lot
is everlasting and unalterable. For your nature, 0 man,
is determined by inheritance l ” The Windsor sheet with
its numerous profiles is the study of a painter-philosopher;
it contains the philosophy of a reflecting eye. Who are
these people, this old father or grandfather with his off-
spring? Involuntarily we imagine that some tie of blood
binds these kindred types together, and that the profiles
have been sketched from models. Can it be the artist’s
grandfather, the old wine-grower Antonio da Vinci, or
perhaps Ser Piero himselfwith his flock of children? Ser
Antonio had died ten years before the drawing was made
(about I478) ; Leonardo’s own father was then not more
than fifty-one, and the artist’s eldest half-brother had
scarcely completed his second year. The suggestion
must be negatived, and it is hopeless to offer further
guesses. Let the matter rest‘ with the fact that both the
old and the young profiles are types that often haunted
Leonardo’s fancy, and return again and again to his mind

   
     
  
 

/
/

 

when his hand holds the pen. This powerful old man with LEONARDO. measlwem, “dies, Windgor.

154

it

_-<- _..-.A

 

,L

LEONARDO : Sheet of studies, with eleven profiles.

Pen-drawing (about (478).

 

Royal Library Windsor Castle.

 

 

   

LEONARDO DA VINCI

the high forehead, the flamboyant hair, the projecting
cheek-bones and the sunken upper lip, we have met
once'before on the Florentine sheet of 1478 (p. 150).
We shall meet him again. It may be said that the
likeness is not great, but that it is a typo. Yes, it is
a type, one that Leonardo delighted in and cultivated
at the time when these drawings were made (about
1478), perhaps with a particular model as its origin
and foundation. This stern type of old man may be
termed Leonardo’s Colleoni type, because it always
seems to echo the expression, the awe-inspiring face
of Verrocchio’s condottiere (p. 49), particularly because
in one of Leonardo’s drawings the type is fixed and
condensed into an ideal condottiere that recalls Colleoni.
The reference, of course, is to that example of the
perseverance of genius, the splendid drawing that left
the Malcolm Collection for the British Museum, which
presents a Renaissance ideal of the firmest modelling
and minutest chasing (p. 133). But to return to the
Windsor sheet with its eleven profiles. Among the
variants of the old man type, that are crowded together
in the corner, is one small head of special interest, because it connects the drawing with a particular
work; and that work with a given year. The drawing
represents an old, bald, stooping head with a long aquiline
nose above a toothless mouth and very prominent chin
(p. 158). In type, position and expression, the head is
the same as the one that is found, furnished with a beard,
upon the stooping figure of Joseph holding the goblet lid
in his hand, behind the Virgin in the Adoration of the
Magi. In reversed position, the type is seen for the
second time in the corresponding old man on the right of
the picture, who is bending forward and shading his eyes
with his hand in order to see the marvel more easily.
This fact established, it will soon be noticed that other
similarities also connect this sketch-book leaf (and the
Uffizi sheet of 1478) with the Adoration. The erect
head of the old man in the drawing recalls that of the
'cloaked figure standing in meditation on the extreme left
of the picture. Note, for instance, the fold of the cloak
at the back of the neck. The boy profiles occur several
times in the throng surrounding the Virgin. The Virgin
of the picture is herself an elder, more mature sister of
the young girls in the Windsor drawing. Finally, with

 

LEONARDO : From a study. About 1478.

 

LEONARDO : The Preacher. Detail from the Adoration of the Magi.

I56

 

 

 

 

 

 

A PORTRAIT OF HIMSELF?

illuminating certainty, we realise that the youth with
raised face and hair hanging over the forehead in the
drawing of 1478, must be an actual study for one of
the young men in the picture, namely, the figure in
the middle of the group on the right, who raises hand
and face in ecstatic description of the wonder he has
witnessed.“0 Having become aware of this resem—
blance, we also notice that this type of youth with
deep-set eyes, sharply pointed nose, delicate mouth
and short, determined chin, is repeated even more
noticeably in the young man who stands in the fore-
ground on the extreme right, and wraps his mantle
around him with a sombre, thoughtful look that passes
beyond the confines of the picture. Who is this
strangely attractive young man, who appears, more
than the others, to stand outside the action, and
who is turning to some one we cannot see? Indeed,
as we examine the picture, we are almost tempted to
imagine that he returns our gaze. He is clad in shin-
ing black armour beneath the cloak, but his head is
uncovered and his position in the composition is that
which painters have often designed for themselves in

 

large representations. For instance, the attractive
youth who occupies a corresponding place in Sandro
Botticelli’s Adoration (p. 146), is supposed to be
Sandro himself. Could the knight with the mysterious face in Leonardo’s picture also be a painter in
disguise, in other words, Leonardo himself? Bernhard Berenson has ventured to throw out the
tempting idea that this is really a portrait of himself by the great master, who at that time must
have been between twenty-six and twenty-eight years of age.

Botticelli’s Adoration in the Uffizi, of which the generally recognised author-portrait is supposed

LEONARDO : The Knight (Portrait of the Painter?) Detail of the Adoration.

to give to this hypothesis the proof of analogy, is, as a composition, an immediate predecessor of
Leonardo’s picture. Directly after the Pazzi conspiracy, Lorenzo de’ Medici commissioned his
favourite painter to paint this altar-piece as a memorial gift to the church of S. Maria Novella. It
must therefore be assumed that; Botticelli’s picture was already begun in 1478; and thus any
influence from Leonardo’s Adoration is out of the question. Botticelli, indeed, has not escaped
from the general mania among art historians to find in Leonardo the source of everything new, at the
expense of his contemporaries and predecessors. With this aim, they have tried to make Botticelli’s
Adoration altogether dependent on Leonardo’s composition, being unable to imagine that Botticelli
could have thought of the central arrangement of the scene for himself; necessarily, they supposed,
he must have borrowed it from Leonardo. Curiously enough, the art historians who, like Bode and
Muntz, consider Leonardo’s Adoration to be identical with the S. Donato picture of 1480—81, are the
very men to maintain this Leonardesque influence upon Botticelli. Unfortunately, these same
connoisseurs seem to have made up their minds to date the Botticelli picture in 1478, or even earlier

I57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

Joseph. Detail of Lhe Adoration. Detail of the VVimlsor Study.

A Pilgrim. Detail of the Adoration.

according to Bode’s statement in the eighth edition of the Cicerone. The assertion will show what
weight should be attached in this case to the statement regarding the Leonardesque influence.

In reality there is not the most distant resemblance in spirit and intention between the two
pictures. Botticelli’s Adoration is a ceremonial picture of the old fashioned style, in which the
performers are well known persons of rank. Leonardo’s Adoration is an intensely and fervently
emotional dramatic scene, and all the actors are taken from an ideal world and not from
Florentine society.

With regard to Leonardo’s attitude towards portraiture in sacred pictures, it may be said in
a general way that like Giotto, Fra Angelico, Masaccio and Michelangelo, he rejected the employ-
ment of portraits in the representation of Bible scenes. Painters such as Fra Filippo, Benozzo,
Rosselli, Ghirlandaio, Botticelli, Filippino, Pinturicchio and Perugino (in the Sistine frescoes)
followed a different rule, and were all ready to put one or two portraits of donors into their pictures.
The actors in their large compositions based upon Bible subjects were well known civil personages.
In Leonardo’s art it was not merely a habit, but an outcome of his mind and nature that the ordinary
and commonplace were kept at a distance; but this does not preclude the possibility of the artist’s
own personality being reflected in some guise or other in his work.

I believe I have proofs that during his preliminary work for the Adoration, Leonardo really did
think of introducing Lorenzo de’ Medici into the composition, and in a position and with a gesture
similar to those of the corner figure in the picture; but he evidently gave up the idea, for the
clear cut features of “the knight ” do not reSemble Lorenzo’s bull—dog physiognomy. Whether they
bear any likeness to Leonardo himself, it is not easy for us to judge. The only authentic portrait of
Leonardo (in Vasari, see p. 23) is from a much later period, when the years had drawn deep furrows
in his brow, and a long beard hid the lower face. All that can be said is that in the Vasari portrait
the eyes are keen and the nosethin and aquiline. Still fewer points for comparison are, of course,
afforded by the famous red chalk drawing in Turin of a bald-headed, long—bearded old man, generally
supposed to be Leonardo’s portrait of himself during the last years of his life.“

It seems to me that the fine drawing at Windsor (p. 160) of an old man sitting contemplatively
at the foot of a tree, wrapped in his cloak, has the same right as the Turin portrait to be mentioned
as a conscious portrait of Leonardo by himself during his later years. The features, which are the
same as in the Turin drawing, are eloquent of wisdom and sorrowful tranquillity. Concerning an

158

i

 

 

it's-,4 a. . .../,- -,

 

 

 

ibrary in Turin.

he L

mg in t

Portrait of himselft’) Red chalk draw

LEONARDO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

artist’s unconscious reflection of himself in his work, or the involuntary resemblance between a
painter’s figures and his own person, Leonardo writes in his Tmttato della Pittum the followingr
noteworthy words, which also serve to throw some light upon the question. “Every painter,” he
says, “who has clumsy hands will make the hands in his pictures clumsy, and will do the same with
the other limbs, unless long study keep him therefrom. Consider well, then, 0 painter, the part
of thee that of all thy person is the ugliest, and seek by study to make improvements in it. If thou
thyself be bestial, thy figures will also be the same and without reason, and likewise the good and bad
that is in thee will in some measure reveal itself in thy figures.” According to this almost ethical
theory of art, it would not be strange if Leonardo’s studies involuntarily acquired a resemblance to
him, even in outward appearance.

 

LEONARDO : Portrait of hinisel{(?). Pen-drawing. \Vindsor.

I

. w ...a.u..—.‘»

.“w-an-mc. r4~an7iq~.. ..

.... a. ._ ._._-_‘, W M.

 

 

. . 9. ‘ V " -'
* ”zap-z. .

ANDREA DEL VERROCCHIO: Studies of children. Louvre. After Berenson.

XXII

Beware of the wooden !

LEONARDO DA VINCI.

N the day when Leonardo drew the studies on the Windsor sheet if he may
have been short of paper, but he was anything but short of ideas. The whole
of the sheet is covered with sketches, no doubt the outcome of an hour when,
thoroughly in the mood, his brain was teeming with fancy as fast as the
Strokes fell from his pen. On the back of the sheet (p. 162) there are sixteen
different profiles, among them two or three of animals, and also a rough, but
fairly large sketch of a Virgin and Child and the little S. John. Finally, in one
corner, the artist has repeated the figure of S. John in adoration on a smaller scale, and beside him is
drawn another figure in a running attitude, presumably the young Baptist in the desert.

The group of the Virgin and Child is supposed to be in the open air, indicated by a few slight
strokes giving the impression of a landscape with mountains. The Virgin is seated, one knee,
supporting the naked Child, who turns eagerly to His mother’s breast7 The Virgin’s head is drawn

 

161 x

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

in two different positions, one looking
down at the Child, and therefore in pro-
file, the other turned towards S. John so
that it is full-face, in both cases with a
delicate little bend of the neck. The
little S. John, approaching from the right
in profile, is almost wholly Verrocchi-
esque, as in the little picture in Dresden
that goes under Credi’s name (p. 125).”2
No less Verrocchiesque is the Infant
Christ with His restless body. Some-
thing like the Same position is found in
one of Alunno di Andrea’s drawings of
the Madonna in the Uffizi (p. 126), and
exactly the same can be seen in the well-
known sheet of studies of little boys by
Verrocchio in the Louvre (one side shown
on p. 161), drawings full of spirit and
keen observation. We also find here the
diagrammatic way of sketching the face
as an oval in which the central axis and
the line of the eyes cross one another, a
manner found in drawings by Verrocchio
or his school (e.g. No. 131 in the Uffizi).
There is therefore good reason for
dating the drawing early in the period
of Leonardo’s career. The back of the
sheet confirms the impression given by
the front that the sheet is synchronous
with the oft-mentioned drawing of I478, LEONARDO: Back of the sheet of Studies (1.). 155). Windsor.
on which the artist speaks of “having
begun the two Madonnas.” This leads to the obvious conclusion that this sketch of a Madonna ‘
is for one of the pictures. In that case it must have been done previously to the Florentine sheet of {
I478, and there is nothing to prevent such an assumption. ’ ' ' V
Was this composition of a Madonna in the Open (for that is what it is) ever executed? With
Leonardo there was never the certainty of anything being finished. Circumstances indicate that the ,
Madonna composition roughly sketched upon this sheet really existed. in a finished state, perhaps I
even as a painting; for the composition appears again in two very famous Madonnas by another ,
great Renaissance painter——Raphael. :
l

 

 

 

 

 

 

Raphael, indeed, was not born when Leonardo, in 1478 (?), made this sketch; but it-is quite
evident that either drawings or a picture by Leonardo, with composition akin to the above sketch,
underlie compositions such as Raphael’s famous La Belle Jardiniere in the Louvre, (painted .
1507-08), or the Esterhazy Madonna Of about the same time, in the Buda-Pest gallery. If we take i

162 l

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .4_ ~. ._.._-—‘~,

 

LEONARDO AND RAPHAEL

"a L.-- -..___,__.,

 

 

Leonardo’s variant with the inclined head in half profile, and
compare it with La ’Belle Jardinierewe are struck by the
resemblance of the movements of both the Virgin and the
Children in the two compositions; while a glance at our repro-
duction of the drawing in the Uffizi for the Esterhazy Madonna
will convince the beholder of the connection between Leonardo’s
sketch of the kneeling Virgin and this composition by Raphael."3
Finally, Raphael’s Madonna of the Meadow (painted 1505)
in the gallery in Vienna should also be reckoned among the
youthful productions of that artist influenced by Leonardo. But
there are other early Madonna studies from Leonardo’s hand, i ,
and not a few in number. We will endeavour to group them,
omitting, however, all preliminary drawings for the Virgin with
S. Anne, which can be proved to belong to a later period of the

 

artist’s production. We have to consider only the Madonna

 

 

studies of the Florentine period, before the journey to Milan.
The first to be mentioned is the large, splendid drawing for a
half-length of the Virgin and Child, found in the His de La Salle RAP””L‘pififfilalfilg‘fefitfifizylmm‘
Collection in the Louvre (p. 164). This drawing is still exhibited

under Raphael’s name, but its origin is so evident that it is unnecessary to waste words upon
the misnomer. The spirit of Leonardo gleams and quivers in every stroke.“4 The drawing shows
a half life size half-figure of a young mother, sitting with her naked baby on her lap. She holds
towards him a plate of fruit into which his hand is plunged, while he turns his face up to his
mother’s and tries to pat her cheek. She bends towards him,lovingly, and their eyes meet. The
drawing is done with soft, broad strokes of the pen (with a little brush-work) in the same thin,
brownish Indian ink used for the previously mentioned studies, and on the same thin, white paper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In its present state, the sheet measures 35 by 25 centimetres; but.
it has evidently been trimmed, chiefly at the bottom. A crease in
the middle shows that before it was cut, it must have been of the
same size as the Windsor sheet (40 by 28 cm.) As it has not been
cut straight, the attitude of the figures has become distorted; and
it is only by reconstructing the original shape (as in our repro-
duction) that a true impression of the composition is obtained with
the Virgin less stiff, and bending more forward.

With round throat, curving shoulders and large, clear features,
this young mother is closely akin, both as a type and in her posi-
tion, to the Virgin in the Adoration of the Magi. We recognise
the child as a variant of the boy on Verrocchio’s Paris sheet and on
the Windsor sheet. The drawing thus bears the stamp of good
school tradition, of transmission from teacher to pupil. And yet
how refreshingly new! The subject could not be simpler, the
outline could not possibly have been done with fewer lines; the
only traces of hesitation are in the child’s legs, otherwise the lines

RAPHAEL: “La Belle jardiniére." I.cu\re. '

163

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

are as clear and firm as those of an etching needle. And what lines! There seems no possibility of
compressing into so simple a subject, expressed in so easy a manner a greater amount of genius
than lies latent in this drawing.

Genius glows and sparkles as we gaze. Everything is true and in its right place, both anatomically
and in perspective. Yet it has all been put together by the skimming strokes of a flexible quill pen,
now light and scarcely touching the paper, now pressing broadly and lavishly like a brush. This is a
handwriting that no Japanese has surpassed, full of temperament and energy, a bubbling spring 0f
delight to the eye.

 

~. N. ,7, ,., W, 4

LEONARDO: Madonna with the Plate of Fruit. Pen-drawing. Louvre.

 

 

 

<V‘

 

 

LEONARDO : Sketch for the Madonna a1 Gatto. British Museum.

XXIII

You must represent women with chaste gestures, with
feet close together and arms drawn in to the waist, the head
bent and turned to one side. You must represent little
children with quick, twisting moments when they are sitting,
hut careful and fearful when standing.

LEONARDO DA VINCI.

EXT to this Madonna with the Plate of Fruit, we will class a small, spirited
drawing in the Uffizi (p. 168), which forms a link in a whole series of studies for
a Madonna with the Cat, which will now be discussed. On another side must be
set a sketch-book leaf in the British vMuseum, containing three pen-sketches that
have never before been published, which, from their subject, may be entitled the
Madonna with the Flower or the Madonna with the Lilies. On the front of the leaf
(p. 166) there are two sketches for a Virgin and Child, one a half-figure from the
front, the other a full length sitting figure, from the side. The Virgin in both is holding a flower to the
Child’s nose; the Child at first starts back in alarm, then eagerly smells the flower, holding tightly to the
Mother’s arm. Both sketches are variants of a well-known Verrocchiesque subject, which we have seen,
inter alia, in several renderings of a Madonna with Cherries. The figures too are very Verrocchiesque,
with theioval of the face broad, and the hair either loosely waving or put up with aveil in Verrocchio’s
manner. In one of the Virgins, the principal axes of the face are drawn according to the method

‘3

1‘.

ii.

C
x.

165

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

taught in Verrocchio’s school. The Child, with the *.
characteristic contraction of one leg, is well known
to us from an earlier chapter on the Madonna in
Her Bed-Chamber (pp. 123-127), where we followed
the motive through a number of pictures and draw-

liaé 55 ings, which all allowed of being traced back to a
l) ”“83 Verrocchiesque root. Leonardo’s sketch of the
%:t/\ seated Virgin on the right of the drawing agrees
j: l. entirely in motive with a little picture under Leon-
/ ardo’s name in the Benois Collection in St. Peters-

burg (p. 167), which for various reasons I will
ascribe to Giovanni Sogliani, a late eclectic Ioffshoot
from the school of Verrocchio, The insignificant,
bland type of Madonna, with the half-open mouth
and the ear in the wrong place, points to this artist.
From the same picture, or rather the common
prototype, which must certainly be referred back to

 

‘ . _ ‘ .. an original by Verrocchio, the previously-mentioned
LEONARDO: Studies for the Madonna With the l‘lower. British Museum Flemish copy in the Palazzo Colonna in IQOme has
been made (p. 126), which, when I saw it, was called, without rhyme or reason, a Fra Filippo. With
these early studies by Leonardo in the British Museum, it may be interesting to compare a Madonna
in the Poldi-Pezzoli Museum in Milan, painted at least twenty years later and far from Florence, by
Beltraffio one of Leonardo’s Milan pupils. Notwithstanding the distance in time and space, it is
remarkable how the semi-Verrocchiesque type of woman, with broadly oval face and unconfined,
waving hair (see the full-face sketch) is found in the pictures of the Milanese painter, while the position fl
of the child and the motive of the flowers connect the drawing to
the picture by almost imperceptible links of distant kinship. The
influence of Verrocchio’s school was far reaching. The back of
this sheet of studies (p. 167) contains a sketch on a somewhat
larger scale (in silver-point worked over with pen), of another but
similar Madonna, who sits facing the opposite way, with her
knees wide apart and the Child upon her lap. Here she is not
placing her hand to the Child’s mouth, but on the contrary
away from Him, as she playfully holds out a rod of lilies or some
similar flower, which He is trying to reach. The Virgin’s face is
drawn in two different positions. In addition to this pen sketch,
there are several other outlines and sketches in silver-point on
the paper, a profile of Joseph which we shall meet again on other
sheets, and profiles of a youth and of a maid, which almost exactly
correspond to the profiles on the large Windsor sheet (p. 155),
and finally a couple of constructive drawings for arches, and for
a kind of measuring apparatus. Upon the margin of the paper

 

 

 

. . . . . . - ~ ~ . Ill‘llivl‘RAl‘ll‘llO: M: ll 1.
is written in the usual mirror script: m 1572,1102sz em and zesus e PokmemnMum",”3:31,,

s

166

 

 

 

THE MADONNA AL GATTO

V(ergiize). From these rough and not very . - ' . v " ' -.,
original sketches, which may however have given ' ' ’ i [V »
birth to some little Madonna, we will pass on to
a number of exceedingly animated and interest—
ing drawings by Leonardo, in which the artist

 

has over and over again handled a subject new
to Florentine art, that evidently interested him
deeply. The composition is extremely simple
and ordinary, namely, a mother with her child,
who is playing with a cat. The conception is
wholly in genre style; the child sitting on its
mother’s lap is occupied in an attempt to
embrace the cat, which resists and tries to
escape; the mother divides her attention between
the two. The task the artist has set himself is
to bind the three figures as closely together as
possible, and at the same time infuse the greatest
possible vitality into the scene. The novelty of
the subject is that the object distracting the
child’s thoughts and attention from its mother is
a living, struggling being, not as in the earlier
pictures of Madonnas, a flower, a berry, or

 

some inanimate object which the mother holds
towards the child. The lively motions of the cat
introduce a dramatic element into the scene. The
child’s struggles to hold the animal, and the mother’s watchfulness over
the child, produce the complicated lines and contraposed movements of
the group. The painter no longer has a sacred picture in his mind and
thoughts; his whole interest is centred in the play of lines and the
plasticity of the living being. No painting of the Madonna :11 Gatto by
Leonardo has come down to us; but everything indicates that such
pictures have existed. In the first place there is a series of authentic
sketches and studies for the subject. I know of eight such, distributed
over five sheets, one in the Uffizi, three in the British Museum, and one
at Bayonne. In addition, there are five sheets with copies of other, lost
Leonardo drawings of the same subject; lastly, there is a capital paint-
ing by Sodoma, one of Leonardo’s cleverest successors, of the same
subject and evidently based upon a Leonardo’s study, now in the Brera,
Milan (p. 173). One of the authentic studies, that in the Utfizi must be
the first of the series (I) It is quite a small pen sketch (12?; by 11 cm.),
drawn on white paper with a peculiar bluish green ink that Leonardo
does not use elsewhere (p. 168). The scene seems to be sketched from
SOUUAM <7): Madam “it“ ”“5 “mm" life, the model for the Virgin being apparently the same young mother

Benois Collection, Si. l’etershnrg.

LEONARDO : Madonna with the Lilies. British Museum.

 

 

 

 

 

167

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

we have seen in the Madonna with the
Plate of Fruit, although in the position and
" carriage of her head she has a still greater
resemblance to the Virgin in the Adoration
of the Magi, where, moreover, the line-
motive is identical. Like her, she smilingly
bends her head towards the boy, whom she
holds by a firm grasp of her right hand upon
his left leg, The boy in the drawing is not,
however, sitting upon his mother’s lap, as

i in the picture, but upon a high modelling-
VL stand such as sculptors use. Here he plays

., with his cat under his mother’s watchful eye,
tries to hug it and rolls over backwards. In
7. so doing he beseechingly glances for help
with the refractory animal, a look which
calls forth a smile from the mother. The
,. ' child’s movements are almost grotesquely
contraposed, and his face is greatly fore~
I' shortened from below. Morelli, probably
misled by Sodoma’s picture in the Brera,
refuses to recognise Leonardo’s hand in this
’ drawing, and attributes it to the master’s
talented Milanese imitatorf‘5 but the study
has no resemblance to Sodoma’s genuine

 

LEONARDO: Madonna with the Cat. Pen—dizuving, Uffizi.

drawings, and is decidedly from Leonardo’s own hand. There is, moreover, a sketch on the back of
the sheet (2) which was not known until Berenson and I discovered it in 1901.1 then made a rough
sketch of the movements, which, in the absence of a photograph, must serve as an illustration. In it
the child with the cat in his arms is tumbling in the opposite direction, supported beneath by his
mother’s arm.

The three sheets in the British Museum are closely connected with this drawing. They are
covered on both sides with pen drawings, sketches and studies which,
with one exception, have the Madonna with the Cat as their sub-

ject. Two of the sheets have previously been published as \Vood- _(< >

engravings,“ the third is now reproduced for the first time. One of ( ff. ,’

the sheets is filled on both sides with studies of the Child and the ”k; ?\ _

cat without the Mother (3 and 4). We see the plump, livelylittle .fkjfii‘f / l /.

fellow tumbling about with the animal in his arms, and assuming . Zr; . \ \\. g /
the prettiest and funniest attitudes, as he now feels himself the \?}f\\ , \ fl TX
victor in the loving contest and hugs the animal affectionately to ‘ \
his breast, and again is overcome by its scratching and lithe contor- ’ an":
tions (pp. 169 and 170). One sketch shows the boy alone without V

. . . . . . - : LE NARDO: B k 1 ’ " .
the cat, Sitting w1th upturned face in a pos1tion Similar to that of 0 ac Whealmdmmg

Sketch by the author.

168

 

i-
,1
i

 

THE MADONNA AL GATTO—LEONARDO AND RAPHAEL

a Verrocchio baby on the fre-
quently mentioned Paris sheet.
On another sheet (5) the child
is sketched five times, twice
together with his mother, but
otherwise alone with the cat
(p. 171). In one of the former
the mother stoops to the boy
and gives him her breast, to
which he willingly turns, though
without forgetting his beloved
cat, which he holds tightly under
his arm. In the other of the
groups, the boy and the cat are
exhausted and rest upon the
mother’s breast; she has taken
them both into her embrace,
and bends over them with the
sweetest of smiles (p. 172).
Never has Raphael, never has
Correggio, created a more per-
fect idyl, a more captivating
picture of tenderness and
happiness All the gentle-
ness and winning charm of
Leonardo’s nature breathes
from this group, which it is
evident Raphael must have had
in his mind when (about 1508)
he composed his well-known
Madonna di Casa Colonna in

 

 

LEONARDO: Studies for the Madonna with the Cal. British Museum.

Berlin (p. 173). On the back of this sheet is sketched an allegorical
scene which has no connection with the Madonna composition, a virgin
or saint sitting with a unicorn at her feet. The unicorn, it may be
remembered, is the symbol of chastity. The third sheet in the British
Museum is of smaller size and also has drawings on both sides (6 and 7).

 

COPY after LEONARDO : Sketch for Madonna with

mega"""0"‘hedrififife‘fiflétfdmwmm[helm They show the composition matured and brought to a stage of

1 69 Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

, y» :1 . . - r 23 complete pictorial effect in two
' i H II ' ‘ it i' M L different renderings. Both pic-

' tures (pp. 165 and 172) are
' rounded at the top in the form of
‘ an arch, and represent the Virgin,
‘ full-length, sitting or kneeling.
As in the Adoration, she is
'7 dressed in a mantle, but is bare-
“ headed; and in the background
; of one of the drawings an arched
l window is sketched, as is usual
with the Madonnas in a room from
the studios of Verrocchio and
, Credi. The Child,who is naked,
is sitting, in one drawing on the
left knee, in the other on the
right knee of the Virgin, with
His arms round the cat, which
‘ is turning away from him. While
‘ one of these Madonnas (p. 172)
is comparatively traditional in
its composition, with its peace-
,1 fully seated figure of the Virgin,
, and her gracefully inclined head
‘ and curling locks, vividly re-
i calling the Virgin in the Adora-
tion, the other composition with
the kneeling Virgin, 1s of another
and wholly fresh style (p. 165).
i In the first place the drawing is
remarkable for its unusually
dashing, picturesque execution,
With its deep, flowing brush-
, shadows, and its intensely bright
I lights, the effect is almost Rem-
brandtesque. The composition,
moreover is freer and more
emotional than we are accustomed to find at this period, a harbinger of the cinquecento summer. As
the Virgin, with the Child and the cat in her arms, bends on her left knee, while on her right rests the
whole weight of the Child and the cat, and she, to balance it, bends her body and head towards the
opposite side, the composition presents a strongly accentuated disposal of contraposed weights and
masses. The movement of the body is further emphasized by the edge of the mantle and by the straight,
obliquely falling fold into which the dress is drawn between the Widely parted knees ; the parallelism of

,_._»~;,r.,,, , AL ‘41. ._ tab... ..;..:__‘.

LEONARDO I Studies for the Madonna with the Cal. Ilrilisli Museum.

170

 

 

 

 

 

/.sp. __ .. ..

these lines is designedly broken
by the transverse line of the arm
and by the movements of the
Child’s limbs. The composition
is most ingeniouslybalanced, and
suggests Michelangelo. We are
involuntarily reminded of the
warning words of the Treatise
on Painting: “Beware of the
wooden! That is to say let
limbs in movement balance one
another.”

There is yet another
authentic sheet of studies from
Leonardo’s hand for the same
subject. It is in the Bonnat
Collection in the museum at
Bayonne (8). Here, too they are
pen-drawings, both of the Virgin
with the Child and the cat, and
of the Child alone (p. 173). The
full-length of the Virgin, who
is sitting with one knee raised
higher than the other, greatly
resembles in position and effect
the lines of the Virgin in the
Adoration; indeed, the Adora-
tion Madonna motive is fully
formed here, with regard to the
Virgin and the Child, the only
difference being the addition of
the cat. At the top of the sheet
the Child is twice repeated in de—
tail. with a movement akin to
that of the Child in the Madonna
drawing in the British Museum
(p. 172). Thus sketch is linked

THE MADONNA AL GATTO

 

LEONARDO : Studies for [he Madonna with the Cat. British Museum.

to sketch, forming the chain that binds the small genre Madonnas to the great dramatic story of the
Adoration. There are a few more sketches that either actually belong to the composition ofthe Madonna
with the cat, or only come within the same circle of ideas ; but their originals have not been preserved

and they are only known from
frankly called a Leonardo (9).

copies. The most important is at \Vindsor (p. 174), where it is
The drawing has been cited as an original by Muller-VValde,

while Morelli and Berenson“7 unanimously refer to it as a copy, notwithstanding that the shading

171

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

" ‘1'?" -._.

LEONARDO: Madonna with the Cat. Sketch in British Museum,

 

is done in the usual left-handed Leonardesque
manner, upwards from right to left. The Virgin
is represented as a very young girl in a half-
recumbent position on the ground, while the
restless, far too big Child gambols in her lap.
Close beside them, the Child is drawn again,
struggling with the eat. If we did not already
know that the drawing follows the abovemen-
tioned series, and if the Virgin were not so young
and slender, we should sooner imagine it to be a
Charity with healthyvtwin boys than a Madonna
and Child. The head is delicate and pleasing,
rather Verrocchiesque with the hair hanging
loosely over the temples, and the small mouth.
Details, such as the head of the Child and the
Virgin’s right hand, however, forbid any thought
of authenticity; the drawing is an old but good
pupil’s copy. Below, on the same sheet, are
special studies of the child with the cat, one of
them a variant of the Florentine study (p. 168),
while the other, a back View, shows an entirely
new motive; and atthe bottom of the sheet is
a. copy of a well known, but later Leonardesque
motive—two nude boys (Jesus and S. John)
sitting and embracing. This motive, so fre-
quently employed by Lombard imitators
(notably in a Madonna in the Louvre, probably

by Gianpetrino) shows distinctly that the copy, and probably also

the original, was executed during Leonardo’s Milanese period.
Three or four tiny outlines (10-13) of the same scene, that are found
in the corners of a well-known sheet in the Uffizi, containingalarge

s

 

 

 

 

 

 

COPY after LEONARDO:

Sketch for Madonna with the Cat, upon the drawing or
the dragon and the lion, in the Ufl‘izi.

drawing(No. 435) of amortal com-
bat between a dragon and a lion, are
also copies. One of them, of which
little notice has hitherto been taken,
is nothing but a copy of the above-
mentioned Uffizi drawing (p. 168),

the others show variants} of; the 7
positions in the last mentioned.

sheet of copies at Windsor. One
of the outlines has almost entirely
disappeared with the torn -off
corner of the sheet; twopothers

172

 

LEONARDO: Detail of Study in British Museum. .

 

,. 9--. _

THE MADONNA AL GATTO—COPIES AND IMITATIONS

are given here (pp. 169 and 172). To
these copiesI can further add three other
drawings (14—16) from the hand of a
Florentine eclectic, to which attention has
not previously been called, and which are
reproduced here (p. I74) from my own
rough sketches of what they represent.
The drawings are in the Uffiii collection
of drawings, in a bound volume (vol. I55)
kept in the Director’s room, which con-
tains a great number of sketches and
studies, some authentic, some copies of
other masters, by a late, much-mannered
Florentine painter of extremely varying
style. This artist, whose style now recalls
Credi, now Granacci, again resembles
Albertinelli or Fra Bartolommeo, and not
infrequently even Andrea del Sarto, can
be positively identified as Giovanni An-
tonio Sogliani (1492-1544), ofwhom Vasari
has written a biograpy.”8 Leonardo da
Vinci was one of the many artists whom

 

this chameleon eclectic tried to imitate,
and it is sufficiently evident that the three $090M“: Mi“”"”“'i””“e"“m'“ “re“ “3116“" Mil“

motives here shown have been composed from studies by that master. Two of them represent the Virgin
sitting on the ground with legs
outstretched, as in the recently
mentioned Windsor copy, and with
the Child crawling up to reach her
breast. There is thus reason to
believe that Leonardo frequently
returned to this motive, which
continued to live in the art of the
Florentine eclectics, and, under
different forms, in Michelangelo.”
The third drawing represents the
half-figure of the Virgin standing,
with the Child on her arm, a mo-

 

 

 

tive that is found again in another
copy of Leonardo (17) at Windsor
(Braun, No. 205), and which finally
developed into Raphael’s Madonna
RAPHAEL: Madonna Colonna. del Gran 13110a (in the Plttl Gallery) LEONARDO: Studies for the Madonna with the Cat.

Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin. Bonnat Collection, Bayonne.

 

   

I73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

SOGLIANI: Copies of Leonardo drawings in the “Sogliani book” in the Umzi (from sketches by the author).

and Madonna di Casa Tempi (in Munich), both belonging to the Umbrian artist’s Florentine period,
and indubitably based upon Leonardesque impressions. The last in this series of Madonna
studies is a small, blue-tinted silver-point drawing at Windsor (I8), which represents, on a
diminutive scale, a Madonna of the Meadow, or perhaps more correctly a Prmsepium or an Adoration
(p. 178). Here we evidently have the earliest germ of the prmsepium composition, whose
development into a powerful adoration scene we shall watch in the following pages. The drawing
is only mentioned here as one of the numerous Madonna studies that aid our imagination in all its
conjectures as to [6 due Vergine Marie, which the artist himself dates in September, I478.

m9

 

COPY after LEONARDO: Studies for the Madonna with the Cal.
\Vindsor.

 

S;

t

 

 

 

 

 

' ‘ . _ . _ . After ITcrenson.
LEONARDO : Fortune and Rumour. Allegorical drawmg wuh pen and brush m scpla. Malcolm Collection, Bnush Museum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANDREA MANTEUNA: Adoration of the kings. Engraving (unfinished), Ul‘fixi.

XXIV

You must give your figures such movement as shall he sulhcient
to show what is in the mind of those figures, else is your art unworthy
of praise!

LEONARDO DA VINCI.
T is a great leap from the intimate and unostentatious genre scenes of these early
Madonnas, where every action is ordinary, human, and purely idyllic, to the great
dramatic scene called the Adoration of the Magi. The young mother of the Child
God sits like a happy queen the luminous centre of a humble admiring circle.
Homage flows in from every side. She is still the same unassuming, simple-
hearted woman; but the worship of the great and wise of the earth seems to have

 

poured a warm stream of happy self-esteem into her heart, and she unconsciously
assumes a more dignified and gracious bearing. Her beautiful head still droops like a heavy blossom
upon its stalk, and her smiling gaze still dwells upon the Child. This Child, whom we have seen
gambolling in unruly restlessnes with his cat, has undergone a remarkable change. The body has
become more slender, the head seems smaller, the limbs are more at rest, the movements more
sedate, almost graceful. Like a prince granting an audience and graciously accepting the homage
and gifts of his vassals, He sits upon His mother’s knee. His right hand is upraised in blessing,
while with His left He touches the golden vessel presented for His acceptance.

I77 7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

Leonardo would never, even in thought, have called this picture mm Vang/inc Maria, this mighty,
impassioned work, in which his youthful genius strains every nerve to paint life. There is not
another production in the world in which the art is so concentrated. Certainly I know of no single
picture that contains so much. Even Michelangelo’s Last Judgment cannot compare with it in
richness and variety and at the same time firm and clear composition. Contrast is set against
contrast, and shade meets shade in an infinity of combinations. The picture is like a chain or an
intricate web of human feelings and their reflection in figures, faces, hands—a wonderful fabric of
motion, in which every movement has itsown meaning. Yet the fundamental idea of the composition
is so simple that its principal line can be drawn with compasses. With one point of the Compass set
below the Virgin’s left foot, the other will describe a semi-circle, which will outline the composition;
and if, within the semi-circle an isosceles triangle be inscribed, whose base coincides with the diameter
of the semi-circle, the sides of the triangle will be tangent to the sloping backs of the kneeling figures
in the foreground, and will meet in a point above the Virgin’s head. Finally, from the angles at
the base‘of this triangle rise two verticals in the form of the two quiet figures standing at the
extreme right and left, the one in armour, the other in a toga. Like two strong pillars they stand,
ready to Support the vault of the composition; and at the same time to dam back and keep within
bounds the thronging life of the scene. '

If the picture had been cut off here, above the semi-circle of spectators, the composition would
without doubt have seemed overcrowded and confined. Space is needed above this throng; the
overcrowded foreground requires a background and perspective. Behind the Virgin, therefore, rises
a tall tree that throws its overshadowing branches into the clear air. To the right of its trunk we
see a landscape with precipitous cliffs. On the left are the decaying ruins of the work of man’s
hand, the remains of a splendid Roman edifice, with arches and broad flights of steps. In the back-
ground was room for more action, and the traditional train-of knights and warriors and attendant
serving-men found a place. Here they could practice horsemanship, here they could shout and make
a noise, here the various companies could} quarrel and settle their differences by sudden and heated
combats. This was the arena for the ancient life, the background‘for the mystery of the new God.

 

LEONARDO: Sketch for a Prwsepium. Silver-point drawing. \Vindsor.

 

-.. "VA...

.\. ._.__-_._.’-—2

A»...

l . It lixll‘ 8

 

Photo. Alinari.

(Circ. 1479-148 x)

Uffizi.

Unfinished picture in the

Adoration of the Magi.

NCI:

I

ONARDO DA V

LP

 

 

. Ixndd‘xxqu‘wfiilV;:Wvul‘n.:\1VI I 1

.1 .I\|. ‘ v ‘1‘! ' ‘ ll14|lq1llufluunVA .{l y . ‘x‘: U , . y¢‘.‘Ivl.\dlA 1' V’Sr vuVjifllfiJ‘l!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

" ‘h

—1’1

 

5:32;?
LEONARDO: Adoration of Ihe Shepherds. Pen-drmving. Bonnat collection, Bayonne. Photo liraun.

XXV

When you sketch a composition, go about it quickly, and do not
enter into much detail in the drawing of the separate limbs. It
is enough to give their place. Afterwards you can do them at

your leisure.
LEONARDO DA VINCI.

LEONARDO’S Adoration of the Magi in the Uffizi is not the outcome of

 

f-
{A g3: 9 a momentary inspiration, begun spontaneously and quickly. This, indeed, might
,(( :9 \ be imagined, by casually looking at the picture; but no one, without some know-
/?&<\J ledge of the story of its genesis, would suspect all the study and observation, the

comparisons and deliberations, the doubt and criticism, that are hidden behind
the half-finished picture. We can still, however, examine the details of the
history of its birth. Fortune has favoured us, and preserved until our own day
a large number of sketches, studies, experiments, and preliminary work of every
description. By such aid we can follow the picture’s development; and there is
not, to my knowledge, a richer, or more beautiful history of the conception and
l genesis of a work of art, than that which I will now endeavour to relate. To
I turn over these preliminary drawings and meditate upon them, to imagine their
y connection and consecutive order, to join them logically to one another, and

 

 

    
 

/

finally to see what this wise and organically wonderful creative genius retains
and utilises for the ultimate work, and what in his prodigality he throws on one
side as superfluous or useless—all this gives the exceptional pleasure of being
present as an actual witness at the composition of a great masterpiece. \Vc

181

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

gaze into the workshop of a mighty, toiling brain:
we see the rising and falling fires in the forge of
genius.

The Composition of the Adoration of the Magi,
in its earliest form, was built upon another,
simpler idea. It did not represent an Adoration
of the Magi, but an Adoration of the Shepherds,
or a so-called l’raesepium. A pen drawing in the
museum at Bayonne proves this clearly. The
sheet, which measures 21:: by 15 centimetres, came
in 1886 from an English collection to the painter
Leon Bonnat, in Paris, probably the only private
individual of the present day who could boast that
he possessed a. series of genuine Leonardo drawings.
Together with other art-treasures, they have re-
cently been presented by Bonnat to the museum
in his native town. The drawing with which we
are now concerned is sketched with silver-point
and finished with pen, and probably belonged to
the same sketch-book of about I470 and the
following years, as the sheets of studies in the
Uffizi, Windsor, the British Museum, and the Louvre, which we have already discussed. The
manner of drawing is free and spirited, but unostentatiOus, and has the simplicity and charm of a
youthful effort, every effect being obtained by simple outlines. Various external evidences, such as
the flamboyant lock of hair above the forehead, make it clear that in style and period the drawing
must be classed with the frequently mentioned sheet of studies of 1478 (p. 150).

The nucleus of the composition is a motive that was common property in Verrocchio’s school,
and is well known from Praesepia and sketches for such pictures by Credi (pictures in the Academy,
Florence), by the so-called Tommaso (tondos in the Uffizi and the Borghese), and other successors.
Traditionally the composition consists of three figures, the Child lying on the ground with a sack
under His head, the Virgin kneeling in adoration at His side, and Joseph, either sleeping, or
meditating in a crouching attitude, leaning on his long staff. Sometimes the little S. John
(Giovanni) is added to this three figure group, kneeling and worshipping, and now and then accom—

 

LORENZO l)l CREDI: Adoration of the Shepherds. Accademia, Florence.

panied by angels.

A reflection of such a Preesepium from Verrocchio’s studio is to be found in an almost circular
pen drawing of the Virgin and Angels Adoring, in the Albertina collection in Vienna. This sketch,
doubtless on account of its evident connection with Verrocchio’s school, formerly went under the
name of Lorenzo di Credi, but has now, in accordance with Morelli, been given the name of Piero
di Cosimo, to whose early period it belongs?”

To this Prxsepium-nucleus, Leonardo, in his sketch, like Credi in his beautiful picture in the
Academy, had added the shepherds in a semi-circle round the Child; they approach in adoration and
wonder, three on each side. All the figures are nude as Leonardo used to sketch them, the Virgin
alone bearing any indication of clothing. Below on the same sheet, one of the shepherds is drawn

I82

THE ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS

again on a rather larger scale, a youth who advances with folded hands and a most sincere expression
of countenance (p. 181). We have no certain knowledge as to whether this Nativity of Leonardo’s
was ever executed as a painting. According to Vasari, Leonardo painted a Nativity for the emperor
Maximilian, and it is not improbable that he then”1 brought out this sketch of his youth’for the
working-up of a new picture; but this is mere conjecture. In addition to the Bonnat drawing at
Bayonne there still exist two or three more Praesepium sketches by Leonardo. .
The first is the small silver-point sketch on blue paper at Windsor (p. 178), already mentioned.
In a landscape with hills and slender trees, the Virgin kneels beside her Child, who is lying on the
ground in the foreground. Her right arm is curved and extended in an attitude of adoration, while
she bends in devotion over the Childfla movement motive that the artist takes up again, and develops
with wonderful effect, in the S. jerome in the Vatican. This Madonna sketch, which, judging from
its style, must be of a very early period, is rounded at the top. We evidently have here the earliest
germ of the Praesepium composition. ‘ ' _
The second sketch is a pen drawing in the Academy at Venice. The composition is more
complicated. The Virgin is kneeling by the Child in an attitude similar to that in the Bonnat
drawing. joseph is present, leaning on his staff, but turned towards an adoring shepherd ; they both
appear to be listening to the joyful song of the angels who gaily disport themselves in the air above.
The third sketch, also a pen drawing, is on a leaf of a sketch-book in the Kunsthalle in Hamburg;
It does not give the Praesepium scene itself, but a group of two young shepherds, one leaning
familiarly upon the other’s shoulder, and both listening to Joseph’s explanations.
All three sketches closely approach the Bonnat drawing in period and style, and take their place
naturally in the series of preliminary studies for the Adoration.

3, _
.ff‘.)
-"'7.',.
33.
. if
/.

/
- . ', —
”fir u
z -- n2
.; :’ ii 5.
a
TL" . ' r.
7.: 3“. ' 7.77;,
t ,
a
. ,
.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

though under the

 

 

LEONARDO: The Philosopher. Detail of the Adoration.

XXVI

Old men ought to be represented with slow and heavy move
ments, their legs bent at the knees, when they stand still, and their
feet parallel and apart; bending low with the head leaning forward,
and their arms but little extended.

LEONARDO: DA VINCI.

FTER these drawings comes a sketch-book leaf (16% by 26% cm.) in the British
Museum, containing various figure drawings. On one side of the leaf are six
9:figures and the head of an old man. The old man resting his arms and chin upon
his long staff, recalls the shepherd motive, while the meditative old philosopher in
iantique drapery foreshadows both in attitude and type the fine musing figure in a
toga in the extreme left corner of the Adoration. The others have no such decided
connection, unless the man with raised head and arms outspread in wonder, as

influence of a heavenly vision, is to be interpreted as one of the shepherds listening

to the song of the angels or discovering the dazzling star. The motive of the hand shading the eyes

184

l
i
l
l

 

Photo. liraun.

IICONARDO I).\ VINCI: S‘ jerome. Unfinished altar-piece in the Vatican (kxllcry, Rome. Painted Illnvllt 1480.

AA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.-

 

THE ADORATION—PRELIMINARY STUDIES.

LEONARDO: Studies for an Adoration. Pen-drawing. British Museum.

also occurs on this sheet. In one corner a woman, who, to Judge from the lyre (?) beside her, must
be a muse or a singer, sits gazing, with her hand shading her eyes. We do not meet with this figure
again among the preliminary studies, but it is found in the picture itself. She is standing, as one
of the women in antique dress who group beneath the ruined steps in the background, and looking
forth in a similar manner. The profile of the old man with the protruding chin and toothless mouth,
is a caricatured form of the well known type often occurring in Leonardo’s drawings.

As regards their execution, the studies on the front of this sheet are rougher and not so clean—
lined as the other studies for the Adoration, although the drawing is perfectly genuine. Its
authenticity is vouched by the fiery sketch on the back for an allegory embracing Fortune, In-
gratitude, Envy, and Ignorance, a sketch which in turn links itself to another splendid allegorical
drawing of Fortune and Fame in the same collection.

It is still doubtful whether the figures on the sheet of studies in the British Museum are intended
for an Adoration of the Shepherds, or are to be considered as the first sketches for the Adoration of
the Magi, which already seems to be dawning in Leonardo’s mind. With the sheet that we are
now about to consider before us, doubt begins to disappear. This sheet is preserved in the VValraff—
Richartz Museum in Cologne, and belongs to the same series as those just described, as well as
most of the drawings to follow. In its present curtailed form, the paper measures 25 by 161,7 centi-
metres, and is of a thin, ribbed quality. The studies are drawn in pale sepia with a pen. The more

187

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

 

LEONARDO: Fortune fighting against Irigrutitude, Envy and Ignorance. Alleqorical Drawingr in the British Museum.

important side of the sheet shows sketches of no less than eleven figures, some single studies, others
groups, all nude or with lightly sketched draperies. The figures may with perfect certainty be
attributed to an Adoration composition. They are young and beardless men like the shepherds, but
their connection with various figures on the subsequent sheets of studies for an Adoration of the
Magi is obvious. Two of the figures are represented moving forward in a stooping posture, with
gestures of wonder and adoration. Three are standing in statuesque poses with projecting hip, the
weight of the body supported on one leg, as in so many antiques. One, in an almost Praxitelean
attitude, clearly shows antique influence. Another is supposed to be wrapt in a long mantle or toga.
A third, one hand on his hip and shading his eyes with the other, is not standing quite firmly,
and has therefore been crossed out with two or three determined strokes of the pen.

Among the single figures there is a noticeable one in the left upper corner of the sheet, of a
coquettish, foppishly dressed page of feminine build. \Vith his girlish grace, the pretty boy is a
forerunner of an androgynous type often met with in the productions of Leonardo and his successors,
which has found its most pronounced expression in the feminine and equivocal John the Baptist in
the Louvre. In the lower left corner of the sheet is seen a whole group of agitated, kneeling and
standing figures, engrossed in some dazzling spectacle. We especially admire the animated
expressiveness in the drawing of this cluster of deeply moved young men, who, animated by a
single feelinor are gazing, talking, and wondering. On the back of the sheet there is nothing but

67
two outlines of a crab drawn with a pen.

I88

 

 

.é-‘

A _ ,__A__._ _—.‘<._—‘h.———v— 7.. m‘-._ _-

«fi'- .

LEONARDO: Figure Studies for an Adora

tiox

 

L \VulrafiRichartz Museum, Cologne.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO: Studies for an Adoration. Pen-drawing in the Valton Collection Paris. Photo Braun.

XXVII

EXT to these drawings I place as number seven in the series, a sheet of fine studies
of nude figures now to be found in the Louvre (formerly in the collection of Paul
Valton). The sheet is of about the same size as the preceding ones (18 by 26 cm.),
and like them has been somewhat reduced. The drawing is of excellent quality,
bold, fresh and spirited, and more masterly than any of the others we have con-
Sidered. In the two uppermost groups especially, the pen has been wielded with

 

 

ardent feeling. Of known types we find the old Silenus with the paunch, from
the Bonnat drawing, but nobler, and more intellectually conceived. With the folded arms and
chin supported on his hand, he advances in deep thought like the “ muser” in the Adoration. The
Silenus type has developed into a philosopher. Farther to the left, the same type is repeated in a
younger form, standing with his long pilgrim’s staff resting in his arm. He is accompanied by a
youth, who turns to some one behind them.

Opposite the “ muser ” stands another nude figure, younger and of a feminine build. The hip is
pushed far out, the abdomen is large, the breasts distinct. One hand rests upon the hip and the eyes
are looking down, while the right arm points into the picture. It is a motive of much grace, which

190

 

‘ $3.-
m

 

LEONARDO AND MICHELANGELO

was probably originally intended for the group of women in the background of the picture. Its ultimate
application has been found in the armour-clad knight at the extreme right of the picture, the figure
that Berenson believes to be Leonardo himself.

The same motive, with hand on hip, and downward gaze, is added as a balancing third figure
to the group above of deeply moved spectators. The centre one of the three, a most sensitively
and beautifully drawn figure, also gazes down at the wonder. The motive of the hand shading the
eyes is here repeated, while the other hand is involuntarily raised in admiration. The third figure of
the cluster climbs behind the shoulders of the central figure, leaning over him in order to see, and
beckoning to more distant spectators. With this figure, with a leaning form, an intent eye, and a
beckoning arm, a further development of a similar motive among the shepherds, the group is built up
dramatically and powerfully.

To the right of this compact group of spectators is seen another group of two, here also a third
figure being added. The three are imagined upon the steps in the background of the picture. One is
standing with his foot supported on a step, his arm raised to shade his eyes, his movements on the
whole being counterpoised; his other hand is placed upon the shoulder of a man seated beside him,
who is turning to him with a question, while he‘points in the other direction. A third, in a profile
position, is listening with his foot upon a step. The three figures are certainly to be understood as
studies for the Adoration, to be placed as spectators upon the large flight of steps in the background,
and must originally have played a more important part in the economy of composition than they
ultimately did in the picture. None of them has actually been utilised. We find two of the men
again among the studies for the “argument,” to which we shall come later.

The third figure, however, the one with his arm above his head, is the most remarkable upon the
sheet of studies. This pathetically agitated, passionately expressive figure does not occur again in
Leonardo’s production. With his tragic air and forcible movement he seems rather to belong to
another, later period of art; he brings tidings of a new feeling, the new art that is to be identified with
the name of Michelangelo. Together with the beautiful central figure in the group of three, he leads our
thoughts in the direction of Michelangelo’s Slaves, and that splendid youth on the Sistine ceiling

 

Bonnat Collection (reversed). Vttlton Collection. Vulton Collection. British Museum. British Museum. Tl“; picture.
LEONARDO: Development of the Philosopher Motive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

x.
.3».

Michelangelo, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Leonardo. Michelangelo,

Louvre. Vulton Collection. Ceiling of Sistine Chapel. Valton Collection. Louvre.

between the two Creation pictures (above the Libyan Sibyl). The counterpoising of the limbs, the
intense, almost suffering attitude and expression of the head, even the narrow bands about the chest
of which Michelangelo is so fond—all the pathos of the golden age of the Renaissance is heralded by
these rough sketches from Leonardo’s pen. Like wraiths they appear before the coming of the

material body.
“A.

As a matter of art history it should be realised that Michelangelo builds, as much as Raphael,
upon the foundation Leonardo created for the representation of figures. Leonardo was the first to
break down in earnest the hierarchic barrier to art, the pioneer to display in freedom a human
being. Attempts had been made before by Donatello, Mantegna, and Pollaiuolo, but Leonardo was
the first to draw the human form unfettered by mediaeval or antique restraint and convention of style_
Leonardo allowed the soul to flow without restraint into the movements of the limbs.

How to make the body the liberator of the soul’s emotions, and the interpreter of the mental
moods, letting the movements of the limbs, hands and fingers express feeling in harmony with the play
of feature, was the great discovery and unlimited possibility that Leonardo brought into painting.
Out of this infinitude of possibilities Michelangelo, with his colossal temperament and plastic imagina-
tion, drew inspiration that transformed art. As a result he produced those huge, expressive torsos that
writhe in agony, those muscular arms and legs, heavy and dangerous, with enormous strength and
melancholy, those gigantic nudes, in which the artist let loose the tumult of his soul, his sorrow, his
titanic wrath, and his gloomy, involved sensuality.

Michelangelo was the mightier and more terrible of the two, but the difference in temperament,
and the external contrast between him and Leonardo, must not blind us to their common qualities,
and what the younger owed to the elder.

To suggest that one was a cold, clever arithmetician who, with subtle heart, manufactured life,
motion and passion, and the other antithetically a great creative genius, is utterly wrong. There is
more clever calculation in the unfolding of the body of the newly-created Adam on the ceiling of the

192

 

fin

LEONARDO AND MICHELANGELO

Sistine Chapel, than in any of Leonardo’s figures. On the other hand a greater lyric intensity exists
in Leonardo’s pen sketches, than in all Michelangelo’s drawings. Even in the few finished or almost
overwrought worksfrom Leonardo’s hand, such as the S.Anne cartoon in London, and the Monna
Lisa, this intensity of feeling pulsates in every detail.

 

LEONARDO: Allegoncal drawing. Christ Church, Oxford.

BB

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

   

        

   

.g- ‘

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

Photo. Brau n.

Pen-drawing in the Louvre (the Galichon drawing).

 

LEONARDO: Sketch for the Adoration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO: Adoration of the Magi. Uffizi.

XXVIII

When representing a human figure, or some graceful animal,
be careful to avoid a wooden stiffness.

LEONARDO DA YINCI.

 

 

 

 

LL the drawings we have considered to the present, with sketches of single
figures or groups for an Adoration (whether of shepherds or magi), show the idea
still in an initiatory stage. The artist is feeling his way, wavering and rejecting.
The drawing that we now study gives an impression of the Adoration composition
which agrees in the main with the picture itself. The Galichon drawing, one of
the most remarkable and valuable drawings in the world, was purchased during the
. seventies of the last century for 12,900 francs by a French art lover, Louis Galichon,
who bequeathed it to the Louvre Museum. A pen drawing, measuring 28 by 21 centimetres, it is
reproduced here in slightly reduced form. No other study for the Adoration is comparable with the

 

 

 

 

Galichon drawing in zesthetic value or in its importance to art history. In a wonderfully fresh and
simple form, we have the whole of the splendid composition, with its dramatic life and variety, its deep
feeling, and its blending of charm and seriousness.

The composition of the drawing has not nearly such an abundance of figures as that of the picture,
but the arrangement is in the main the same, and all the principal motives are included. The Virgin
with her Child is placed in the centre, and round her throng the kneeling and wondering worshippers,
while others watch the scene as interested spectators. In the background is seen the large train of the
Magi, horses and warriors, among the ruins of an ancient palace.

I95

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

The composition nevertheless differs in many respects from the
picture, and Eugene Mtintz is altogether mistaken in saying of the
Galichon drawing that it represents la suprémc din/>0 d‘mze cozlzpositz'on
si [aboricusc, avmzt l’cxéwtion dzt cal/ton. Muller-VValde comes nearer
to the truth when he sees in the drawing a “first sketch” of the
composition; but neither of these assertions is in accordance with
the actual facts of the case. The Galichon drawing, as the Bonnat
Shepherds and the other studies teach us, is no first thought. The
composition is too finished and clear, and above all, too rich. There
must have been a good many sketches before this drawing, perhaps
chiefly small, simple ideas, in which only the balance of the masses
has been weighed, in which light and shade, foreground and back-
, ground, have been broadly indicated. Compare the diminutive but

Flom“{ffiflffio£3322:C‘Ijmwm incredibly animated sketches for the Battle of Anghiari, of which

there are several in the Academy in Venice. Still less is the
Galichon drawing [a suprézizeétape, the last and highest step in the series of preparations, before the
painter leaves the paper to proceed with the prepared panel. With more probability it formed the
foundation for a new series of detail drawings, in which the separate motives were taken up for further

 

elaboration or for renewed consideration and experiment.

There is not one figure in the Galichon drawing that has been transferred to the picture without
alteration. They have all changed their attitude or their place; some have altogether disappeared,
The Virgin and the Child are different. In the drawing the genre quality is predominant. Both
Mother and Child are intent upon the royal gift. The Child tries eagerly to grasp it with both hands,
and has neither eyes nor thought for anything but the glittering goblet. The Mother looks on, not
without interest in the magnificent present, but rather with a little curiosity, very pretty and naive. In
the picture the action is quite otherwise. The Child’s eagerness to get hold of the shining goblet has

 

The Picture. Bonnat Collection. Valton Collection.

Valton Collection. The picture.
LEONARDO: Development of a motive. (The “ leaning ” and “ peering ” motives).

 

l

 

’4 Ii 19.? u

 

/.I'l‘
33:

,...«\\\.\w§\\\

 

 

raun.

,
;

Photo. I

Louvre.

Pen-drawing.

LEONARDO : Studies for the Adoration.

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

llonnnt Collection. \Vindsor. Valton Collection. Vallon Collection.

LEONARDO : Development of a motive. The “ leaning" and “ peering " motives)

been relinquished as too insignificant a motive, and too much in the nature of genre. His attention is
only partially given to the offering, which He touches lightly with one hand, while He raises the other
in blessing. He half turns to the donor of the gift,

As there is an air more ceremonious and royally gracious about the Child, so is there a more self—
contained dignity about the Mother. The girlish curiosity is gone. The bending. homely, interested
attitude has changed into the erect bearing ofa queen. She turns her head with a gentle smile in the
direction of the old king, who, crouching humbly like a dog, approaches the Child. Her body is turned
the other way, her feet have changed their position, the box in front that served as a cradle for
the Babe is gone, as also a covering that lay in a broad strip over the Virgin’s feet and hid them; the
whole grOup has in fact acquired more dignity. In the drawing, the bodies of the Mother and Child
are parallel in position"; in the picture their frontal planes intersect one another at a right angle; and
as at the same time their distance from the kneeling king is increased, so that the Child has to reach
farther in order to touch the gift, the forms of both Mother and Child are more open to View. Instead
of the somewhat broken contour that the group has in the drawing, that of the picture is free, flowing,
and well-balanced; it has altogether acquired greater repose, greater beauty and greater solemnity.

If we turn our attention from the principal figures to the scenery surrounding them, we find the
same increasing repose and beauty. In the drawing the scene is laid, according to the traditional
manner, in a ruin, under a temporary roof. The remains of arches and pilasters are supplemented by
trunks and logs, upon which rest the laths of the roof. This arrangement in the foreground, fills up
the picture and makes a row of stiff vertical lines across it, which are intersected by the horizontal lines
of the roof. The close intermingling of architecture presses on the figures and dwarfs them; the
effect is unrestful, and the view of the background, where much is also going on, is obstructed.

198

 

x

 

THE ADORATION—THE GALICHON DRAWING

In the picture this arrangement has been set aside. The Virgin is sitting in the open air, under the
shade of a spreading tree, whose leafage is outlined against the sky. The traditional dumb animals
the ox and the ass, that are present in every earlier Adoration composition, and have not been
forgotten in the Galichon drawing either, have vanished from the picture. In their place, on the
outskirts of the crowd, are a couple of horses with their riders. Improvements of a similar nature
have been made in the architectural background. The steep, bird’s-eye-view perspective has been
reconstructed correctly with a lower, more suitable vanishing-point. The massive flights of steps
have resolved themselves into something less compact, with arched spaces beneath; and at the same
time the whole of the palace has been removed from the right to the left of the picture.

All this is of course the fruit of much reflection and continued serious work upon the composition.
The Galichon drawing was a long way from [a sn/wémc étape do [a composition. These changes and
improvements speak of an earnest endeavour which may be briefly characterised as a striving to escape

7

from the quattrocento and its cramping influences towards the freedom and lightness of the cinquecento
ideal. The actual drawing contradicts the view that it is a final resume ofa series of preliminary
studies. Far from giving any such impression, the study possesses something of the unevenness and
want of reflection of an improvisation, but with all spontaneity, freshness and warmth. The idea has
not so much been to give rhythm and balance, to develop and beautify the lines of the groups, as to
endow the picture with truth and life.

The drawing does indeed possess a full measure of life and truth. It is impossible to imagine
anything truer and more expressive than the wonder and awe, the devotion and piety, to be read in
the gestures and countenances of the seven or eight figures that compose the troop of pilgrims. Not-
withstanding the far greater abundance of figures and the richness of shading in the picture, there is
not nearly such spontaneous and sincere feeling in it as in the drawing.

If, however, we look at the separate figures in the Galichon drawing, we find on the other hand
that with all their life and expressiveness they are, taken as a whole, less perfect as regards form than
in the picture. A few of them are better thought out and executed on other, later sheets of studies.
The old King, who, kneeling, offers his gift, is the best example. In the drawing the whole scene is

 

()alichon diuwing. Louvre drawing. The picture.

LEONARDO: Development of the King motive.

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

given a substructure of three steps, and up these steps
the monarch is represented creeping, which makes the
outline of the figure somewhat diffuse and angular. In
the picture the steps are done away with, and the king
kneels upon the ground, in which position the arms and

   

legs have a more united effect; the entire figure can be
enclosed in an isosceles triangle, a geometrical form for

The picture.

The picture.

a composition that Leonardo specially favoured. Among

some studies on a sheet in the Louvre (p. 197), is an intermediate stage between the limp king in the
Galichon drawing and the same king in the picture. Here too the steps are cut away and the King
is represented almost stretched upon the ground, crawling upon hands and knees, so servilely
deferential that he scarcely dares to lift his head or the hand holding the gift. This oriental servility
was not to the artist’s liking, and in the picture we find the attitude considerably modified. Both
alternatives are found in the Galichon drawing. The king has first been drawn as if he were present-
ing the gift with both hands, as he crawls up the steps: then the artist has felt the need of support in
the movement, and a new arm has been added leaning on the step, while the other arm holds out the
gift. The latter motive has triumphed. The development of the figure is sufficiently clear: first the
kneeling posture with the gift extended in both hands (the Galichon drawing), then the contrast, the
creeping, almost animal attitude with timidly lifted hand (the Louvre study), and finally both extremes
are rejected, and we see the mean, between the two, in the picture itself.

. . i' i i \c
3‘??- I -\I‘ V i f\
*3 6 {£- p Z“ ‘ ’

i ,. 1'9? "u' _ a
g ”$1. 941‘, '
y/l _ 1/ f. ,

 

Cologne, Valton.

Louvre. Cologne. Galichon.

LEONARDO : Development of the “peering" motive.

 

Cologne. Valton. Cologne. British Museum. Cologne. Louvre.

LEONARDO 1 Development of a “ standing ” motive (the motive with the projecting hip).

XXIX

Do you not see how many and what kinds of motions can
be made by man alone ?

LEONARDO DA VINCI.

EXT to the Galichon drawing must be named, the studies on the already men-
tioned sheet (28 by 21 cm.), in the Louvre (pp. 197 and 203). On one side are
six separate figures taken from their context in the composition, and detailed,
in severe, clearly drawn outlines with very little shading, the strokes as if graven
on steel. In the middle of the sheet we see the nude study for the old king,
which has already been described; while above and below are highly expressive
studies of worshippers. In deep humility, they approach with hands folded in
prayer, or with down stretched arms and hands spread out like men willing to acknowledge their
insignificance, or again bending as they feel their way with careful steps, their hands raised in pro-
foundest admiration.

The three figures are acquaintances from the Galichon drawing. In the left corner of the sheet
is sketched yet another figure intended to be in close proximity to the marvellous Child, probably as
a corner figure in the foreground, where the knight stands in the picture. He is half seen from
behind, stretching out his hands in the direction of the Child, and turning his head with an expression
as if exclaiming: Ecco il grandc miracolo / Unlike the others, this figure is clad in a tunic; and the
head with its flat, compressed features and bushy hair has the individuality of a portrait and
differs from the ideal types of its neighbours. I cannot help thinking that the artist has intended
this knight for Lorenzo de’ Medici, to whose flat nosed visage that of the figure bears a great resem-
blance. For purposes of comparison, a little known youthful portrait of Lorenzo amongst the
drawings in the Louvre is reproduced upon p. 196.

The motive of the lifted hand shading the eyes does not appear for the last time. In the Galichon
drawing it occurred in the cloaked figure of the old man in front on the right, and yet again at the
extreme back of the circle. In the Louvre drawing it is dealt with afresh, and with full maturity
endowed with the greatest plastic beauty. It is impossible to imagine a better considered or more
elastic, graceful figure than this slenderly built young man who stands so easily, his hand on his hip,

 

 

ZOI CC

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

i I’hoto. Braun.

LEONARDO : Studies for the Adoration. Macolm Collection, British Museum.

resting the weight of his body on
one foot, and raising his arm to
shade his eyes. Here Pollaiuolo’s
strength is combined with the
charm of Botticelli, and a know-
ledge of anatomy such as no
artist before Leonardo possessed
in the same degree. And no other
pen in the world ever set down
more perfect lines, at once clean,
firm, and vivid.

The same clean-lined beauty,
the same expressive language
of gesture, the same classic per-
fection of execution, charac-
terise the studies on the back of
the sheet (p. 203). Here among
other figures is a sketch of a nude

 

young archer a marvel of bal-
ance, elasticity, and graceful car-
riage. Next is a youth seated, first
alone, then together with an old
man, fully occupied in convincing
and persuading argument. Under-
neath, the conversation or “ argu-
ment ” motive is enlarged and
developed into a fairly large group
of young and old mengathered

round a table. This exceedingly

‘ admirable group has also certainly

in the first instance been intended
as a background forthe Adoration,
a drinking party of soldiers and
men-servants inside the ruin, dis-
cussing the subject of the Wonder

of the world—the Virgin’s Child who is the Son of God. While working out the composition,
howeVer, the’ar‘tist has found that the motive was too complicated and in itself too rich for the already
overloaded background of the Adoration. Subsequently, from this theme of argumentative lans-
quenets, which had" been set aside as unnecessary, sprang the idea for another picture,'a new miracle

of art.‘ This is indicated by the two single figures sketched in connection with the scene upon the

same sheet. To unravel this development in detail, however, is a new, and great task for our investi-

gation, which must stand over until the whole matter of the Adoration has been set forth ; and the store

of studies for the latter work is not yet exhausted.

202

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 .. ,7 V ._ , _ w-~ __,_fi-,___-___,fi

, ~ ' i

V ' _ \ ‘

( S 4

g

I

i

\ .

1’
\
I

'8'!"

;
5

   

LEOXARDO : Stulies for the Adoration and the Las: Supper. Pen-drawing. Louvre. Photo. liruun.

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

Another sheet of studies
for the background groups
in the Adoration is to be
found in the Malcolm Col-
lection in the British
Museum. It is closely
allied to the Louvre draw-
ing, and measures 25}, by
19 centimetres. Two
young men are seen sitting
engaged in animated con-
versation. One is trying
to convince the other, who
listens, at first unwillingly,
but gradually—as can be
imagined from his attitude
-—with more interest.

 

Above this group is another
LEONARDO:StudiesforLheAdoration. Red chalkdrawing. Windsor. of a soldier pursuing a
youth with a long horn, with which he blows into his ear; the youth runs from him with hands held
up to ward off the attack. What is the meaning of this scene? Do we not involuntarily connect
the two groups with some association of ideas? Is the drawing an allegorical express1on of the
contrast between that noisy trumpeting which deafens without convincing, and the quiet, intelligent
explanation, which brings forward reasons inducing even the most unwilling to listen, and ends by
conviction? That the drawing means this exactly need not be suggested; but it tempts us to seek
an interpretation, and offers free play to the imagination. Both groups are evidently intended for
the background of the Adoration. The lower group is closely allied with the “argument” on the
Louvre sheet, and the trumpeter group’s connection with the picture is clearly proved in the Galichon

 

Galichon (reversed). . Louvre. Louvre. Cologne.

LEONARDO 2 Variations of the “Adoration motive.

 

(
l
1

 

”“ ——""‘—V'*“

 

 

 

THE ADORATION—PRELIMINARY STUDIES

drawing, in which several trumpeting
heralds are traversing the palace ruins,
blazoning abroad the great historical
event, or simply calling the people
together. lnversely, the connection of
the horn blowing scene and the
“argument” upon the same sheet l
helps to prove the association of the
latter scene with the picture. ‘ . _
Once more we find the group 5"-
of arguers in a small and rather
damaged, but interesting drawing at
Windsor. A group of three seated
figures is seen in the middle of the
sheet, closely akin to the similar
groups on the Louvre sheet. One of
the three young men is talking eagerly,
the two others are listening, one with l
his chin in his hand, as on the Paris ‘
sheet. A couple of other sketches on " " ' ' i " “WWW” MmSydncymlvin'
the same Sheet, also belonging to the LEONARDO: StudiesforthcAduration. Silver-point. University Collection, Oxford.
same series of motives, more than confirm the belief that this group belongs to the Adoration, and
that the argument motive was originally intended for the background of that picture. To the left of
the conversation group is a man advancing, evidently a traveller, carrying a bundle byastring. Other
travelling requisites, water bottles and a large, round, flattened metal bowl with a lid, have been
thrown in front of him upon the ground. The same figure in the same attitude will be found in the
background of the Galichon drawing, directly above the head of the ass (he is holding a long horn in

 

“ 7 , . _»__——-
i7‘“ .374 "—.’= ‘ « v . _ , A ,
. _ i ._ "W _ , 774

 

.-‘4 H.‘.,._-*_—.—_-_~;::;..... 1 --

Ualichon. (lalichon (reversed). Cologne. Louvre.

LEONARDO : Variations of the “ Adoration " motive.

 

 

 

 

v
v
i l

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

7:.

‘3’”‘7" '“' f “ '-";si:'5j-._1:;r;r- Fj]

“ ll
'~ if

 

LEONARDO : Studies of Horses, etc, for the Tilting motive in the background of the Adoration. Pen-drawing. \Vindsor.

his hand), and the large metal bowl with a lid does duty as a seat for another of the company, who,
with crossed legs, sits slightly farther to the right in the middle of the open space. One of the soldiers
is sitting on the steps in the Galichon drawing, quenching his thirst from a bottle to be found among
the travelling requisites.

Another sketch upon the same Windsor sheet shows how semi-relinquished motives continued to
work on in the artist’s brain. To the left of the argument is seen (unfortunately half cut away)
a group of two youths, one of whom is bending down and talking, and pointng forward over the
other’s shoulder. This group, which has no doubt been supplemented by a third figure, now lost,
recalls (reversed, as in a mirror) the right hand group of the shepherds in the Bonnat drawing
(p. 181), and forms the connecting link between this and the pathetically beautiful group in the
Valton drawing (p. 190). Thus does one drawing connect itself with another.

Among the preliminary studies for the Adoration may be also included the little silver-point
drawing on pink paper with three roughly sketched figures, in the University collection at Oxford.
Amongst the figures is that of an old man with the well-known sunken profile, sitting with one leg
crossed over the other in the same position as the old man on the Paris sheet (p. 203), and shading
his eyes with his hand. The two other figures are gazing in the same direction, one turning round to
do so, while he lifts a foot and appears to be fastening his shoe. Sir Sidney Colvin, who reproduces
the sheet in his scholarly work on the Oxford drawings, considers this to be a study for the Washing
of the Apostles’ Feet, and places it in connection with the Last Supper. In the first instance, however,

206

 

 

 

Photo. IEmgi.
Collection of drawings, Umzi.

COPY after LEONARDO DA VINCI: Fight. between dragon and lion. \Vith small studies {or Madonnas in the corners.

 

 

 

 

Photo. Braun.
PETER PAUL RUBENS after LEONARDO DA VINCI : Eaule of the Standard. Copy of the central group in the destroyed picture of the Battle of Anghiari.
in the Counci! Hall, Florence.

 

THE ADORATION—PRELIMINARY STUDIES

 

LEONARDO : The Tilting in the background of the Adoration. Photo. Anderson.

there is no indication whatever that Leonardo has ever treated the above Biblical subject, and
secondly, no such meaning can be inferred from the gestures of the figures. Why should any man in
a foot washing scene be shading his eyes with his hand to gaze into the distance ? The types, drawing
media, and manner, moreover, indicate the early Florentine rather than the artist’s Milanese period.
On the other hand, the drawing takes its place naturally in the series of studies for the background
groups in the Adoration.

At Windsor a splendid sheet of studies for the tilting in the background of the Adoration con-
tains a prancing stallion, a number of horses’ profiles with open, neighing mouths, the profile of a
roaring lion, and one of a man shouting. The drawings, like the other studies, are executed with the
pen. The sheet measures 20 by 31 centimetres (cut), and undoubtedly belongs to the series of studies
originally associated with the picture of the Adoration. The best proof of this is the study of the
rearing stallion on the right, this having evidently been employed for the scene with the struggling

horses in the background of the picture; its attitude and outline are the same as those of the horse
on the right.

The other drawings on the sheet give rise to reflections and comparisons that carry us far beyond
the Adoration, for they should be more properly considered in relation to another great work by
Leonardo, the Standard in the Battle of Anghiari. There is ample justification, however, for
including it in the stately series of preliminary studies for the Adoration, in which it may be
numbered as the fourteenth sheet, and one of the best of Leonardo’s drawings.

The Battle of Anghiari is a composition upon which Leonardo did not begin to work until
a quarter of a century after he had drawn the studies at Windsor. It thus lies outside the scope of

209 DD

 

 

 

 

tiff V

 

:LEONARDO DA VINCI

this volume, which treats of the productions of Leonardo’s youth. The representation of this most
famous of Leonardo’s compositions of that period, as it is handed down to us in Rubens’ spirited
copy in the Louvre, is sufficient to prove the connection existing between the drawing and the far
later picture. Even in the drawing we find that terribilitd which makes the art in this tangled mass
of struggling animals and men so wonderfully intense. Everything here is subjected to the parallelism
between the feelings and expressions of animals and of men, that animal-human and human-animal
element which gives to the Fight for the Standard its marvellous horror. In itselfthe fact is remark—
able that the psychological elements of the idea for the Battle of Anghiari are found in a study for
the Adoration; but from an artistic historical point of View it is curious to find the whole nucleus of
the composition of the Battle of the Standard hidden away as a background scene in the Adoration.
We find all the elements of the composition in the knights’ combat which occupies the entire right
side of that picture.

Another sheet of studies of horses for the background of the Adoration is in the Rothschild collec-
tion in Paris. The front view of the walking horse, reversed as in a mirror, is in the background of
the picture between the trunks of the two trees, as also the profile with a rider on his back under the
arches of the ruin on the left. This slowly stepping horse subsequently develops in a series of studies
for the Sforza monument. Even the dog in the present drawing is found again in the picture, among
the fighting horsemen. The drawing as reproduced here is from a wood-engraving.

In his great work on the Drawings, Berenson mentions a genuine Leonardo drawing, of an old man
pointing towards the right, in the Museum Fedor in Amsterdam, as a study for the Adoration. I am
not acquainted with the drawing, but having every confidence in Berenson’s splendid connoisseurship,
have put it down as the sixteenth authentic study for the picture. On the other hand, I cannot agree
with Mt’intz in his indication of a study of a horse’s head, at Windsor; the drawing is only a copy of
the large horse’s head to the left in the middle distance of the picture. i

 

LEONARDO : Studies for the background of the Adoration.
Rothschild Collection, l’zn'is.

 

l

V

s_. ~_.__t._...——..,_..‘,__.—.—.__

_ ..———-.-_.'-——-—-. —~—___..._.

 

DONATELLO: Presentation of the Baptists Head. Bronze relief in S. (liovanni, Siena (1425).

Perspective is the rudder and bridle of painting.
LEONARDO DA VINCI.

 

S the last in the series of studies for the Adoration that have been pre-
served comes the perspective drawing in the Uffizi. This large and careful
drawing for the architecture of the background of the picture is no longer a rough
sketch, but an actual working drawing based upon earlier sketches, a construction
that without any essential alteration has been transferred straight to the picture as
a thoroughly well considered link in the composition. This remarkable drawing,
which measures 16;» by 29 centimetres, has first been drawn with silver-point and
then traced over with pen and a fairly dark ink upon white paper, after which the figures have been
drawn in lighter ink. In more than one respect this perspective study is an historical document of
much artistic value, for it bears most eloquent testimony to the infinite care and the unwearying
thought with which Leonardo the painter prepared his works as a painter, whilst it is the earliest
preserved sketch that we have from the hand of Leonardo the architect. In both respects the
drawing is worthy of the profoundest attention.

We will first consider the drawing as it stands in relation to the picture. We see from the
Galichon drawing (p. 194) that from the beginning the painter intended Joseph’s family with the ox
and the ass to be installed in the ruins of an old palace, the courtyard of which is roofed in with a
temporary thatched roof, supported by the trunks of trees. Between the broken arches of the palace
wild shrubs have taken root and spread out their leafy branches, and upon the ancient walls young
trees wave their foliage. Under one of the arches the Virgin has seated herself with her Child, and
hither to do homage to the Holy Child flock the royal travellers and wise men, as also the shepherds
from the fields. The entire scene is raised upon a substructure with three steps. By choosing a

 

 

 

 

high point of View the artist has succeeded in giving glimpses of the busy scenes enacted in the court-
yard behind the group in the foreground, and upon the great stone steps of the ruin, about which the

211

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO: Perspective study for the background of the Adoration. Pen-drawing. Uflizi. Photo. Bmgi.

 

‘, retinues of the travellers are settling down. Thus the Galichon drawing presents a compoSition
which in its main features recalls many other, and mostly earlier, representations of the same 1
subject by Gentile da Fabriano, Fra Filippo, Botticelli, Ghirlandaio, and their followers. The
Galichon drawing, however, is richer and more animated. This traditional arrangement did not

long continue to satisfy the artist. His critical eye soon realised that the ornamented architecture

detracted from the figures and weighed upon the action. The centre of vision, being too high,

produced an unsatisfactory pictorial effect, and he found difficulty in filling the empty space before

the steps. The artist, therefore, determined to reject the whole of the scheme of composition,

U with the Bethlehem stable inside the ancient ruin and the ox and the ass, moved the Virgin and

3 her Child into the open air, and placed them beneath a bank in the shade of a beautiful oak

tree. Here the Magi find them, and the dramatic act of adoration unfolds itself. The painter

has been unwilling, however, altogether to give up the palace ruins, and has pushed them far into

i‘ the background of the picture, where there is ample room for the fighting and uproar among the

L soldiers. This acts as a far away accompaniment of discord, in contrast to the harmony and
devotion around the Virgin.

The perspective drawing in the Uffizi is a preparatory work for the new arrangement. The 4

architecture is practically the same as in the Galichon drawing, with stairs, arcades, and an enclosed f

uncovered court-yard; but the whole has been turned from right to left. The three steps in the

l, Galichon drawing underlie the entire fabric; in the perspective drawing they have been moved

back to the open courtyard or cal/tile. The two staircases have indeed about the same number of steps,

 

212

 

 

 

if

(if
i

 

 

 

THE ADORATION—PRELIMINARY STUDIES

but they present a less steep

and heavy appearance, their kQXWZZJ/zw’ ,rzz/zQ/z/am (Cf/’74. a

 

 

solid masonry being pierced
by low, arched passages.
Finally, the distance be—
tween the steps is widened
so as to give room for three
arches instead of two, thus
marking it more distinctly
as the middle in comparison
with the wall outside the
steps, which still has only

2' " . ,
fizmizam’ ' ';/ r
4

two arches each.

Regarding the architec~
ture on the side opposite to
the steps, the Galichon
drawing gives an almost
clearer idea than the per-
spective drawing. It shows . 670 .
a high ground floor with ‘9‘?“ 937“ W”/ /”%l

arches betVVeen pilastérs, Ground plan of the architecture in the background of the Adoration, reconstructed from the author's sketch.

 

 

and above these a cornice and the remains of either another storey or an attic. The two portions of
the building have originally been united to form one fabric, as is shown by the remains of a stone
wall on the right in the Galichon drawing. The Uffizi drawing is of especial interest from the fact
that far from being a sketch as regards the architecture, it is a drawing in strict perspective, with
vanishing lines and a fixed centre ofvision situated exactly in the median axis of the picture (but not
of the drawing). Neither Leon Battista Alberti nor Paolo Uccello could have executed it more
scientifically. The whole area is perspectively divided up by fifty-six horizontal lines at gradually
decreasing distances from one another. These are crossed by the vanishing lines, and it appears
that the geometrical distance between the horizontal lines is exactly a quarter of that between the
vanishing lines. In other words, the unit in the perspective system of lines consists of a geometrical
square formed by two vanishing lines and every fourth horizontal line. When once this is made

clear, it is not difficult to construct the ground-plan and thereby obtain a good idea of the building as
a whole.

D

Vertical section, showing the arcade with the two flights of steps.

 

 

213

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Architecture in the background of the Adoration. Reconstructed by the architect Sverre Pedersen, Trondhjcm, from the author‘s sketch,

Considering the very small number of architectural drawings from Leonardo’s hand that have
been preserved (of which this is probably the earliest), I have considered it worth while to make a
ground-plan from the perspective drawing, and by its aid to make a symmetric perspective drawing
as it would appear from the cortilc; It seems, on closer consideration, that the above mentioned
square unit has been made the base of the architectural composition, as it practically coincides
with the section of the pilaster bases, and is the same as the height of a step, while four of these
units give the width of the steps and of the arches. The architecture is thus calculated most
logically and mathematically, as the harmony of the ground plan also shows.

\Nhether this interesting design for a palace, with its two flights of steps, can be traced to
earlier types, I have no means of discovering; but it is not probable. Actual ancient types can
certainly not be pointed out, and I cannot remember to have seen similar Renaissance archi-
tecture.“ Leonardo seems as independent in his architecture as in his figure composition. The
only architecture to which I can refer for comparison are Donatello’s designs in the background of
his reliefs, both in S. Lorenzo and still more in the font in S. Giovanni in Siena, in the relief repre-
senting the presentation of the head of John the Baptist (p. 211) a work dating from 1425. Here
a similar arcade is connected with a steep flight of steps, under which is also an arched passage.

A parallel may also be drawn, in certain respects, with the architecture in the background of
Verrocchio’s famous silver relief of the Beheading of John the Baptist in the Opera del Duomo.
The projecting wings, the system of pilasters and blind arches, the proportion of the cornice, and
the flagged floor, present analogies that should not be entirely overlooked, because Leonardo learnt
much from this original and powerful work. (Compare the types of the soldiers and their armour
with Leonardo’s famous Malcolm drawing on p. 133).

214

 

 

 

 

 

THE ADORATION~—THE LIFE IN THE BACKGROUND

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VERROCCHIO: ieheading of John the Baptist. Silver relief in the S. John reredos in the Opera del Duomo, Florence. Photo. Alinari.

Among the ruins of this palace with the makeshift thatched roof, the artist gives quarters to the
Oriental travellers, warriors and servants who are disporting themselves to their hearts’ content.
People run up and down the steps and through the [oggz'e, the horses are stamping and neighing in
the cal/tile, the scene is noisy with that fighting and clamour, screaming and gesticulation, such as can
be seen only among the Italians. It may not be easy to make out all these figures sketched with a
soft and rapid pen, but on comparing them either with the other studies or with those figures that
have been transferred to the painted picture, we gradually Succeed in revealing the greater number
of the motives. As the second storey of the ruin is omitted, being far too solid a motive for the
picture, some of the figures in the sketch have, of course disappeared, namely, all those bending over
or calling and pointing from the upper floor. On the other hand, horsemen are dashing out towards
the left through the vestibule, where some unknown attraction seems to be taking place. One
horseman is shading his eyes with his hand and gazing at an object which the female figure beside
the pillar is indicating with considerable vehemence. A camel, which in the sketch is lying tranquilly
at the foot of the steps, is replaced in the picture by the classic group of five women in agitated

215

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

J

LEONARDO: The background of the Adoration (left portion). Photo. Alinnri.

discussion. In this group are united the motives from the Bonnat, Valton and other drawings, ot
figures pointing, shading their eyes with their hands, and talking over their shoulders. What it is that
so absorbs their attention we are left to conjecture, as it lies beyond the limits of the picture.

The “Argument” motive is only found scattered and reduced in the picture, namely, in the
young man leaning over a stone parapet on the extreme left in the background (cf. the figure on the
Paris sheet, p. 203), and in a couple of figures talking and gesticulating beside the farther flight of
steps. Has the artist already perceived that the motive of the Argument was psychologically too
subtle for use in the background of a picture with such an abundance of figures. Or has a new,
greater idea, founded upon that splendid motive, already begun to dawn within his mind ?

While the same motive has dwindled almost to nothing in the picture, that of the plunging horses
in the courtyard has grown into a knights’ combat (p. 209). A tumult of clashing weapons and
shouts, cries for help from dismounted riders, neighing of furious horses and the barking of dogs, fill
the whole of the right side of the background, which is enveloped in a cloud of dust. As the narrow,
enclosed courtyard could not have given room enough for so tremendous an uproar, the wall at

216

 

l

#_i___‘

ia_,_ .-

THE ADORATIONMPRELIMINARY STUDIES

the right of the picture has been removed, and the scene is enacted in the open air with a background
of steep cliffs. With the removal of this portion of the building in the drawing, the temporary
thatched roof which it helped to support also disappears. The last remnant of the traditional
Bethlehem stable is gone! All that is left in the picture of the old arrangement with the forked
support for the roof (up which little boys climbed to the roof ridge) is the stem of the palm tree
spreading out its branches. '

The unmanageable horse that even in the drawing created such disturbance in the cortile, and
the knights’ combat filling the background of the Adoration, were to bring other and greater battle
scenes in their train. From the first grew the artistic idea of the fighting dragons, and then that of
the great central group in the Battle of Anghiari; motives for the Sforza monument, with its fallen
warrior beneath the hoofs of the horse, are dimly outlined within the cloud of dust that obscures the
distant view in the Adoration.

 

IEE

 

   

 

 

.' ', / , ’ '\
.L, ' .,,. ’i , . -
43p? 1 .. \. , , l 7 fr“
.. _ 11 If} _‘ ‘ \ y 3! (fix:

, \ f x/

, ‘ \ ‘ ,
.\‘ - \ \ \\ . . \\\ . FT
) \ ./ . 3
n-Hr § Q6! W": 3/???
a \ _ i~\ ' .1,-
. Mm/rw ‘ '

LEONARDO: Envy yielding to the attack of Force. Allcgorical drawing. Oxford.

XXXI

Hence, 0, painter, beware lest the lust of gain should supplant
in you the dignity of art; for the acquisition of glory is a much
greater thing than the glory of riches.
LEONARDO DA VINCI.
F we turn from the innumerable studies with their multiplicity ofideas and subjects
to the Adoration itself, as it hangs in the Uffizi—unfinished it is true, but complete
as regards composition—we cannot but be astonished at the very small proportion
of the studies of which direct use has been made in the picture. Even important,
magnificent motives (such as the “Argument”), which have occupied the artist’s
pen upon sheet after sheet, have not found favour in the final scrutiny, and have
been rejected. On the other hand, new incidents, new types and movements have
crowded from the painter’s brush during the painting of the picture.

Few who have not taken the trouble to count the figures in the picture, will have any idea how
numerous they are. In the front part alone, with the Virgin, and the people streaming in from the
middle distance, are thirty-three persons and five horses. A keen eye can distinguish in the Adoration
sixty persons and seventeen animals. The studies we have gone through furnish abundant evidence
that Leonardo did not make work easy for himself, even as regards the smallest and most distant
figures in the background. In the amount of labour expended upon it alone, how gigantic a toil!
[For the sakehof comparison it may be stated that the figures in such a representation as Masaccio’s
~fresco in the church of the Carmine, of the Restoration to Life of the King’s Son (completed by
Filippino)—probably one of the richest, in the matter of figures, of the earlier compositions in Florence
—number only forty persons. Raphael’s fresco, the School of Athens, covering an entire wall in the

 

218

 

l
l

ax— ._

l’hutu. Alinuri.

Unfinished altar-piece in the L‘ffizi, painted 147(1-1481.

LEONARDO DA VIN Animation of the Magi.

 

 

 

 

vfl‘ W“v*

WM“

 

THE ADORATION—THE COMPOSITION

Camera della Segnatura, contains forty-eight persons; and in his Disputa the terrestrial and celestial
assemblages combined amount to sixty-six persons]

But this profusion of figures is disposed with the masterhand of genius. There is a throng about
the Virgin, but she herself sits in full and unobstructed View; and due prominence is given to all the
principal personages. There is an incessant bowing and curtseying and pressing forward, and yet the
composition is not unrestful or overcrowded. The eye finds points of repose in the turmoil, and the
picture is not lacking in open spaces between the groups. Compare any one of the earlier Florentine
pictures in which figures abound, such as Masaccio’s frescoes in the Carmine, or Ghirlandaio’s in the
Trinita and Novella. What a difference in the nature of Leonardo’s composition from that of those
just mentioned with their rows and clusters of erect figures! There has been a mighty awakening to
a riper and fuller conception of life in painting. It is the leap from epos to drama that has here
been accomplished.

As with the lines of the picture, their dramatic interweaving, composition, varied strength, and
richness—the rising and falling, tangling and disentanglingfiso with the light, which does not simply
fall from above, or from one side, to illuminate the figures evenly and equally. It ripples over the
composition like sunlight in a wood, and falls in patches and gleams, broken or arrested by raised or
projecting masses that cast sudden, deep shadows. There are figures that have the light in their faces,
and figures that have the light behind them; there are forms silhouetted in a half-light, and others
wholly bathed in direct light. Here is a gleam from a bald head, there a hand shines out; here is the
glitter of armour, there the flash of an eye. But in all this multiplicity the beautiful form of the
mother, lacking all self consciousness, is the focus towards which the rays converge. A luminous
figure, she sits in the centre of the picture.

Involuntarily one recalls Rembrandt in connection with this drama of illuminations. The Night
Watch is the single asthetic parallel. Unfinished and colourless though it be, the Adoration of the
Magi is the only Italian picture worthy of a place beside the great masterpiece of Northern art.

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

. “4-4 "2’“ J v _,.,.___.__.
LEONARDO : Study of proportion. Windsor.

XXXII

The first principle in the science of painting is the point,
the Second the line, the third the surface, the fourth is the body
that clothes itself with this surface. '

LEONARDO DA VINCI.

 

 

N looking at some pictures, we are tempted to analyse them. Leonardo’s
Adoration is one of these. When the first immediate impression of its beauty
and harmony has filled the mind, and the realisation of its imperishable value has
sunk into the consciousness, the desire to analyse is aroused, to find out wherewith
and how so rich an effect has been obtained. We should like to make a careful
examination of the artistic skill to see what the art is composed of. If this be done
‘ effectually, it will cause an ever increasing amazement at the sagacity and taste,
the ingenuity and calculation with which the work is built up. Let us then take the mechanism of the
composition to pieces, note how the wheels gear with one another, and endeavour to lay bare the
pivots, the axes of the composition, upon which everything turns. This desire to get behind
the immediate effect of a work of art and unveil its secrets will perhaps be condemned as repre-

 

 

 

 

hensible curiosity; but would not Leonardo himself be the first to give encouragement to such
a transgression ? -

The centre of the composition is, conspicuously enough, the Virgin. She is seated upon the
slope of a bank, from which a large, straight stemmed tree rises a little to the right. The tree is
placed sufficiently far away not to appear obtrusive, and its shadow does not fall upon the principal
figure in the picture, but only upon her surroundings. The dark foliage of the tree fills a large part
of the atmospheric space, and forms a connection between the light upper part of the picture and the

222

 

 

 

 

Mathematical lines of the composition.

agl.

M

aliou of the

Ador

NARDO:

LEO

 

 

 

 
 

THE ADORATION—MATHEMATICAL RHYTHMICS

dark lower part; the light portions of the atmosphere and of the background are not allowed to
compete with the luminous central figure of the scene and its other salient points. So exactly in
the middle of the picture does the Virgin seat herself that, as she turns her head a trifle to one side,
the movement gives to the neck a vertical contour that exactly coincides with the actual median
vertical line of the picture, which I have here drawn. The picture is almost square ; if we also draw
its diagonals, they intersect where the line of the neck meets that of the cheek and the outline
of the hair.

Thus to the right of the median vertical line of the picture lie the Virgin’s head, the Child and
the hand that holds him; while to the left are the feet, the knees, and the elbow of the Virgin, and
the long fold of the mantle curving down from the shoulder. If we follow this line from the neck
downwards, we shall find that it passes between her breasts and over the knot at her waist, touches
the heel of the Child and runs close to the brightly illuminated prominence in the construction of the
figure, formed by her left knee, to emerge finally at the indentation between her foot and the corner
of the mantle lying on the ground. Following the vertical upwards, we see how it cuts through a
profile head, the central figure in the group of spectators behind the Virgin, crosses the fourth step
of the staircase, parallel with the stem of the palm tree on the right and the group of women on the
left in the background, and cuts through the elbow and the head of the man talking on the farther
side of the second flight of steps, one of the most distant figures in the picture. It can scarcely be a
chance circumstance that the number of heads in this scene is the same on both sides of this median
line—sixteen on each side in addition to the one cut by the line.

If we look at the oblique lines, we are at once struck by the parallel of the back of the kneeling

king in the foreground and the double zigzag line of the steps in the background with one diagonal

of the picture. The king’s head and the Child’s head and outstretched arm are in the line itself,
while the old man behind the Virgin’s back, the horseman in the middle distance, and the horseman
in the background also lie in one oblique line. Similar oblique lines can be followed through the
composition from left to right.

One would have thought that this was more than enough of geometry, and, without the picture
before us with all its pulsating life and variety, we might easily imagine that so much calculation and
construction must result in stiffness and dryness, in dull constraint; yet these are only a few examples
of the geometrical play of lines that cross and recross the composition. For it is not merely the
course of the straight lines that control the firmness of the composition. The very first glance gives
the impression that the movement circles about the Virgin and Child. It is as though the intent
gaze directed towards the Child from all these eyes emitted rays that have met in a centre; and it
soon becomes evident that the concentrated effect is a result of this unity in the action, and
is connected with the arrangement of the figures in certain curves round the central group. If we
pick up the compasses it soon appears that these curves form circles dividing the composition into
different strata of figures about the Virgin and Child as nucleus. On drawing these circles we are
astonished to find that a number of important details stand in relation to them.

The centre of the three concentric circles described upon the picture is not in the central vertical
line of the picture’s surface, but in the vertical that is evidently the real axis of the composition.
This has wisely been laid a trifle to one side of the exact median line; an absolute coincidence might
easily have produced a dry, constrained effect. As the momentary action depicted, the presentation
of the goblet, takes place in the right half of the picture, and the movement of the central group with

225 FF

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

the Child’s outstretched arm inclines in that direction, the axis of the composition is also displaced
towards the right, so that the centre must be looked for in the part between the Virgin and the Child.
I consider the real axis of the composition to be the dotted line which runs down the stem of the
palm tree in the background, and through the middle of the three young heads behind the Virgin,
crosses the line of her forehead, touches the Child’s elbow, and passes through the point where the
outlines of her hand and the Child’s leg meet. Taking this prominent point as my centre, I have
described three circles. The innermost circumscribes the greater part of the Vi'rgin’s figure, the
whole of the Child, and the golden gift, which engages the general attention. Its periphery
touches the three lowest heads in the circle of worshippers, namely, the kneeling king, the “pilgrim ”
on the right, and Joseph on the left of the Virgin. The next‘circle exactly takes in the heads of
Joseph, the Pilgrim and the kneeling king, touches the deeply bowed head of the oldest of the kings,
and emphasises the circular arrangement of young heads in the middle distance. The outSide circle
includes these last, the Declaimer with the uplifted hand, the hollow eyed, ascetic face of the Hermit,
the head of the prostrate king, and the youth behind him, who shades his eyes with his hand. It
may also be worth remarking how this outside periphery follows the contour of the kneeling king’s
arm from the elbow, touches the head of the gazer with hand raised to brow, the horseman’s cheek
and the finger tip of the youth pointing upwards. Outside the circle, we notice how the young king’s
head in the foreground, and those of the horseman on the left, and of the pale, sensitive youth on the
right, follow the curve of the circle, as do also, farther removed, the horse’s head, and the youth climbing
up the bank.

I will not exactly maintain that these three circles have been in Leonardo’s mind and drawn by
his hand; but I do say that he has been more or less conscious of them While forming the composition.
It may in general be taken for granted that every firm, good composition contains a mathematical
rhythm and certain geometrical regularities as a nucleus; but it is only by a very careful analysis of
the formal properties of the composition that these will be laid bare. For aesthetic enquiry, the study
of this mathematical rhythm of works of art is of the greatest importance. In such investigations
the point is to distinguish clearly between essential and unessential, and to beware of far fetched
conclusions. A rule and compasses will always be able to find lines in a picture wherever they are
placed; but all lines are not of compositional importance. In the case, however, of an artist so
thoroughly conscious and so scientifically inclined as Leonardo da Vinci, it might seem permissible
to make a more subtle analysis of the formal properties of the work than with most other artists.
In his Treatise on Painting he himself speaks incessantly of the “science of painting,” and of the
necessity of mathematics to the painter for the “harmony of the divine proportions.”

 

 

I
x
‘5
r
l

_._“.‘_—fl~

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO : Portrait of himself. Black chalk drawing. Windsor.

XXXIII.

The soul is the origin of the body.
LEONARDO DA VINCI.

NCE more we will gather to take a last look at the Adoration of the Magi, this
remarkable work, which opens a new epoch in painting, and into which all the
wealth of the past and the present seems to flow. This time, however, it is not to
take the work to pieces by analysis, but to try to grasp its great synthesis, and if
possible express it in an idea. The more deeply I study the Adoration, the more
am I persuaded that the picture represented something different and more than the
Bible story—that a people, or rather mankind, is its real subject, mankind during
an event that brings all together. All ages, all temperaments are there; the greatest contrasts had
to be given a place within its frame. But all human feelings can unfold freely. The fact that a wave
of admiration, respect and devotion washes up round the Miracle in the foreground of the picture,
does not prevent the breaking out of quarrels in the background; animals and men fight fiercely,
raising clouds of dust. That which is taking place in the foreground is no ordinary adoration, not an
all-devouring devotion, paralysing the intelligence. Did devotion hold undivided sway, the picture
would not be drama, but idyl or legend, like so many church paintings before it. Here it is drama,
because Leonardo saw life as drama—excitement, discord, harmony.

 

227

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI.

Here are old men throwing themselves upon the ground and soliciting the favour of a child. Here
are hectic hysterical persons trembling in sympathy, and people who are pushing forward because they
are possessed with simple curiosity. Others are standing in serious meditation, or battling with doubt.
Out of the breakers of self-sacrifice these rocks of reflection raise their heads. The old cloaked
philosopher on the left is such a rock, the knight on the right another. The old sage wraps himself
in his toga and supports his chin upon his hand; his eyes no longer see, but look as it were inwards.
Questioning glances are cast at him, as if they sought the explanation. He seems to be letting them
wait for an answer.

And what is intended by the young knight with the mysteriously passionate expression on his face?
His attitude is remarkably quiet in comparison with the movement in the midst of which he is standing.
With one hand he gathers his cloak about him, the other he extends, rather in command than pointing
in the direction of the child. His face, however, he turns the other way; he is talking out of the
picture to a person we do not see. It must be to some one close by, for the carriage of the head and
the expression of the face indicate subdued speech, an impressive whisper full of suppressed fire. It
almost appears as if he is speaking to us, the gazers at the picture, and that he remains the only one,
with the exception of the philosopher, who is not carried away by the vortex of feeling, an objective
bystander, who is speaking out of the picture, and prompting explanations.

Elsewhere in the picture too, this tendency to break through or enlarge the frame of the picture,
by addressing someone outside whom we do not see, is noticeable. To the left, in the middle distance,
there is a man on horseback engaged in explaining what he sees to those standing outside. In the
background on the same side, the attention is also concentrated upon some action outside the
composition, towards which the horseman is dashing. It is as though the artist wanted to give an
impression of the way in which the movement is spreading and influencing people far beyond the little
circle of those whom the painting was capable of representing.

If we look attentively at the figures surrounding the Virgin, we perceive that in spite of the bowed
backs and adoring gestures, the multitude is not moved by adoration only. Their wonder and curiosity
are perhaps even greater than their devotion. The wonderful Child is the object of a cross fire of
enquiring glances. Young and old crane their necks and shade their eyes in order to see better, to
look more closely. On every side there is questioning, and enquiring, and listening. The people
crowd round the Marvel, each with his suppositions, the old men with the accumulated longing of a
lifetime for the truth, the young with curiosity, wonder, and a burning desire for knowledge. Behind
the bank like a wall, is a semi-circle of young, soft, unfinished faces, framed in curling locks. Their
position is as though they must not come too near With their inexperience. But they have their spokesman
in the crowd; they are in touch with what is taking place through the youth to the right of the Virgin.
His speaking profile and large white hand raised in description, are marvels of expressiveness. From
this proclaiming hand flows at current of conviction that is propagated like an electric wave out to the
horseman on the other extreme edge of the circle. The members of the crowd point upwards, raise
their hands in wonder and awe, all question and answer and instinctive ardour.

Once more we turn to the cluster of faces over which the speaking hand gleams. Nearest to the

.Child is the highly worked and illuminated head of the old man with his hand shading his eyes, as if

to guard them against the all too dazzling light. Like the old man behind the Virgin’s back (Joseph?),
the type is Semitic in character. With impertinent curiosity, he bends forward to examine the Child
at close quarters. His expression is one of sheer effort and intention to see for himself; but the

228

 

l
l

‘.

 

. .a..- _ p 7".“‘ __.

 

 

THE ADORATION—ITS IDEAS.

 

LEONARDO: Detail of the Adoration.

movement of his hand indicates that the sight has touched him. He is the pilgrim with the hard
heart and the many doubts, who has had to see the Marvel with his own eyes.

By his side, but more in the shadow, the almost skull-like head of an old man is pressing forward,
with extreme emotion expressed in his face and gestures. He represents the ascetic, hectic hermit of
the S. Jerome type, who, after a life of penitence and self-denial, stands at last at the goal of his
desires—the certainty of the marvel. The fire in his deep-set eyes is burnt out, his thin lips quiver
with emotion, and he raises trembling hands in thanks and prayer.

There is still another head in this group to the right, which is both attractive and touching in its
expression, perhaps more so than any other in the picture. The head of the youth next the ascetic
droops sideways like a heavy, white lily. He is overcome with emotion, his lips are parted but not
because he is speaking; his gaze is rivetted upon the sight, and his heart trembles. His eyes are not
burning with curiosity, as are the others ; they are filled with tears and the eyelids quiver in emotion.
The whole of his fine, tender soul is poured forth in a glance, like a fragile, beautiful melody from an
[Eolian harp.

229

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

But as if to prevent the impression of this sympathetic face from being too sweet, another youthful
face—O greatly calculating Leonardo l—is pushed forward closely, hard and clear cut, with over-
shadowed profile and fiercely searching gaze.

What have all these people come together for, and what do they feel so strongly? What occasions
the curiosity and the adoration, the doubt and the reflections ? Salvation. The marvel.

What salvation and what marvel? This child is not the traditional Child Saviour of the old
church paintings, the Babe of Bethlehem upon the lap of the Queen of Heaven. Where are all the
traditional accompaniments, the nimbus, the choir of angels, the star of Bethlehem, the thatched hut,
the ox and the ass? we cannot even be sure of Joseph amongst those present. The dogmatic is
swept away as foreign; the purely human remains and is intensified. We see a child, wise and almost
self-conscious, enthroned upon his mother’s lap with an expression that is a mixture of naive directness
and admitted sovereignity. We see a woman sweet and graceful, and above all natural—modest,
simple, wholly human. She is happy, without forebodings, without mysticism.

Leonardo was not a Christian. The Christian dogmas were no refuge for his mind. He opposes
them where experience and logic bid him think otherwise. He does not rocognise the Miracle against
the natural laws. La neciessitd é tema e inventrice della mum/a, freno .e Vegola etema. Necessity is the
nucleus and origin of nature, its eternal rule and bridle. In his aphorisms and satirical “problems,”
he speaks jestingly and ironically of various religious representations and of priestly dogma. The
monks, “the holy brethren,” are to him synonymous with “Pharisees.” Leonardo’s writings prove
Vasari to have been correct when, in his biography he states with a little sigh that “the painter
of the Last Supper had in his heart arrived at so heretical a View that he belonged to no religion at
all, and in short considered it more dignified to be a philosopher than to be a Christian.”

Of Christian subjects, Leonardo, as far as we know, has treated none but Madonna idylls, the
Adoration of the Magi and the Last Supper. The Passion and its drama of sacrifice, blood and tears
—the Scourging, the Crucifixion, the Deposition from the Cross, the Women weeping over the Dead
Christ, the Entombment, the Resurrection and the Ascension, and finally the Last Judgment, are
motives seemingly outside the sphere of his interest and sympathy.

But even ifLeonardo regarded the dogmas of the Church with the scepticism of the modern empiric,
he was certainly far from being an atheist. He saw a great world-moving reason and will behind the
phenomena. “O admirable impartiality of Thine, Thou first Mover; Thou hast not permitted that
any force should fail of the order or quality of its necessary results.” Practically his religion was a
reverence for the truth, and a profound delight in justice. Perhaps the depth of his religious feeling
can best be gauged by a sudden utterance in one of his writings, revealing dearly bought knowledge:
“ \Nhere there is most feeling, there is the greatest martyrdom ;—0 gerde mar/tire.”

In Jesus, Leonardo certainly saw nothing more than the perfect man, animated by love and self-
sacrifice. He may have had a dim notion of the superhuman being, crystallised out of a super-
abundance of wisdom, experience and gentleness—a kind of moral genius in contrast to all the hard,
selfish talent of the age, but quite within the limits of the ideal humanity, without miracle and theology.
Leonardo’s conception of man’s ordinary nature cannot be said to be any too idealistic. He is not
able to find words sufficiently strong when he speaks of man as the cruellest and greediest of all
animals; but for that very reason the human ideal that he had in his mind, and must have striven after
throughout his life, shone with a mystic glory. This is the mystery of which the Adoration treats.

'Nothing leaves a brighter radiance in our life than a remembrance of glimpses we have had of

230

 

LEONARDO AND CHRISTIANITY

 

LEONARDO : Wisdom and Justice defending a persecuted bird from Envy’s wolves and birds of prey. Pen-drawing. Oxford.’

goodness combined with intelligence. Separated, they are stupid or barren qualities; united, they
shine more brightly than power, courage, or the greatest independence of will. A gifted understanding,
the supreme human faculty, can alone create without at the same time destroying. It is the basis
of all art.

In his book on painting, Leonardo speaks of the superiority of painting to poetry. In order to
describe beauty, he writes, the poet is obliged to analyse and divide it into various constituent
parts. “ It is like voices which, instead of mingling in chorus, sing one after another.” The painter,
on the contrary, he thinks, is able to show actual beauty. He allows all the parts to sound at once,
“ so that the delicious concert bewitches the senses—the harmony of the divine proportions.”

No work can better illustrate what the artist means by these words than his own picture of the
Adoration. In it all the separate parts, all the differences and contrasts, sound together in perfect

231

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

the idea that the real object of the adoration is this very
Is there not room for the thought that the divine Mother
and that this, with its celestial brightness is

harmony. But does this not suggest
“harmony of the divine proportions?”
with her Child is merely a symbol of perfect humanity,

dazzling the multitude, drawing mankind to itself, compelling subjection and adoration?
o’s most secret intention When we interpret this drama of inquiry,

Surely we come near to Leonard
i0 ingenii humani in sinu szmplicztatis, an act of homage to

acknowledgment, and adoration, as an adored
the genius born of intuition and simplicity.

 

4

 

 

LORENZO DEI’ )IICI)I(‘I,
called the MAGNIFICENT.

From A medal by
NICCOLO I'lORENTINO.

 

XXXIV

EONARDO‘S Adoration of the Magi wasa productof the strong and still unassailed
spirit of the Renaissance. The work quivers with Vitality. The scene is depicted
with an impassioned feeling, as far removed from the dullness and worldliness of
Benozzo Gozzoli as from the hysteria of Savonarola’s time as it appears in the
pictures of the old, converted Botticelli. No shadow of the thunder clouds of the
Passion darkens the scene; no dull presentiment paralyses its action. But all

 

who are taking part in it have been lifted out of the self-complacent, homely idyl
that is the atmosphere of so much of the Florentine art at the period in which the work appeared.

The picture came into existence during stirring times. It was probably begun in the very year of
the Pazzi conspiracy; the chain of evidence, formed by the drawings with a fixed starting—point in
the sheet of 1478, proves this. The artist had received strong impressions and been through
agitating personal experiences. The anonymous accusation that brought him before the court had
not broken his spirit, but rather awakened his full self-esteem and caused his thoughts to dwell on
his own genius and its peculiar position among men. He certainly had a suspicion that the day
would come when the great ones of the earth would bow down before the splendour of his talent.

He also recently had an opportunity of observing men under conditions and in situations in which
they gave the rein to their passions. Belonging as he
did to the higher society of Florence, there is a pro-
bability that he was present at the festival in the
Cathedral on that Sunday in April when Giuliano de’
Medici fell beneath the assassins’ daggers. Perhaps
he knelt in silence when the little silver bell rang
from the altar as the cardinal elevated the Host, and
at the same moment heard the cry of the falling man
and saw the wave of horror surge through the sea of
people at the accomplished crime.

We know, in any case, that he was present at the
murderer’s execution, saw him pushed out of the
window of the Bargello and hanging at the end of the

 

Landiui. l’olitian. I’icinus.
From Ghirlamlaio's fresco in S .\l£ll'l.’| Novella.

233 no

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

rope. He must certainly then have watched the
waves of emotion passing over the throng. This
popular spectacle can hardly have been the
only one of its kind of which he had experience.
Long after, when he wrote his Treatise on
Painting, he says how useful it is for the painter
to observe a crowd and the numerous different
expressions in it at moments when an exciting
incident engages the attention, as, for instance,
when the priest elevates the Host before the
altar, or when the death-blow falls at an execu- _ LEON “HHS“ ALBERT];

f Byhimself. Dreyfuss Collection, Paris.

   

ANGELO POLITIAN:
FromamedalbyNiccolo Fiorcmino. tion. Yes, he saw Giullano, the faVourIte O

the people, struck down; but he also saw Lorenzo escape, live, take his revenge, and rule over
Florence. He saw him secure in the admiration and devotion of the people, rather than by the body-
guard of the Signoria. Florentine politics were exciting during the years Leonardo was working
upon the Adoration. Leagued with Venice, Milan and Ferrara, the ruling Medici and his people
stood armed and ready to receive the papal troops when, allied with the enemies of Florence, they
entered Tuscany. The period was full of anxiety and excitement, but also of hope and expectation.
Youth, strength and the worship of beauty enriched the hours.

The immigration of the Greek humanists was still fresh in the minds of the people. Leonardo
himself may have seen in his childhood one or another of those grey-headed “wise men from the
east ” in the streets of Florence. The academy of the Platonists was at the height of its prosperity.
In the Villa Carreggi, high above the city of the Arno, menA—Christoforo Landini, Marsilius Ficinus,
Pulci and Politian—still met in the shady arcades for philosophical conversation and discussion, or to
take their seats in banquet. Their host was Lorenzo, now thirty years old.

At the Florence academy Landini delivered his lectures on Petrarch, and moreover was occupied
in preparing his edition of Dante and considering his philosophic reflections based upon a holiday
spent at Camaldoli. Ficinus, the indefatigable Platonist, spread his propaganda indefatigably,
even from the cathedral pulpit, where, with his overflowing eloquence for “our great Plato’s holy
philosophy,” he held up the Greek as the forerunner of Christ. In Florence Lorenzo himself was
the first to turn again to his mother-tongue for poetry, and his pleasant, popular songs were on
everybody’s lips. Pulci was the romantic poet of
the city. His fantastic, burlesque epic about “the
giant Morgante ” was the book of the day. His poem
on the Medicis’ famous tournament in honour of the
fair Simonetta was almost finished. On the same
occasion the young Politian took up his pen to write in
the most elegant Italian his famous stanza. Science
flourished side by. side with poetry. By the generosity
of the Strozzis, the Medicis, and the Bencis, archae-
ologists were enabled to collect valuable Greek
and Latin manuscripts fer the libraries of Florence.

   

PAULO 'I‘OSCANEIJJ: PICO DELLA MIRANDOLA:

1.‘,,,,,,M,Qn,.aitbyiznidwi..em. The wonderful fountain of antiquity gushed forth in FromaporlraitintheUffizi.

234

 

 

 

THE AGE OF LORENZO THE MAGNIFICENT

ever-increasing abundance. Aristotle was
not forgotten for Plato, nor the natural
sciences for philosophy. Mathematics, per—
spective, and anatomy were all eagerly
cultivated. The versatile architect and
man of science, Leon Battista Alberti
(1404-1472), Leonardo’s great forerunner
as encyclopaedic theoretician, had died
recently, but Toscanelli was still living.
Probaby few men in Florence had such
influence on the youthful Leonardo as
Paolo Toscanelli (1397-1482), physician,
mathematician, astronomer,geographer,“ the
ANTONIO DE]. POLLAIUOLO: friend Of all learned men” and the SCientifiC DOMENICO (lHIRI./\Nll/\l():

PaintedbyFilippinoLippiinaFrescoinS.Carmine. guide of Colun—lbus, Who sailed by his Chart Hy himself, in a fresco in S. MurinNovello.

when he discovered America. At this time Toscanelli must have been more than seventy years of
age, a man who “spoke little, and often listened for hours to the conversation of others,” says a
contemporary, “ but when he spoke, always said something remarkable.” Does not this fully describe
his individuality? A man after Leonardo’s heart! Leonardo may also have met Pico della Mirandola
(1463-1494) in Florence as quite a youth, from fifteen to eighteen years of age. The handsome
young nobleman must have just begun his philosophic studies under Ficinus, and was made much of
by the Platonists, being loved by men as well as by women. Mirandola, who became the greatest
and most remarkable of the Florentine Platonists, was destined to end his days as a monk and
a mystic by conviction. Did Leonardo really know him? There is certainly a resemblance to
Leonardo’s train of thought in what Pico della Mirandola makes God say to man in a famous speech
“ On Man’s Dignity” 2 “ I have placed thee in the midst of the world so that thou mayest more easily
see what is in the world. I created thee as a being neither heavenly nor earthly, neither mortal nor
immortal, in order that thou mightest form thyself according to thine own liking. Thou .canst
debase thyself into an animal, thou canst rise to the likeness of God. Happy art thou, 0 man, who
canst be what thou wilt l The Creator hath granted to man from his birth the seed and germs of a
life that may turn out in all manner of ways; what each builds up-in himself, of that will he harvest
the fruit. He may become _ , ,. . ,, that at the moment there

   

plant, animal, man; he may was an ebb after the great

become an angel and the Son storm waves of the Early
of God. As a godlike spirit
he will have his place in front
of all in the mysterious king-

dom of the Father who is

Renaissance when conquering
geniuses such as Brunelleschi,
Donatello and Masaccio had
passed over the town. The
placed over everything.” wonderful period was not yet
Turning from literature so distant but that its works
and science to the artistic still influenced the younger

production of Florence, it

 

generation. The frescoes in

I’ilippino Lippi. Botticelli.

ITIUSt, 1)erhaps, be adtnitted Portraits in Filippino'sfrescoin S. Carmine. 8- carmlne contlnued~ for a

235

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

long time to draw young men in reverence and a desire to learn. The dome of the cathedral
was comparatively new and bright. S. Spirito had recently been completed according to the
deceased architect’s designs, and the variegated marble facade of S. Maria Novella, stood in all its
spick-and-span freshness. The Medici, l’itti and Rucellai palaces had long since been built and
were gradually acquiring the delicate patina of time.

In the sculptors’ guild Lucca, the eldest of the lx’obbias, was still the Nestor. llis boticga, under
the direction of his nephew Andrea, ri 'alled Verrocchio’s in the quantity of commissions received.
Desiderio, virtuoso in marble, was dead, but the brothers Rosselino, fienedetto da Majano and Mino
da Fiesole continued the refined traditions of his style. ()f the painters there were certainly none
now living of the important group of realists, who laid the foundation in Florence of the study of
perspective, severe form, and the painting of light, artists such as Castagno, Uccello, and Domenico
Veneziano. But their gifted successor, l’iero della Francesca, was still working in Tuscany; and
Baldovinetti, Verrocchio and the brothers Pollaiuoli, followed the same footsteps. The piety, the
lyricism and the taste for narrative in the art of Fra Angelicor and Fra Filippo were inherited by
Sandro Botticelli, whose intellect and noble appreciation of line, raised these qualities to a higher
sphere of art. Among the painters of the youngergeneration Perugino, still in Florence, was quite
thirty years of age, and Ghirlandaio nearly thirty. The latter had already painted his first cycle of
frescoes. Credi and Filippino, as nineteen-year-old journeymen, were working for their masters and
receiving commissions of their own. The boys Raffaellino and Piero di Cosimo were also probably
already handling the brush.

Whichever way we look we see signs of growth. Florence was in the hour of her prosperity, with her
lucky star at its zenith. Learning and wisdom were gathered in the city, and art prospered as never
before or since. During this period Leonardo created the masterpiece of his youth, the Adoration of
the Magi. Botticelli had recently painted his Adoration, and about the same time had sung a hymn to
Venus and prepared a festival in honour of Spring with his wonderfully melodious handling of lines.
Pollaiuoli, at the height of his power, had also recently engraved his “Battle of Ten,” and given
expression to the Violent, manful feelings of his emotional nature in the bacchantic dancers of the
frescoes in the Torre a1 Gallo. It was now Leonardo’s turn to extol life and pay homage to
humanity. The Adoration of the Magi is that homage.

W7 noaTNZA/

, \7\/

 

Florence in the time of Leonardo. From an engraving of 1490. Berlin.

 

 

.AM

AMAfia— ~ .

“W

DOMENICO
CHIRLANllAIO

Adoration
(painted 1487). I lffixi.

 

XXXV

‘Vhen Raphael saw works by Leonardo da Vinci, who was incom-
parable in his ability to render the expression of both male and female
heads, and who surpassed all other painters in the grace and nmvemcnts

which he imparted to his figures, he stood speechless and wondering ;

and as Leonardo’s style pleased him, he set himself to the study thereof,
tried as well as he could and succeeded in imitating Leonardo’s manner.

VASARI.

D T is difficult to estimate the influence of the Adoration on subsequent Italian art.
‘ The old conventionalities that Leonardo had unbound, and the seed of revival that
he scattered abroad in his own and succeeding times, may be more easily
guessed at than proved. The influence is, of course, most apparent in the repre-
sentations of the same subject that came into being in Florence during the next
few succeeding years, in Domenico Ghirlandaio’s well composed tondo of the
Adoration of the Kings (about £487), and in Filippino Lippi’s great square altar-
piece for the monks of S. Scopeto (about 1496) (p. I47), both at the Uffizi. The central position of
the Virgin, the grouping of the kings and the people, the stationary figures at the extreme limits of
the picture, and the architecture in the background with the horses and warriors, all recall more or
less distinctly the great prototype. At the same time the tradition of Filippo Lippi and Botticelli
was too strong in both of them to be shaken; they remained faithful to the quattrocento view, and
failed to grasp the revolutionary aspect of Leonardo’s art.

More important, however, are the impulses that spread from Leonardo’s work to his great equals
Michelangelo and Raphael. The resemblance between certain motives of movement in Leonardo’s
studies and others in Michelangelo’s works has already been mentioned (p. 192) The “Adoration ”
influenced Raphael far stronger and more directly itself when, thirty years later, he proceeded to

 

237

 

 

 

\\

LEONARDO DA VINCI

the task of creating monumental paintings
in the rooms of the Vatican. Raphael’s
artistic temperament was impressionable
and as soft as wax. His genius consisted
to a great degree in always and everywhere
appropriating to himself what he could use,
and in making it entirely his own. He had
no compunction in borrowing from pre-
decessors and contemporaries. What he
borrowed became, artistically speaking, pa rt
of himself, so that he was able to recreate
it as his own. One does not notice, there-
fore, that there is anything borrowed in his RAPHAEL: A Mmgorem. Detail of amen

of the School of Athens. Ambmsiana, Milan.

 

LEONARDO: Joseph.
x i .\ K I If . 0 I i . .
”Ml Of the MM)" works until the immediate impression

yields to strict analysis. Even in the lower half of the “ Disputa ” fresco, with its highly concentrated
action about the monstrance on the altar, and the numerous pointing hands and earnestly gazing eyes
which characterise the composition, we involuntarily rememberLeonardo’s work. But more noticeable
loans occur, such as the cloaked man standing on the right in the foreground, and pointing into the
picture while he turns to speak in the opposite direction, gathering his cloak about him with his left
hand. \Nho does not recognise in this figure the Knight in the Adoration ?

Raphael’s S. Paul, moreover, both here in the “ Disputa” and in the “8. Cecilia” at Bologna,
recall the Philosopher in the Adoration. If we turn from the “ Disputa” to the clear, beautiful
composition on the opposite wall, the “School of Athens,” we can no longer speak of a general
influence as far as the composition is concerned. This composition is independent and truly
Raphaelesque with its wonderful, clear tranquility and perfect harmony of form. But if we turn
from the picture as a whole to examine the details, and to consider the various types and actions of
which the whole is composed, we find to our astonishment a number of points of contact with
Leonardo. In the dramatically disturbed foreground group on the right surrounding Archimedes,
we perceive a reflection of Leonardo’s logical art of composition, his mysterious method of linking
figures together by glances and movements of the hand. Both here and in the left foreground
group about Pythagoras, bending and
stretching movements are abundantly
employed, and with dramatic effect.
Compare, for instance, the youth far-
thest away in the group by Archimedes,
stretching out his hands in admira-
tion of what he sees, with the youth
behind the Virgin's back in the Adoration,
who is making a similar movement with
his hands (see the details at the top of the
next page). The connection is unmistak-
able, for not only is there a resemblance
in the motion of the two figures, but, even 56:312.:teiioiliiiieriiiian

   

RAPHAEL: The Oriental. Detail of the School
of Athens. Amlirosiana, Milan.

238

 

i
g
l

 

AZT.fi_——~. N—

 

THE ADORATION—ECHOES

in the attitude of the head and
the oval of the face, the remem-
brance of Leonardo’s figure
comes before us in Raphael’s
cartoon. Leonardo’s influence is
to be most clearly traced in the
cartoon of the School of Athens
(in the Ambrosian Library in
Milan). On working over it the
second time in the fresco itself,
the reminiscences have,naturally
enough, to some extent evapo-
LEONARDO: Detail of the Adoration. rated, With positive astonish_ RAPHAEL: Deiailor the School or Athens.

   

ment we discover in the cartoon a type of old man such as the bald, bearded man with the corners of
the mouth drawn down, who is bending forward and craning his neck behind Pythagoras to the left.
The old Pythagorean is almost an exact copy of Leonardo’s bald old man who leans forward behind
the Virgin’s back—the so-called Joseph. Having once noticed the peculiarity of types and actions,
we cannot fail to detect the resemblance between the turbaned Oriental behind the back of Pythagoras,
and Leonardo’s hollow eyed Hermit. In the same way parallels may be drawn between Raphael’s type
of youth and Leonardo’s. The profile of the handsome, long-haired youth who is bending with deep
interest over Archimedes’ circles in the group on the right, is purely Leonardesque, with delicate features,
deep set eyes and large eyelids. To the extreme left of the cartoon there is a profile of another youth
projecting behind the Pythagorean, almost more Leonardesque than Leonardo’s own youths. With
straight, classic profile and veiled glance, this type rather recalls Leonardo’s Milanese imitators, such
as Bernardino Luini.

We have testimony to the fact that Raphael admired the rhythm in the outline of the Virgin and
Child in Leonardo’s work. There was of course no place for her in the Vatican frescoes,but Raphael
kept the impression in his heart, and returned to the motive, when in 1512 he composed his
Madonna di Foligno (in the Vatican Gallery). As the illustration on the next page shows,
the actual position with one foot
higher than the other and the
flexed knee, the transverse line
of the arm, and the inclination
of the head, are actually copied
from Leonardo’s Virgin, but
with less graceful and tranquil
effect. The Child, on the con-
trary, is essentially different in
the two pictures. That Leo-
nardo had an earlier prototype
to support him when he sketched
the outline of his Virgin group

 

RAPHAEL : Leonardesque type of youth.

. h b 11.11 . RAPHAEL : Leonardesque type of youth.
From the School of Athens. IS S OWn y t e 1 UStra-tlon on From the School of Athens.

239

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

page 177, representingAndrca Mantegna’s
engraving of the principal group in his own
Adoration. The Adoration of the Magi,
which remained in Florence “in the
house,” as Vasari tells us, “of Amerigo
Benci opposite the Loggia dei Peruzzi,”
was perhaps still more of an education to
Raphael during the nearly five years he
spent in Florence, than the cartoon of the
Battle of Anghiari. Piero di Cosimo and
Fra Bartolommeo also gained much by the
study of Leonardo’s art, more especially
of the Adoration, which was in the city.
Vasari expressly mentions with regard to
Fra Bartolommeo that it was through
the study of Leonardo that he developed

   

1‘; i - " u' 1 j ' ‘ ' ' RAPHAEL: V' r' ‘
I l ()VARIK). V irhin ind ( lnld. Into a finlshed artlst. On the VVhOle Detai] of [he quomgkllliIlllidI-Chlkl. )
A (1 ‘olgno 1512.

Detail of the Adoration.
Vatican.

Vasari has a very clear insight into the
historical development when he begins the third part of his great biographical work with the life of
Leonardo da Vinci “ as he who gave life to that third mania/(L which we will call modem.” I

 

 

LEONARDO: Allegorical Drawing. \Voman with Unicorn.
British Museum.

 

 

 

 

 

British Museum. Louvre. Louvre.

LEONARDO: Argument motive from the Adoration.

XXXVI

T is impossible to take leave of the studies for the Adoration and the multiplicity
of ideas that they contain, without dwelling upon the strange connection between
one of the motives on these sheets of studies and Leonardo’s most famous work,
the Last Supper. The suggestion may sound like a paradox, but is the truth itself,
that the artistic idea of the Last Supper, the agitated company gathered round
a table, taken at a dramatic moment, is to be found among the preliminary studies
~ ‘ for the groups of warriors in the background of the Adoration. This motive,
of which no use was made, which was rejected but is found upon the sheet of studies in the Louvre
(p. 203), must certainly be a sketch from memory of an actual scene either in a Florentine inn or a
gathering of artists, where young and old sat round’a long table, discussing some subject in which all
were deeply interested. I mean the motive to which I have frequently referred under the name
of the “ Argument,” and which is repeated in varying form on three different sheets of studies, namely,
in the British Museum, at W'indsor, and in the Louvre.

The motive consists of a group of two or three seated figures in earnest conversation. One of the
group is speaking, explaining, endeavouring to convince, with eager gesticulations; the others are
listening thoughtfully in some doubt, with intent expressions on their pondering faces.

In the first two of the studies, at Windsor and the British Museum, the scene has evidently been
intended as a background motive'for the Adoration of the Magi. On the third sheet there are still
traces left of this first intention (the connection with the archer), but in addition we can actually follow
the process whereby the motive departs from its original connection, and discover how a new chain of
ideas originates and acquires a definite form on the same sheet.

There may possibly be a difference of opinion as to which of the two sketches of the “Argument ”
should be placed first in the series of studies in this subject—the group of three in the red chalk
drawing at Windsor (p. 204), or the group of two in the pen-drawing in the British Museum (p. 202);
but from purely external signs (the leaning motive, the travelling requisites, the horn-blower) they
are both indisputable links in the chain of studies for the Adoration, and both find a distinct
continuation on the sheet in the Louvre (p. 203). The group of the two youths in the drawing in the
British Museum is varied on the Paris sheet in the group of the youth trying to convince the old man

  

241 HH

-a _..._~._.:.m

 

W1. ..

x. ”.2 _.___."._...,_ ,

 

 

  
 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

. Louvre.
\Vindsor. Louvre.

LEONARDO : The Argument motive becomes the Last Supper motive.

(see the comparative illustration on the preceding page). The leg supported upon the bench and the
eloquent motion of the hand are repeated, but altered from full-face to profile, and with greater
intensity of expression. The resting motive for the listener is also repeated, free and graceful in the
youth, more marked and crouching in the old man. In the same way the curving lines of the back
in the \Vindsor drawing recur in the group of three at the end of the table on the Louvre sheet, and
the motive with the folded arms and the head resting on the hand is here brought to wonderful
perfection in the dreamy youth beside them. Here, too, it is youth that speaks and tries to convince
old age, speaks fervently and confidently, with impulsive movements. The young man grasps one
of his auditors by the wrist to compel his attention, while he energetically opposes the other in
refutation. There is wonderful psychological shading in these three figures in the Argument motive,
which linearly combine to form a group—the fiery, confident youth, the old man who listens readily
and sedately and'is almost persuaded, and the Mephistophelean sceptic at the end of the table,
who, with clenched teeth and strained logic, puts himself in a posture of defence. Two other figures
are added to this group, the young, weak looking, listening dreamer, and the man with the quick
temper and ungovernable tongue, who leaps up from the bench on to the table, taking the part of his
friend with expressive gestures of the hand. It is easy to see that the disputants are Italians.

The “Argument ” motive has grown into an independent scene, with the addition of the last-
named two figures. They break up the original confined setting of the group, and make the
introduction of the table necessary as well as the shifting of the scene from a step, or anywhere
in the open air, to an inn or a room. ‘

In so doing the “Argument” motive has grown too large for the Adoration. It can no longer be
employed as an inferior accessory on one of the stairs in the background. That idea has to be set
aside. All that is left of it in the picture is the young man sitting in the ruin and bending over
a low stone rampart at the extreme left of the picture (see detail in the series of motives on
page 196), evidently a reminiscence of the youth in the drawing who leaps on to the table. But
at the very moment when the artist has become aware of the necessity for this, a new and wonder-

ful idea seems to have darted into his brain. The psychologically productive motive, which he had
taken from nature, was capable of still greater things.

242

 

."

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE GENESIS OF THE “LAST SUPPER”

     

LEONARDO : Sketch for the Last Supper. Red clzalk drawing. Accademia, Venice.

In one of Leonardo’s manuscripts”3 man speaking to a number of people

 

may be read the following description“ of i #i ‘ . X..\ consider the matter of which he has to
representing a man speaking to a multi- _ Hf“ ‘VL, treat and adapt his action to the sub-
tude ” : “When you wish to represent a ject. Thus, if he speaks persuasively,

let his action be appropriate to it. If the matter in hand be to set forth an argument, let
the speaker, with the fingers of the right hand, hold one finger of the left hand, having the two
smaller ones closed; and his face alert, and turned towards the people with mouth a little open to
look as though he spoke; and if he is sitting let him appear as though about to rise, with his head
forward. If you represent him standing make him leaning slightly forward with body and head
towards the people. These you must represent as silent and attentive, all looking at the orator’s
face with gestures of admiration; and make some old men in astonishment at the things they hear
with the corners of their mouths pulled down and drawn in, their cheeks full of furrows, and their
eyebrows raised, and wrinkling the forehead where they meet. Again, some sitting with their fingers
clasped holding their weary knees. Again, some bent old man, with one knee crossed over the
other; on which let him hold his hand with his other elbow resting in it and the hand supporting his
bearded chin.”

It is not difficult to see what this description is based upon, a description which Leonardo wrote
down in his Treatise on Painting many years after he had drawn the above study, at a time “hen he
must have been working at the Last Supper in S. Maria delle Grazie in Milan. He has simply taken
out one of his old Florentine sketch-books, and made the sheet of studies now in the Louvre the
foundation of his academic lecture on the manner of treating such a subject. Here, as always,
experience is his teacher. He does not theorise vaguely, but describes exactly from a drawing what
he once observed. For I venture to maintain that the Argument scene round the table in the
Louvre drawing is an actual scene taken from life in Florence, the town that at this period probably
had the most dlsputatious and dialectically inclined population in the world. Leonardo was present
at the scene one evening, either at an inn or in company, and recorded it the next day in his
wonderfully pregnant language of lines, stripped of clothing and all unessential accessories.

It should be noticed that in the description there is not a word indicating that the scene has to
do with the Last Supper. That idea did not present itself until afterwards. With Leonardo, as
with every great artist, the visual impression is the first—the line motive, the distribution of the
masses, the light, colour. What use can be made of it all, what it means, the so-called idea, are

secondary. It comes by reflection, and reflection is no fountain-head ; it fosters, but it does not bring
forth.

243

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

 

LEONARDO: Various sketches for the Last Supper. Pen drawings. \Vindsor.

\Vhat use could be made of the argument motive, what idea it ultimately came to serve, we are
told by this same sheet 'ofstu‘dies in the Louvre. A little removed on the sheet, drawn in the same
style, apparently with the same pen and the same ink, perhaps on the same day, there is a young
man in half-length, with long waving hair and forked beard, naked like the others and Sitting at the
table, the same table, although drawn lower down. He is stretching out one hand, pointing towards a
dish in front of him, while the other he lays painfully upon his breast. No one can be in doubt
as to who this figure is, or what is the scene it represents.

“And as they did eat He said, “Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me.

He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.”

Those were the words he wanted! Words fraught with deep meaning, heavy with sorrow
which, when they fell upon the assembly, kindled all hearts and ignited the fires of action. The
lightning flash of truth, that cleft their dullness and oppression, the prophecy that roused their
consciences out of lethargy, and made them one and all question: “ Is it I? Is it I ?”

This was the solution! An assembly that, like an organism, reacts against a foreign poison that
has found its way into its blood—the treachery, against which all good feeling takes up arms. At
the moment the accusation was spoken it disintegrated the dead matter and crystallised feeling into
groups of exclamation—questions, contradictions, assurances, suspicions, self-examination and
sorrow. The thought was too overwhelming. It was impossible at once to fix the impressions that
rushed through his soul with this glimpse of an idea. Only the betrayed One Himself stood clear
in his imagination. Him he immediately endeavoured to hold fast, and drew with deep feeling and
a trembling hand. And one more impression. Below the Saviour he has sketched yet another
figure, one who, overwhelmed, buries his face in his hands. This figure has been supposed to be the
first idea for that of Judas. I do not think so. The traitor does not betray himself in that way. It
is more likely another of the apostles. Or is it simply a reflection of the artist’s own feeling as it
overwhelmed him at the inspiration?

A further analysis of the development of the idea for the Last Supper lies outside the limits of
this book, and must be left for a future volume. Itis sufficient here to point out that this development
can be followed through a series of sketches and drawings, and that light is thrown on it by
a written note on the various gesticulations of persons gathered round a table, which still further
confirms what has already been said concerning the visual element in Leonardo’s art and his highly
realistic manner of working, akin to that of Castagno.

244

 

E
l

 

 

 

 

V“ _.a

 

4”)"

 

 

 

THE GENESIS OF THE “LAST SUPPER”

 

1' r. gm sai‘,‘

LEONARDO : The Last Supper. Fresco in S. Maria delle Grazie. Milan.

This note, which is to be found in a MS. in the South Kensington Museum,”4 is fragmentary and
as follows: “One who was drinking and has left the glass in its position and turned his head towards
the speaker (i1 proponiton’). Another, twisting the fingers of his hands together, turns with stem brows
to his companion. Another, with his hands spread open, shows the palms, and shrugs his shoulders
to his ears, making a grimace of astonishment. Another speaks into his neighbour’s ear, who, as he
listens, turns towards him to lend an ear, while he holds a knife in one hand, and in the other the loaf
half cut through by the knife. Another who has turned, holding a knife in his hand, upsets with his
hand a glass on the table. Another lays his hand on the table and is looking. Another blows his mouth—
ful. Another leans forward to see the speaker, shading his eyes with his hand. Another draws back
behind the one who leans forward, and sees the speaker between the wall and the man who is leaning.”
Several of these realistic, carefully observed characteristics are found again in the sketches and in the
picture itself, others (such as the one who is blowing upon his hot food) have been left out as too
commonplace, and replaced by more worthy motives.

There are two sketches of the whole treatment, which are reproduced here because they give further
proof of the organic growth of the work from the sketches on the Louvre sheet, and because they show
how much the artist had worked with the material before he reached the calm, clear form for the
mural painting in Milan. One of the studies is a fairly large red chalk drawing preserved in the
Academy in Venice. The whole of the scene of the Last Supper is drawn round the long table, with
Jesus in the middle and the apostles on both sides, while Judas Iscariot sits apart on the other side of
the table. On account of the narrowness of the paper, it has been drawn in two pieces, four of the
apostles being lower down on the sheet. In our reproduction, however, (p. 243), the two pieces are
placed side by side as the composition was originally intended. The drawing is particularly careful,
and concerns itself principally with the psychological aspect of the subject. The faces are expressive
and individualised, and the apostles, names are written on the sheet in the usual mirror-script. This
would seem to indicate quite a late stage of the development of the idea, when certain details have
begun to work out of the obscurity. The drawing has nevertheless a strangely primitive character,

245

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO DA VINCI

and an almost dilettante effect with its sharply cut grouping, and its clumsiness in proportion and
detail. In these respects it stands alone in Leonardo’s production; he had never drawn so naive and
imperfect, and at the same time so expressive, a sketch. It seems to have resulted from a peculiarly
gentle frame of mind, as though after the reading of the evangelist’s account of the Saviour’s farewell
supper. The story overwhelmed him, and he thOught more about the Saviour’s sorrow and
his broken hearted disciples than about the work of art. He might have wept as he drew. In
this sketch there is such strong feeling and so weak and powerless a hand, that it resembles a child’s
drawing. Far firmer and more energetic was the hand that guided the pen in the small sketches on a
leaf at Windsor (p. 244), which must synchronise more or less with the above mentioned description
in the manuscript in South Kensington (circ. 1494-95). Notwithstanding the rapid movement of the
pen, the story here is clear and well defined.

Leonardo has somewhere said that “the representation of human figures ought to be done in such
a way that the spectator may easily recognise, by means of their attitudes, the purpose in their minds.
..... Thus it is with a deaf and dumb person who, although deprived of hearing when he sees two
men in conversation can nevertheless understand, from the attitudes and gestures of the speakers, the
nature of their discussion.”

On the Windsor sheet the action is concentrated upon the moment when the Saviour hands the
bread to the traitor, who is placed alone upon the “wrong” side of the table, and is just rising with a
dog-like obedience to take what his Master hands him. Here too the sketch is in several parts,
inasmuch as the whole has first been roughly drawn, but not quite completed at one side. Beneath
is a more detailed and a very expressive repetition of the principal action, namely, Jesus giving the
bread to Judas. Finally, below is a single apostle alone. In the middle sketch of the three, we see
besides Christ and Judas, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” leaning upon his breast (in Sim; Domini),
or rather lying prone over the table in front of Him, and yet another disciple who, with the familiar
gesture, shades his eyes with his hand and gazes at the traitor, as if he could not clearly enough imprint
upon his memory the features of the man who could betray his Lord and Master. Whether the
disciple sketched below is Peter, as the robust, bearded type would seem to indicate, or Judas, as
what he holds in his hand (the bag?) and his vehement gestures almost prove, is uncertain. In any
case it seems that the germ of Judas’ movement in the picture itself is to be sought for here, where he
sits on the other side of the table, admitted into the ranks of the disciples. For this is the last great
effort in the genesis of the composition, the moving of the mediaevally isolated, “bad” disciple from
the “wrong” side of the table, to the other side and weaving him into the chain of the disciples.
The last trace of hampering tradition is thus swept away, the grouping problem is solved, the rhythm
of the Last Supper is found. The action has become monumental. To show that the origin of this
great masterpiece is to be found in the background of another composition, and that the latter is a
youthful production which, in its wealth of ideas, contains the germ of several future great works—the
Battle of Anghiari, the Sforza Monument and the Last Supper—should be one of the results, and the
most important, of this book. “For if you understand that old age has wisdom for its food, you will
so conduct yourself in youth that old age will not lack for nourishment.”

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX I

LEONARDO’S FLORENTINE SKETCH-BOOK

CIRC. 1478—1481

AN ATTEMPT AT RECONSTRUCTION
BASED UPON MOTIVES, TECHNIQUE, PAPER AND SIZE

The original size of the sketch-book seems to have been about 29 x 21 cm., but there also

appear to have been leaves of twice the size, 29 x 42.
sometimes’sketched in with silver-point;
silver-point or red chalk.
and the composition of the Adoration of the Magi.

is of a similar size, may have been drawn in later upon a blank page in the book.

I.

IO.

Uffizi, No. 8P. Landscape study on white, ribbed paper, pen drawing. Auto—
graph date, 5th August, 1473, (Berenson 1017). Repro. p. 113 .
Uffizi, No. 446. Study on same kind of paper, pen drawing, profiles of old man
and youth for the Adoration. Autograph inscription with date “——mbre 1478”
(Berenson 1016). Repro. pp. 150 and 156 . . . . . .
Uffizi, No. 449. Kindred pen study of an old man on same paper (Berenson 1018).
Repro. pp. 149 (Fragment) . . . . . . . .
Windsor. Sheet with 11 profiles, including those of old men similar to the
preceding one; in corner, sketch of old man’s head, as in Adoration. Pen
drawing, Repro. pp. 155 and 158 .

. Windsor. Back with 13 profiles and sketch of a Madonna in the Open Air

(Berenson 1170). Repro. p. 162 Actual size 40 x 28, but the leaf has a fold
across the middle, and when folded measures.

Louvre. His de la Sal le No. 101, under Raphael’s name, study of Virgin and
Child (Madonna with Dish of Fruit). Pen and sepia (Berenson 1069). Repro.
p. 164. The leaf has been cut obliquely, but from an old fold the original size is
found to be 40 x 26, or folded . . .
British Museum. Pen drawing with two sketches of a Madonna with the Flower,
whole and half figure. Repro. p 166

British Museum. Back with sketch of a Madonna with the Rod of Flowers in pen
and ink, profiles of one old man and two youths in silvei- -point. (Berenson 1027.)
Repro. p. 167. Half of one head cut away . . . . . . .
Uffizi, No. 421. Study for Madonna with the cat (Child on modelling table).
Pen drawing (Berenson 1015). Repro. p. 168 . . .

Uffizi. Back, Outline of Child and Mother’s arm. Repro. p. 168

247

The medium is throughout pen and ink,
and occasionally the drawing is executed entirely with
The sketches are principally concerned with the early Madonna motives
The drawing of the Last Supper, No. 40, which

Size in centimetre

. 281/, x 191/2

263/4 x 20

8x11

28x20

26x20

151/2 x 20

12‘/,><11

 

 

 

 

 

 

II.

I2.

13.

14.

16.

17.

I8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.
26.

27.

28.

LEONARDO’S FLORENTINE SKETCH-BOOK

British Museum. Four pen sketches for the Child and the cat for :1 Madonna a]
Gatto (Berenson 1025) Ixepro. p. 169 . . . . .

British Museum. Back, with four other studies for same subject. Repro. p. 170
Cut . . . . . .
British Museum. Various half— figure pen studies for a Madonna al Gatto, and a
youth’s profile (Berenson 1024). Repro. p. 171 .

British Museum. Young woman seated with head of a unicorn in her lap,
enclosed 1n rectangle. Pen drawing. Repro. p. 240. Cut

. British Museum. Half- figure pen study for a Madonna a1 Gatto, arched frame

(Berenson 1026). Repro. p.172 .

British Museum. Study of kneeling figure, with pen and brush, for a Madonna al
Gatto, arched frame. Repro. p. 165. Cut from larger sheet
Bayonne. Bonnat Collection. Three pen sketches for a Madonna al Gatto
(Berenson 1075). Repro. p. 173. Cut . . . . . . .
Windsor. Study in silver- point for a Praesepium in a landscape, and a Joseph’s
head (Berenson 1117). Repro. p. 178 Cut out

Bayonne. Bonnat Collection. Pen sketch of an Adoration of the Shepherds;
below a detailed study for one of the shepherds (Berenson 1073). Repro. p. 181.
Feet of lowest figure cut off . . . . . . . .
Bayonne. Bonnat Collection. Pen drawing of the hanged Bernardo Baroncelli
(hanged December 28, 1479), with autograph inscription (Berenson 1072). Repro.
p. 132. Cut out . . . . . . . . . .
British Museum. Malcolm Collection, No. 38. Profile of an old warrior
(Colleoni type), with richly ornamented armour and helmet. Silver-point. Same
paper as Nos. 1, 2, 3, and the rest (Berenson 1035). Repro. 133
British Museum. Sheet with several studies of cloaked old men of the shepherd
and philosopher type, a profile of an old man, a seated muse, etc. For the
Adoration. (Berenson 1023). Repro p 187. Cut at the top .

British Museum. Back, Allegorical drawing of Fortune fighting against Ingratitude,
Envy and Ignorance. Shows evidence of having been much cut at the right side
and above ; original height about 20 cm. Repro. p. 188 .
Cologne. Walraff—Richartz Museum. Sheet with six separate pen studies and a
group for the Adoration. Much cut at the left and below (Berenson 1014).
Repro. p. 189

Cologne. Back, Outl me of two crabs . . . . .
Paris. Valton Collection (formerly Armand). Pen studies of various nude
figures (philosopher and leaning motives) for the Adoration (Berenson 1081).
Repro. p. 190. Feet of lowest figures out off .

Louvre. The Galichon Drawing. Pen sketch of the entire composition of the
Adoration (Berenson 106g). Repr. p. 194. Has been larger, possibly double the
size, 40 x 29, but has been cut and now measures . . . .
Louvre, No. 2022. Pen studies of six, chiefly nude, figures for the Adoration
(Berenson 1065). Repro. p. 197

248

Size in Ccntcrmetrc

15x21

~ I31/2 X 91/2

15x21

7X19

.281/2 x 21

.25flx16h

25 x 161/2

26x18

28x21

 

 

 

 

 

2g.
30.

31.

33-

34-
35.

36.

37-

38.
39.

4o.

LFONARDO’S FLORENTINE SKETCH-BOOK

Size in Centermetre

Louvre, No. 2022. Back. Pen studies for the Adoration and the Last Supper.

The Argument, an archer, Jesus, and an apostle. Repro. p. 203 . . . . 28 x 21
British Museum. Pen study for the Adoration. Scene with a horn-blower and
the Argument between two young figures (Berenson 1036). Repro. p. 202 . . 251/2 x 191/.)

Windsor. Studies in red chalk for the background figures in the Adoration, among
them the Argument and the Leaning motive (Berenson 1187). Repro. p. 204.
Much cut all round. . . . 121/2 x 8/2

. Oxford. University Gallery. Group of soldiers for background of the Adoration

(Berenson 1056). Repro. p. 205 . . . . . . . . . . 18 x 20‘/.,
Windsor. Pen studies of fighting horses, profiles of snorting horses, lions and a

warrior, for the Adoration background; akin to the Battle of Anghiari (Berenson

I225). Repro. p. 206. Much cut above and on the right. A worn fold shows that

it originally had a length of. 40 cm. The drawing now measures 31 x 20 cm., or

folded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 x 20
Paris. Rothschild Collection. Pen studies of horses and lance-casting horseman

for the Adoration. Repro. 210 . . . . . . . . . . Nomensurements.
Uffizi, N0. 436. Perspective drawing for background of the Adoration (Berenson
1020). Repro. p. 212 . . . . . . . . . . . .
British Museum. Malcolm Collection, No. 44. Allegorical drawing of Fortune
and flying Fame, in sepia with pen and brush (Berenson 1037). Repro. p. 175.
Much cut on left side, so that the figure of Fame is mutilated, but shows a fold,
which, if in the middle, gives a length of at least 36 cm. Other side also cut. Size
has probably been double, 40 x 29, now out down to . . . . . . 25 x 201/2
Oxford. Christ Church Collection. Allegorical drawing of Wisdom and Justice

defending a persecuted bird against Envy’s wolves and birds of prey (Berenson

1055). Repro. p. 231 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 x 201/2
Oxford. Back. Pen sketch of Envy yielding to the attack of Force. Repro. p. 218 28 x 201/3
Windsor. Sheet with various studies, among them one of an old bearded man

29 x 161/2

dressed like a prophet (broad-brimmed hat). (Berenson 1161) . . . . 'No measurements.
Windsor. Sheet with two studies for the Last Supper, and geometrical studies
and text (Berenson 1188). Partly reproduced p. 244. Somewhat cut . . . 26 x 21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

API’ENDIX II

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EDITIONS OF LEONARDO’S MANUSCRIPTS

Trattato della Pittnra novamente dato in luce, con la vita dell’istesso Autore, scritta (la Refine/g Dn
Fresne. Paris; MDCLI.

It trattato della Pittnra, secondo il Codice Vaticano (Urbinate) herausgegeben und erl'autert yon
Henri/c Ludwig (Quellenschrifte d. Kunstwissenschaft). \Vien : 1882.

Del ntoto e ntisnra delt‘ aeqne. Bologna, Cardinali e Frulli, 1828.

T/te Literary Works of Leonardo da Vznez', compiled and edited from the original manuscripts by
J. P. Richter, 1., II. London: 1880—1883.

Les ntannsertts de Leonard de Vinei, publiés, etc., avec transcriptions littérales, etc., par. M.
Charles Ravaisson-Mollien. Paris: 1881—1891. Fol. I.—VI.

It eodz'ee di Leonardo da Vince nella Bibi. det Principe Trimdzz'o in Milano, transcritto ed annotato
da Luca Beltrami. Milan: 1891.

Leonardo da Vinei, Codiee snl volo degt't' neeelli e varii altre materico. Publicato da T. Sabae/zni/eofl
and G. Pininati (in French by Ravaisson-Mollien). Paris: 1893.

I Manoseritti di Leonardo da Vinei delta Reale Biblioteea di Windsor. I.—II. Dell’ Anatomia,
Fogli A. e B. Pubbl. di T. Sabaennikofl; trascritti e annotati di Giov. Pimnati. Paris: 1898. Torino-
Roma, 1901.

Carnets inédits de Leonardo da Vinez', accompagnés de plusieurs centaines de croquis et dessins.
Royal Library, Windsor. Edit. Edv. Rouveyre, Paris: 1901. 22 vol—Forster Library, South
Kensington Museum. 3 VOL—British Museum. 15 vol—Paris, 1901.

It Codiee Atlantieo di Leonardo da Vznei nella Biblioteca Ambrosiana di Milano. Roma7
1888—1903. .

It Codiee della Biblioteea di Lord Leicester, in Holkam Hall. Pubbl. da Gerolarno Calvi. Milano : 1909.

Qnaderni d’Anatomia. I.—Tredici fogli della Royal Library di Windsor: Respirazione, cuore,
visceri addominali. II.——Ventiquattro fogli, etc. Cuore: anatomia e fisiologia. III.— Dodici fogli,
etc. Organi della gegeneratione—Embrione. Pubblicato da Ove Vangensten, A. Fona/tn, H. Hopstoe/e.
Con traduzione inglese e tedesca. Fol. Christiania: 1911——13.

The work is planned in six volumes, one of which will appear every year with aid from the
University in Christiania. _

Frannnenti letterari efitosofici di Leonardo da Vinei, trascetti dal E. Solini. Florence : 1899, 1908.

Leonardo da Vinei. Der Denker, Forse/zer and Poet, Auswahl Ubersetzung und Einleitung von Maria
Herzfeld. Jena: 1906.

Leonardo da Vinei’s Notebooks, arranged and rendered into English with introduction by Edw.
MeCnrdy. London: 1906.

Leonardo da Vinei, Traktal non de Materei, Nach der Ubersetzung von Heinrich Ludwig neu
herausgegeben u. eingeleiter von Marie Herzfeld. Jena: 1909.

Leonardo da Vinei, Traité de la peirttnre, traduit inte’gralement pour la premiere fois en francais sur
le Codex Vaticanus, complété par de nombreux fragments tirés des manuscrits du maitre, ordonné,
etc., par Sar Peladan. Paris: 1910.

250

w-

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIOGRAPHICAL, HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL
WORKS

Vinci. Scritto
d’anonimo del cinquecento (Milanesi, Archivio
storico italiano XVI., 1870).

Il Codice Magliabechiano.
Berlin, 1892.

Il Libro di Antonio Billi.
I892.

Vasari,

Breve vita di Leonardo da

Ed. Carl Frey,

Ed. Carl Frey. Berlin,

Giorgio: Delle Vite de piu eccellenti

pittori, etc. Venice, 1550;—Florence, 1584;-—

Ed. Lemonnier, 1845;—Ed. Sansoni (Milanesi),

1878-1885 ;—Renaissancens ypperste kunstnere,

translation by Emil Rasmussen, Gyldendal,
Copenhagen, 1907.

Castiglione, Sabba: Ricordi. Venice, I565.

Lomazzo: Trattato della Pittura, 1854.—Idea
del Tempio della Pittura. Milan, 1590

Crerli, C. G.: Disegni di L. d. V. 60 plates.
Milan, 1784.

Venturi, J. B.: Essai sur les ouvrages physico-
mathe'matiques de L. d. V. Paris, an V (1797).

Bossi, Guiseppe: Del Cenacolo di L. d. V.
Milan, 1810.

Amoretti: Memorie storiche sulla Vita, gli studi
e le opere di L. d. V. Milan 1804.

Bossi, (3.: Vita di L. d. V. I’adua, 1814.

Braun, G. C. : L. d. V. Leben und Kunst.
1819.

Brown, \V.: The Life of L. d. V., with a critical
Account of his Work. London, 1828.

Gallenberg, H.: L. d. V. Leipzig, 1830.

Libri, 6.: Histoire des sciences mathématiques

Halle,

en Italie. Paris, 1840.

Gaye: Carteggio inedito d’artisti dei secoli XIV.,
XV., XVI. Florence, 1839-41.

Hagen, A.: L. d. V. in Mailand. Leipzig, 1840.

Délécluze, E. J. Esssai sur L. d. V. Paris, 1841.

Rigollot: Catalogue de l’oeuvre de L. d. V. Paris,
1849.

Marx: chr Marcantonio della Torre u. L. d. V.,

die Begrtinder d. bildlichen Anatomie. GO't-
tingen, 1850.
Rio, A. F.: L. d. V. et son école. Paris, 1855.

Vallardi, G.: Disegni di L. d. V. Milan, 1855.

Burckhardt, Jacob: Der Cicerone, Eine Anleitung
zum Genuss der Kunstwerkes Italiens, Basel,
1855—4er Aufl. von \Vilhelm Bode, 187g.~—8cr
Aufl. von Bode und Fabriczy, 1900—10er Aufl.
von Bode u. Fabriezy, Leipzig, 1910.

Piot, E.: Le cabinet de l’amateur. Paris, 1861
(with a study on L.’s manuscripts).

Campori, (3.: Nuovi documenti per la vita di
L. d. V. Modena, 1865.

Calvi, G. L.: Notizie dei principali professori di
belle arti, etc., 111., L. d. V. Milan, 1869.

Houssaye, Arséne: Histoire de L. d. V.
1869.

Koenig, F.: L. d. V. Tours, 1870.

Dozio, G.: Degli scritti e disegni di L. d. V.
Milan, 1870.

Boito C.: Saggio delle opere di L. d. V.
1872.

Milanesi: Documenti (Archivio Storico, 1872).

Uzielli, G.: Ricerche intorno a L. d. V. I.
Florence, 1872; II. Rome, 1884; III. Turin,
1896.

Uzielli, G.: L. d. V. e le Alpi. Turin, 1889.

d’Adda, Girolamo: L. d. V. e la sua libreria.
Milan, 1873.

Pater, Walter: The
First edit. 1873.

Jordan, Max: Das
Leipzig, 1873.

Paris,

Milan,

Renaissance. L. d. V.

Malerbuch des L. d. V.

251

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIOGRAPHICAL, HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL WORKS

Grothe, Hermann: L. d. V. als Ingenieur und
I’hilosoph. Berlin, 1874.

Heaton, C. VV.: L. d. V. and his Works. London,
1874.

Dalton, Herm: L. d. V. u seine Darstellung des
h. Abendmahl. St. Petersburg, 1874.

Villeneuve, Hureau de: L. d. V. aviateur.
“ L’Are’onaute,” September, 1874.

VVaagen, G. F.: Kleine Schriften. Stuttgart, 1875.

Brun. Carl: L. d. V. und Bernadino Luini.
Leipzig.

Courajod, L.: L. d. V. et la statue de Francois
Sforza. Paris, 1879.

Raab, Fritz: L. d. V. als Naturforscher. Berlin,
1880.

Govi, G.: Alcuni frammenti artistici, letterari e
geografici di L. d. V. (atti della R. Acc. dei
Lincei, Roma, 1881).

Clement, C.: Michelange, L. d. V., Raphael.
Paris, 1882. .

Frantz, Erich: Das heil. Abendmahl des L. d. V.
Freiburg i. B., 1885.

Prantl: L. d. V. in philosophischer Beziehung.
Miinchen, 1885.

Miiller-VValde, Paul: L. d. V. Lebensskizze und
Forschungen (3 parts, not completed). Munich,
1889-90.

Morelli, Giovanni: (Lermolieff, Ivan). Italian
Painters: Critical studies of their works.
The Borghese and Doria Pamfili Galleries in
Rome. Translated from the German by C. J.
Foulkes. 2vols. London, 1892-93.

Morelli, Giovanni: (Lermolieff, Ivan). Italian
Masters in German Galleries: A critical essay
on the Italian pictures in the Galleries of
Munich, Dresden, Berlinn Translated from
the German by Mrs. L. M. Richter. London,
1883.

Cantor, M: Uber einige Konstruktionen von L.

d.V. (Festschrift d. Matemat. Gesellsch. in '

Hamburg, 1890).
Barres, Maurice : Trois stations de psycothérapie.
Paris, 1891.

Strzygowski, L’s Abendmahl u. Goethes Deutung
(Goethe-Jahrbuch, 1896).

Seailles, Gabriel : L. d. V., l’artiste et le savant.
Essai de biographie psychologique. Paris, 1892.

Rosenberg, F.: L. d. V. Kiinstler-Monographien.
Leipzig, 1898.

Uzielli, G.: L. d. V., e tre gentildonne milanesi
del secolo XV.

Miintz, Eugene: L. d. V., sa vie, son ge’nie, son
oeuvre. I. and II. Paris, 1898. English edition,
London, 1898.

Burckhardt, Jacob: Cultur der Renaissance in
Italien. 6te Aufl., bei Ludwig Geiger. I. and
II. Leipzig, 1898.

Elsasser, VVilh.: Die Bedeutung L. d. V.’s f. die
exacten Naturwissenschaften. Preuss. Jahrb.
1899.

VVoIflin, H.: Die klassische Kunst. Munich,1899.

Berenson, Bernhard: The Florentine Painters
of the Renaissance. New York and London,
1899.

Berenson, Bernhard: Drawings of Florentine
Painters. I. and II. London, 1903.

Berenson, Bernhard: North Italian Painters of

. the Renaissance. New York and London,
1907.

Mackowski, Hans. : Verrocchio. Kiinstler-Mono-
graphien, No. 52. Leipzig, 1901.

Scognamilio, R.: La vita di L. d. V. I. La gio-
vinezza. Naples, 1900.

Solmi, Edv. has written numerous articles in
Italian periodicals and newspapers on various
Leonardo questions, among them:—-Studi sulla
filosofia naturale di L. d. V. Modena, 1898
——Nuovi studi, etc. Mantua, 1905—L. d. V.
Frammenti letterari e filosofici. Florence, 1904
—‘Fonte dei manuscritti di L. d. V. Turin, 1908
—» L. d. V. Florence, 1900. German translation
by E. Hirschberg in the series “Geisteshelden”;
Berlin, 1908—L. d. V., come precursore dell’
ernbriologia. (Reale Accademia di Torino,
1909)~—L. d. V., nei rapporti coi contemporanei
(in preparation).

252

~;4v 1."

A. We.‘___ W

.1 __,..—‘__~..\—~—-_=_E.—. ‘ ___4

 

 

 

 

BIOGRAPHICAL, HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL WORKS

Beltrami, Luca: has written numerous articles
in Italian periodicals and newspapers on the
Leonardesque question, among them :——Il Cas-
tello di Milano. Milan, 1894—L. d. V., e la
Sala delle Asse. Milan, 1902—11 Cenacolo di
Leonardo. Milan, 1908.

Beck, Th.: Historische Notizen, L. d. V. Beitr'age
zur Geschichte des Maskinenbaues.
1900.

Gronau, Georg: L. d. V., The Popular Library
of Art. London, 1902.

Baratta, M.: L. d. V. ed i problemi della Terra.
Turin, 1903.

Horne, Herbert P.: The Life of L. d. V. by
Giorgio Vasari, with a commentary. London,
1903.

Wolff, J.: L. d. V. als Aesthetiker, Strasburg,
1901.

Mc.Curdy, Edw.: L. d. V., Bell’s Great Masters,
London, 1904.

Cruttwell, M.: Verrocchio.

Schaffer, Emil: Das
1904.

Raccolta Vinciana: I.-VIII.

Berlin,

London, 1904.

florentinische Bildniss,

Milan, 1905-1912.

[An annual publication of the society. Raccolta '

Vinciana; Castello Sforzesco; Milano; with
short articles and notes on Leonardo, and an
annually revised critical bibliography of Leo-
nardo literature, incorporated in the library of
the society. Ettore Verga, the editor, is the
secretary of the society]

Carotti, G.: Le opere di L. d. V., Bramante e
Raffaello. Milan, 1905.

Hopstock, H.: L. d. V. som anatom. Christiania,
1906.

Hoerth, O. : Das Abendmal des L. d. V. Leipzig,
1970. .

Klaiber, H.: Leonardostudien. Strasburg, 1907.

Konstantinowa, Alessandra: Die Entwickitung

das Madonnatypus bei L. d. V. Strasburg,
1907.

Clausse, Gustave: Les Sforza et les arts en Milan,
1450-1530. Paris, 1908.

Michel, Emile: Le dessin chez L. d. V. (dans
“ Nouvelles etudes sur l’histoire de l’art.” Paris,
1908).

Duhan, Pierre: Etudes sur L. d. V. Ceux qu’il a
lu et ceux qui l’ont lu. Paris, 1909.

Wolynski, A. L.: L. d. V. (in Russian).
1909.

Thiis, Jens : L. d. V. Leonardo og Verrocchio (in
Norwegian) Christiania and Copenhagen, 1909.

Seidlitz, Woldemar von: L. d. V. Der Wende
punkt d. Renaissance I.—II. [A very learned
and instructive work which gives an excellent
résume of almost all earlier studies on the

Kieff,

subject].

Seidlitz, Woldemar von: I disegni di L. d. V. a
Windsor (separate from “L’Arte,” Rome,
1911).

Schnaus, M.: Die Leonardische Flora. Mit
einer chemische Untersuchung von Geo.
Pin/ms. Leipzig, 1910.

Conferenzc Florentine 311 L. d. V. (various articles
by Beltrami, Bottazzi, Conti, Croze, Del Lungo
Favaro, Péladan, Reymond, Solmi, Spinazzola),
Florence, 1910.

Péladan, Sar: La phliosophie de L. d. V. d’aprés '
ses manuscrits. Paris, 1910.

Reinach, Salomon: Documents nouveaux sur la
Vierge aux Rochers. (Comtes rendus de l’Accad.
des Inscript. Paris, 1910).

Germenati, Mario: L. d. V. in Valsassina
un foglio del Codice Atlantico. Milan, 1910.

Histoire de l’Art: Depuis les premiers temps
chrétiens jusqu’ :1 nos jours. Publ. sous la
direction de André Michel. Tome IV. 1.
1909.

Venturi, Adolfo : Storia dell’ arte Italiana.
La pittura del Quattrocento. Parte I.
1911.

Lange, Jul. : Studien iiber L. d. V. aus dem Danis-
chen iibersetzt. Strasburg, 1911.

Siren, Osvald: L. d. V. Hans lefnadsoden, bild-
verk personlighet och malarebok (in Swedish).
Stockholm, 1911.

Paris,

VII.
Milan,

253

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘~—-v»~> A

BIOGRAPHICAL, HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL WORKS

Ricci, Corrado: History of North Italian Art.
London and New York, 1911.

Scheltema, A. v.: Uber die Entwickelung der
Abendmahldarstellung. Leipzig, 1912.

Bruck, Moeller Van Den : Die italienische Schon-

heit. Miinchen, 1913.
ARTICLES IN PERIODICAL REVIEWS.

Are/Livia Storiea Italiano :
Milanesi, G.: Documenti incditi riguar-
danti L. d. V.
1885. Mancini, Gir.: Di un codice artistico e
scientifico [Cod Ashburnham] con autografi
di L.
Are/limo Storiea (lell’ A rte :
1894. Frizzoni, Gust.: La Vierge aux Rochers.
Are/zivio Storiea Lombardo :
1893. Motta, E.: Ambrogio Preda e L. d. V.,
Nuovi Documenti.
1904. Solmi, E.: Documenti in editi sulla
dimora di L. d. V. in Francia, 1517 e 1518.
1906. Solmi, E.: II trattato di L. d. V. sul
linguaggio.
1907. Solmi, E.: Ricordi, etc. di L. d. V.
raccolti dagli scritti di Lornazzo.
1908. Solmi, E.: L. d. V. e la Republica di
Venezia.
1910. Biscaro, G. ; La Commissione della
Virgine delle Roccie e L. d. V.
1911. Solmi, E.: L. d. V. e Papa Giulo II.
L’A rte:
1906. Frizzoni, G.: Appunti critici, etc., del
Louvre.
1907. Seidlitz, W. von: La Vergine delle Roc-
cie di L. d. V.
1908. Frizzoni, G.: Diverse opere d’arte evocate
1911. Seidlitz, W. von: I disegni di L. d. V.
a Windsor. [A very meritorious catalogue
of 873 drawings at Windsor to which L.’s
name has been given.
Rassegna el’ Arte :
1901. Malagnzzi, V. F. Un nuovo documento
sulla Vergine delle Roccie di L.

1905. Malagnzzi, V. F. I] maestro dclla l’ala
Sforzesca.

1908. Frizzoni, G.: Un capolavoro dell’ Arte
lombarda in Danimarca.

1910. Foulkes, C. J. Una mezza figura di
donna di scula Leonardesca.

Revista d’A rte .-

1909 and 1910. Poggi, G.: Note su Filippino
Lippi.

1909. Carnesececchi, C.: Il ritratto Leonard-
esco di Ginevra Benci.

Nnova Antologiri :
1909. Frizzoni, G.: L. d. V. rammentato (la
uno scrittore contemporareo.
Revistcz Geografiea Italiana :
1894. Fiorini M : Il mappomondo (li L. d. V.
Art journal:
1894. Richter, J. P.: Critical Studies on
Pictures of the National Gallery. 1. L. d. V.
Poynter, E. J 2 Our Lady of the Rocks.
1912. Reinach, S.: New facts and fancies
about L. d. V.
Nineteenth C entnry :
1894. Burton, R. : The Virgin of the Rocks.
1909. McCurdy, E.: L. d. V. as sculptor.
Geographical jonrnal .'

1909. Oberhummer, Eug.: L. d. V. and the
art of Renaissance in its relations to Geo-
graphy.

Burlington Magazine :

1907. Hind, A. M. : Two unpublished plates of
the series of six “knots,” engraved after
designs by L. d. V. I

1909. Cook, Herbert: The newly discovered
“Leonardo.”

1909. Hill, G. E: Notes on Italian Medals

III.
The Monument of Giacomo Trivulzio.

1910. Affidavits concerning the wax bust of
Flora. Ricci, S. de: New Pictures by Fran—
cesco Napolitano.

1911. Cook, Herbert: L. d. V., and some
copies.

254

L- ’—

 

 

 

BIOGRAPHICAL, HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL WORKS

Times .'
1909.
bust.
Illustrated London News .'
1909. Oct., Nov., Dec.: Articles on the Flora
bust.
In the Gazette des Beuux-Arts :

Oct., Nov., Dec.: Articles on the Flora

1861. I. Blanc, Charles: Une peinture de
L. d. V.
1862. I. Lagrange, Leon: Catalogue des des-

sins de maitres dans les Uffizi.

1879. I. Champfleury: Anatomie du laid d’apres
L. d. V.

Chennevieres, Ph. de.
des rnaitres anciens, I.

1879. II. Ephrussi, Ch.: Appendice.

1882. I. Ephrussi, Ch. : Les dessins de la
collection His de la Salle.

1884. I. Frizzoni, G.: La Galerie Nationale
de Londres et la Vierge aux Rochers

1886. I. and II. Geymuller, H. de: Les der-
niers travaux sur L. d. V.

Exposition de dessins

1887. I. and II. Gruyer, A.: L. d. V. au
Louvre.
1889. I. and II. Bode, W.: La Renaissance

au Musée de Berlin.
1890. II. Geymu'ller, H. de : La Vierge a
l’oeillet.
1911. Reinach, Salomon : Documents nouveaux
sur la “ Vierge aux Rochers.”
Revue Are/zeologique .'
1909. Reinach, 8.: Flora bust.
1910. Reinach, S.: Enlevement de Prosperine
par L. d. V.
C/zrouique des Arts et de [a Cm’iosz'te:
, 1894 Frizzoni, G: L. d. V., et la Vierge aux
Rochers.
Bulletin des M usées de quee :

1909. Reinach, 8.: La tristesse de Mona
Lisa.
Revue des deux Moudes :
1890w—1891. Miintz, Eugene: Loudovic le

More et L. d. V.

M ereure de quce .'

1908. Mortland, Jacques: Le maitre de L. d.

V. [Verrocchio].
fa/zv/bue/L d. Preussiselzeu K unstsmmulzmgeu :

B. III. (1882). Bode, W. Die ital. Skulpturen
d. Ren. in Berlin. II. Andrea del Verrocchio.

B. V. (1884). Bode, W. Leonardos Altarge—
m'a‘lde: Die Himmelfart Christi, in der Gal-
lerie zu Berlin.

B. VII. (1886). \Ninterberg, Const. L. d.V.’s
Malerbuch und seine wissenschaftliche und
praktische Bedeutung.

1889. Bode, W: Ein Bildniss von Bianca
Maria Sforza.

B. XVI. (1895). Strzygowski, Joseph. Studien
zu Leonardos Entwickelung als Maler.

B. XVIII. (1897). Mu'ller-VValde, Paul. Beit-
r'age, zur Kenntniss des L. d. V. I. and II.

B. XIX. (I898). Muller-VValde, Paul. Beit-
r’age, etc., III. and IV.
B. XX. (1899) Miiller-VValde, Paul. Beit-

rage, etc., V.—VII.

B. XXX. (1909). Bode, W. Leonardo als Bild-
hauer.

B. xxx. (1909). Bode, W. Die Wachsbiiste
einer Flora im Kaiser-Friedrich Museum zu
Berlin— ein Werk Leonardos?

ja/u/bue/z d. la. la. Kuustummmluugeu in W ie7rz .'
1906. Seidlitz, Woldemar von. Ambrogio Preda.
1909. Suida,VV. Ambrogiode Predis u. Leonardo.
Repertom'um fur Kuustwisseuse/mft .'

1892. Brun, Carl: Leonardos Ansichten fiber
das Verh'altniss der Kiinste.

1893. Justi, Carl: Das Geheimmiss d. leonard—
ischen Altargemalde in Valencia.

1899. Loeser, Chr. : Die handzeichnungen d. k.
Bibl. in Turin.

Fabriczy, C. v. : Verrocchio und das
Altarbild im Dom zu Pistoja.

Bode: Verrocchio und das Altarbild zu
Pistoja.
1903. Gronau, G.: Reference to Herbert

Horne, Beitrage zu Werken Leonardos.

255

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIOGRAPHICAL, HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL WORKS

1904. Fabriczy, C. v. : Neues zum VVerke
Verrocchios.

1905. Tietze, Hans: L. d. V.’s Stellung in der
Geschichte d. Physignomik u. Mimik.

1907. Beckerath, A. v.: Ueber einige Zeich-
nungen in Oxford.

1911. Seidlitz: Register zu Leben L. d. V.

Zez'tsc/mfl fm’ bildcizde szst :

1881. Richter, J. P.: Leonardo im Orient.

1888. Springer, A. ; Leonardofragcn.

1903. Bode, W. : Leonardos Bildniss der Gin-
evra dei Benci.

1908. Schottmijller, Frida: L. d. V. und die
Antike.

1896. Haack, FL: Zur Entwickelung der ital.

Reiterdenkmals.
Muséum :
II. Mackowsky: Reiterdenkm'aler.
Kniist/emni/e :

I885. Richter, J P.: Der augebliche L. d. V.
in der Berliner Gem'aldegallerie.

1909. Spies, R.: Handzeichnungen von
L. d. V.
1909. Spies, R.: Leonardo Oder Lucas?

Schottmiillcr, Frida: Leonardo oder

Lucas ?
M mints/16ft fm/ Kimstwissmsc/zaft .-
1911. Klaiber, Hans: Die Strassburger

Kopien nach L’sAbendmahl.
1911. Moller, Emil: L. d. V. Brustbild eines
Engel 11. Johannes Baptista.
K 11713szth :
1909. Seidlitz, W.: L. als Bildhauer.
Intermztionalcs Wochcnsc/Wift f. Wisscnsc/L. Kimst
u. Teclmik :
1910. Seidlitz, W. V. : Leonardos Jugend.
Arc/airy f. Gcsch. d. Natwwis. 11. d. Tea/mile :
1910. Schmutzer: Zur Pferdeanatomie d.
L. d. V.
Die Woo/15:
1909, Bode, W.: Die Wachsbiist der
“ Flora.” V

 

 

 

 

 

LEONARDO: Study for the Nativity (about 1478).

Accademia, Venice.

NOTES.

1 See the Bibliography. The study of Leonardo
da Vinci now receives attention from the society
founded in 1904 in Milan, which, under the name
of Raccolta Vmcimza, collects as far as possible
large and small publications, articles, reviews,
engravings, photographs, drawings, etc., that have
to do with Leonardo da Vinci, his works, his
studies, his writings and his contemporaries. The
archives have been housed in the Sforzas’ old
castle in Milan, where the collections are ac—
cessible to students. The Society sends out
annually to its members a publication of a biblio-
graphic nature. All donors to the archives may
become members.

2 The art historians who have rendered greatest
service in this work of weeding out are Dr. Jean
Paul Richter, the Anglo-German Leonardo stu-
dent, editor of the “ Literary Works of L. d. V.,”
Giovanni Morelli, the Italian senator and talented
judge of pictures, father of modern criticism of

style, and Bernhard Berenson, the American
writer on art. The last named, with brilliant
talent and an incredibly extensive experience, has
carried on Morelli’s critical work, and principally
by his research on Florentine drawing (Drawings
of Florentine Painters), has constructed a path
through the wilderness of false tradition in this
comparatively new field of research. The present
author will always look back with pleasure to his
studies in Florence in 1901 and 1902, when he
worked side by side with Bernhard Berenson in
the collection of drawings in the Uffizi.

3 In a remarkably clear essay on the “ Rudi-

,

ments of Connoisseurship,’ Bernhard Berenson
has explained the methods and scientific basis
of modern criticism of style (“The Study and
Criticrsm of Modern Art, H.” London, 1902).
4’5 After the book had begun to be printed, the
author relinquished the idea of adding this con-

siderable appendix to the work, especially as he

257 KK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES

hopes to publish a critical work upon all the earlier
Florentine drawings in the Uffizi. The genuine
Leonardo drawings in the Uffizi (from his earlier
period) will be found in the preceding “ Recon-
struction of Leonardo’s Florentine Sketch-Book.”

U The anonymous author of the Magliabecchian
MS. in Florence: . em per madre di [mom
sngue.

7 Fra Luca Pacioli, a famous mathematician
and the author of the work De diviudpmportimze,
was one of Leonardo’s acquaintances in Milan.

3 Gabriel Séailles; Léonardo de Vinci, l’artiste
et le savant. Paris, 1892, p. 7.

9 The Vinci family can be traced back to 1339
and is said still to exist in the mountainous district
round Vinci. Gustavo Uzielli, the Italian student,
has cleared up Leonardo’s genealogical tree in his
Rieere/ze z'iitomo d Liozim/do dd Viiiei, 1., Florence,
1872; 11., Rome, I884.

10 “Experience, the common mother of all the
sciences and arts.” (Richter, 1., par. 18).

‘1 Richter, 1., par. 22.

12 The probability is, however, that it was an
earlier year, eg. 1466. M‘L'iller-VValde gives 1466 as
the year of Leonardo’s entrance into Verrocchio’s
bottegd, Eugene M'Lintz assumes it to have been one
year later, and Georg Gronau believes Leonardo
to have been Verrocchio’s pupil when he was no
more than ten, i.e. in 1462.

13 8. Luke, the patron saint of painters.

H See the chapter on the anonymous accusation,
P- 135-

” Original edition, pp. 368-372; the Florentine
edition of 1530, pp. 299-303.

1“ Vasari writes: It came about that Leonardo,
after Giovan Galeazzo, duke of Milan, was dead,
and Ludovico Sforza had been elected to the same
dignity, in the year 1494 was sent with great
esteem to Milan to the Duke, to play. And
Leonardo took with him that instrument, that he
had made with his own hand, of silver, very much
in the form of a horse’s skull, a wonderful and new
thing, whereon he with his playing surpassed all

musicians that had gathered there” Vasari thus
quite wrongly dates Leonardo’s journey to Milan
in 1494 (or his forty-second year), whereas there is
actual documentary evidence of his being there
from 14.87, and indeed from I482.

1" The MS. formerly had “twenty,” but the
author changed it to “thirty.” Cf. Prof. Carl
Frey’s edition of [l Codice Magliabece/iimzo, Berlin,
1892.

13 7487 Addi 8 agoszfo. Magistro Leonardo
Fiorentino, qzii Izabet onus faeieiidi modellimi mmm
tubal/ii eeelesiee majoris, jiixtri ordilmtionem factrmi in
Consilio fabriea, super mtione fdeieiidi dictum
modellzmi L. 56 (Amidli della Fabriea del DZiomo
di Milcmo, If. 111., p. 38. Cf. Boito, I! DZtOlIZO di
Mi/cmo, pp. 227-228).

19 Richter, 11., p3. Lermolieff; Die Gallerien
zu Miinchen und Dresden, p. 202.

20 Vasari; Life of Francesco Rustici.

‘31 Sabba Castiglione; Rieordi overo mnmaestm-
menti (Bologna, 1546), in section C1X., which
treats of the adornment of houses with works of
“And moreover he occupied himself with
the form of a horse in Milan, on which he
is Paul
Muller-VValde who has cleared up the question

art:
uninterruptedly spent 16 years.” It

as to when Leonardo entered upon his journey to
Milan, in the first and most valuable section of his
Beiln’ige ZHZ/ Kemii‘iiiss des L. d. V. (Jahrb. d.
preus. Kunstsamml. XVIII. Berlin, 1897.

22 A round picture of a Medusa head in the
Uffizi is a late eclectic work attributed to Cara-
Compare also the Medusa heads by
Rubens and Snyder in the Gallery in Vienna
(No. 846). ,

23 See V. Fabriczy’s edition, Florence, 1893,
p. 77, and Milanesi, Documenti inediti riguardanti,
Leonardo, Florence, 1872, p. II.

2* Cf. Eug. M'untz’s Collection d’mitiqiies former:
par les Medici, p. 61. Vasari does not mention the
picture until his second edition. Lomazzo (111.290)
mentions it, but is evidently confused, calling it
in owibile e spdventevole faeeid di l’mza delle fwie

vaggio.

258

 

 

 

 

NOTES

z‘nfcz'nali. (Is he mistaking it for the round picture
in the Uffizi ?). For the rest I find, since writing
about this spurious Leonardo, that there is now
documentary evidence of its spuriousness given
by Corrado Ricci, the new director of the Uffizi
(in the proceedings of the Florentine Art-historical
Institute, for 1905, p. 12). Signor Ricci here de-
monstrates that the picture, which is painted on
(northern-Flemish ?) oak, in an inventory about
1600, is expressly entered as the work of a
Fleming, and Leonardo’s name has not crept into
the inventory until 1784. After this, I take it for
granted that Leonardo’s name is now really re-
moved from the picture in the Uffizi.

,0 The caricatures—the genuine ones and those
preserved in copies—all belong to a later period
of Leonardo’s production, and will be spoken of
more fully in a subsequent part of this work.

26 MS. Ashburnham, 1., 6b (about the year
1492). Richter, 1, page 292.

27 Jerome of Aachen, called Jerome Bosch,
Dutch painter, 1460—1516. (The galleries in
Brussels, Antwerp, Vienna, etc.)

28 While these lines were being written news
came of another wax bust by Leonardo, which
Dr. Bode, the director of the Berlin Museum, had
Competent English and
German authorities have declared the bust to be
a modern work, dating about 1850, modelled by
an English sculptor 0f the name of Lucas, after
Having

acquired in London.

an old picture of Leonardo’s school.
seen the bust, I am of the same opinion.

2” See Dr. Bode’s paper on “Leonardo als
Bildhauer” in the Jahrb. d. preuss Kunstm. B.
XXV., 1904.

30 The so-called “ Bayersdorffer
which is treated at some length farther 0n
(pp. 128 et seq.).

31 A similar, but somewhat smaller red-chalk
drawing is to be found at Oxford. '

32 Jul. Lange, Udvalgte Skrifter.
the drawing in Venice.

33 Berenson, in his great work on the “ Floren-

Madonna,”

A copy of

tine Drawings” (N0. 1050), notes that the Oxford
drawing is identical with the drawing of the gipsy
Chieftain, Scaramuccia.

3* Bernh. Berenson states, I know not on what
grounds, that Jacopo Saltarelli (see p. 121) was
the model for this drawing.

3"" See the list of the Medicis’ works of art,
published by M’L‘intz.
3“ Borghini; “ 11
P 299-

37 Concerning Leonardo’s early awakened feel-
ing for Nature and independent manner of ren—
dering a landscape, we have already had a proof
in the early landscape drawing from the Valley of
the Arno, dated with his own hand 1473. We
shall have more to say about this in a subsequent
chapter.

38 Dr. Wilhelm Bode on Verrocchio: “Bild-
werke des A. del V.” in the Jahrb. d. preus.
Kunstsamml., 1882. Archivio Storico dell’Arte,
1893, pp. 77-84. In this are mentioned as works
by Verrocchio, (I) the Deposition from the Cross,
with Federigo of Urbino’s portrait, in the Car—
mine in Venice (possibly a work by Bellano), (2)
the plaster relief “ Discordia” in the South Ken-
sington Museum (subsequently asserted by Bode
to be a genuine youthful production of Leonardo),
and (3) the Judgment of Paris, a bronze plaque in
the Dreyfuss Collection, Paris (also subsequently
re-christened “Leonard0”).

Riposo.” Florence,

1530,

Among Verrocchio’s
pictoral works Dr. Bode reckons, in addition to
the disputed Tobias picture in the Academy in
Florence (under Botticelli’s name, but in reality
a work by Botticini), a number of Madonnas, of
which the far from lovely N0. 104 A, in the Berlin
Gallery, is the most typical (an inferior school
work).

3” M'Lintz 0n Verrocchio: Hist. de l’art pendant
la Renaissance, II., p. 497.—Gazette d. Beaux-
Arts, 1891, pp. 227 et seq.—“ Leonardo da Vinci,
1., pp. 22 et seq.

40 Published by Milanesi.

41 The bronze boy with the dolphin was executed

259

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES

as a fountain for Lorenzo de’ Medici’s villa at
Carreggi, and it was not until the middle of the
16th century that it was moved by the Grand
DukeiCosimo to the courtyard of the I’alazzo
Vecchio, where it took the place of Donatello’s
David.

“"’ The niche itself in which the Thomas group
stands is Donatello’s work, and formerly contained
that artist’s statue of S. Louis (now in S. Croce).
This niche was the object of an argument that
reflected the political strife in Florence. The
niche had originally belonged to the Pam‘a Gzlclfa,
who had allowed Donatello to adorn it with his
patron saint. In 1459 the Guelph party was com-
pelled by the democratic party to give up the
niche to another guild (the council of the com-
mercial court), which, in 1465, commissioned
Verrocchio to execute a new piece of sculpture
for the niche.

*3 In 1461 Verrocchio made the clasps men-
tioned (Mackowsky refers to a plaque in the
Berlin Museum). In 1467 he was one of the
judges of the work on the lantern crowning the
cathedral dome, i1 bottom. On the 10th Sep-
tember, 1468, he was entrusted with the con-
struction of the palla to be fastened to the top,
made of sheets of copper hammered out over
round stones, soldered together and richly gilt.
In 1471 the palm was fixed, and above it the
cross with the precious relics in the arms. In
January, 1600, the lantern was struck by lightning,
after which the Grand Duke Ferdinand had the
whole restored.

4* Vasari says: “He drew, for instance, with
pen the excellent cartoons of a battle between
naked men, intending to execute them with
colour upon a wall.” It recalls Pollaiuolo’s
fighting men and the frescoes in the Torre al
Gallo. According to Albertini’s “Memoriale,”
Verrocchio had also, as painter, executed large
decorative works, such as three pictures of the
Herculean labours, painted on canvas in the old
council chamber. Vasari also mentions some-

thing about an Adoration of the Kings. All
these works, unfortunately, have completely dis-
appeared.

‘ Concerning the Pistoian altar-piece, see
pp. 120-122.

4“ The group was ordered in 1465, and the
greater number of payments was made in I476—
80. In I482 the finished model (now lost) was
bought to be put up in Mercanzia’s hall. In
April, 1483, a total sum of 800 golden guldens
was granted to the artist in consideration of the
excellence of the work, and not until June 21,
1483, was the bronze group set up in its place.
It may thus be concluded that the making of the
model itself took place during the years 1476-80,
the casting 1480-82, and the chiselling brought to
a termination in the summer of 1483.

47 Nicolo Forteguerri died in 1473. In 1476
Verrocchio’s model was agreed upon out of five
competing designs. After certain difficulties and
intrigue, the ultimate order was given, in accord-
ance with Lorenzo de Medici’s arbitration, to
Verrocchio. After 1478 we find Verrocchio’s
bottega, with Credi at its head, in Pistoia, working
at the monument. In July, 1483, Verrocchio
declared everything to be ready, and claimed
payment. The work was never finished, however.
In 1488 Verrocchio died, and in 1511 its com-
pletion was entrusted to Raphael’s assistant.
Lorenzetti. The monument as it was executed,
however, was a pupil’s work, most probably by
Credi and Francesco di Simone jointly. The
terra-cotta sketch in the South Kensington
Museum, which differs considerably from the
monument, may be by Credi (Berenson ascribes
it definitely to Credi, whilst Mackowsky seems
to think it is an original by Verrocchio); a
drawing in the Malcolm collection of one of the
angels holding a mandorla is certainly by Credi.

4s The competition was between Desiderio da
Settignano, Giuliano da Majano and a certain
Andrea Michaelis, who can be no other than
Andrea del Verrocchio (son of Michele di Cioni).

260

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES

“'3 See Note 43.

’7" A receipt dated 1469 for the payment is in
the State archives in Florence.

'31 According to the editor
apostles were really made, but were stolen about
the middle of the 18th century. Vasari also
mentions two bronze busts of Alexander and
Darius, ordered by Lorenzo de Medici, to give to
King Matthias Corvinus, and specially draws
attention to their finely chased armour and helmet
This recalls

of Vasari, these

ornamentation. Leonardo’s famous
profile drawing ofa warrior in armour and helmet
in the Malcolm Collection (shown on p. 133), and
the soldiers in Verrocchio’s own’silver relief of

The well-

in the Louvre, which is

the execution of John the Baptist.
known Scipio relief
generally considered to be by Leonardo, is in my
opinion a suspicious work, something like the
so-called Donatello’s S. Cecilia, and probably
modern.

’ Copied in the archives of the Uffizi by
]. Semper, and printed in Zahn’s Jahrb. f. Kw,
1868, p. 360.

‘7" Before 1469 (the year of Piero de’ Medici’s
death).

into the decoration, therefore probably an order

Piero’s mark, a diamond ring, is woven

from him.

5‘4 The Medici sarcophagus was completed in
1472.

See Note 47.

‘7" On the plan of an ancient sarcophagus with
representations of the Alcestis myth (now in the
Villa Faustina at Cannes, formerly in a Roman
palace), the composition is arranged in two
different scenes, and here and there figure motives
have been borrowed (see illustration in an article
by Frida Schottm’uller in Report. f. Kw., 1902,
p- 403)-

The sketch in the South Kensington Museum
is not the one on which the monument is based.
Berensen, however, sees principally Credi’s hand
in the monument as executed, this having been
done from an altered sketch.

‘ Compare Leonardo’s well known drawing of
the casting of a cannon (at Windsor).

5" According to a document of October, 1474,
he cast a bell with figures and ornament'for the
monastery on Monte Scalari. It afterwards went
to S. Pancrazio in the Valley of the Arno, cracked
in 1815 and was recast.

“0 This figure is mentioned in earlier records.
There are similar figures upon the Council House
in Siena (by Dello Delli), in the Sala del Oriluogo,
in the Council House in Florence (by Lorenzo
della Volpaia), and on the Torre del Orologio on
the piazza of S. Mark in Venice.
about this mechanical figure by Verrocchio, we

In reading

cannot but recall Leonardo’s mechanical figures,
the angels with.the movable wings (in Milan),
and the lion that opened its breast filled with
French lilies at the French king’s festival.

“1 He restored for Lorenzo an antique Marsyas
torso in red marble, utilising its white veins to
to emphasise the sinews of the body (according to
Vasari).
from Frankfurt, saw it in the Medici’s collection
of antiques in 1536, after which date it entirely

Johann Fichard, the travelling lawyer

disappeared. Mackowsky declares a mistake was
made when Donatello’s and Verrocchio’s restored
Marsyas figures are identified with the two in the
corridor of the Uffizi, Nos. 155 and 156. The
Marsyas that Fichard saw was seated. In the
Collection of Drawings in the Uffizi there is a
study of a sitting, nude male figure with his hands
tied behind him, perhaps a Marsyas, by David
Ghirlandaio (under Filippino’s name). Vasari
tells us that he owned a terra-cotta relief by
Verrocchio of a horse’s head, which was copied
from the antique. Cf. also E. Jaeschke’s Die
Antike in der Florentiner Malerei. Heitz, Igoo.

""1 The S. John reredos for the Baptistery from
the middle of the 14th century. In 1402 it was
finished in Gothic style, except the two side
portions and the statue'of S. John himself. . This
was executed by Michelozzo in 1452. In 1477 a
competition was determined upon for the four

261

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES

reliefs with the subjects (I) the Meeting of Mary
and Elizabeth, (2) the Birth of John, (3) Salome’s
Dance, (4) the Beheading of John. Pollaiuolo
sent in four wax models and Verrocchio three,
and they each had to do one relief, the other two
being left to some insignificant guild silversmiths.
Mackowsky considers the two clay models at
Rothschild’s, Paris, to be Verrocchio’s originals,
while he ascribes the silver work to the bottcga. I
believe the silver relief to be a genuine and highly
important work by Verrocchio, executed between
I477 and I480, that is to say simultaneously with
the completion of the Thomas group and the
preliminary work for the Colleoni monument. In
reality the whole idea for the Colleoni type lies
in 111166 in the silver relief (see illustration, p. 2I5),
Leonardo’s Malcolm drawing being also executed
in close sympathy with the work of this genius.

“3 In the Dreyfuss Collection in Paris there is a
beautiful terra-cotta bust of Giuliano de’ Medici,
which might well be Verrocchio’s own work. He
is represented wearing a richly chased coat of mail,
but without a helmet.

"’4 This, too, recalls Leonardo, who was a highly
valued arranger of festivities.

0“ Mantz also makes use of this fact to taunt
Verrocchio on the subject of artisan orders, as if
Donatello or any of the great artists of the Renais-
sance were ashamed of accepting orders for art
handicraft l

6“ It is Vasari who quotes Verrocchio as Peru-
gino’s master. Crowe and Cavalcaselle, III, p. 145,
record their full adhesion to the statement, and
Verrocchio’s influence is acknowledged in all
quarters, Berenson among them (“ slightly influ-
enced by Verrocchio ”). Besides the resemblance
in postures—the one so much favoured by Peru-
gino, the standing motive with the weight of the
body thrown on to one leg, found in David, in
Thomas and in the Baptist in the Baptism of
Christ—I would point to the direct employment
of Verrocchio’ drapery studies for Perugino
pictures, such as the Madonna enthroned among

saints, in the Tribuna in the Uffizi. (Compare
drawings by Verrocchio and his school, and especi-
ally the Pistoian Madonna, or the Verrocchiesque
picture by Credi in the Louvre with a similar sub-
ject). It is not easy to say when Perugino may
have entered Verrocchio’s studio. He had prob-
ably been there for the first time when in 1475 he
was mentioned as decorator of the Council House
in Perugia. It is certain, however, that in 1482
he was once more in Florence, and at that time
the Thomas group was almost finished. Subse-
quently he let himself be influenced by Leonardo,
as in a picture at Cannes, about I515, which is
founded upon the idea of the Virgin of the Rocks.

“7 Francesco di Simone (1438-1493) is (as Georg
Gronau has clearly proved, jahrb. d. preuss
Ksm, I896) inter alia the real draughtsman of
the so called Verrocchio’s Sketch-book, leaves of
which are to be found in the Louvre and other
museums under Verrocchio’s name. As a sculptor
he has assisted Verrocchio in the execution of a
number of works, such as the Tornabuoni relief,
a Madonna relief in the Bargello with a plastically
worked out cloudy sky as background, the four
“virtues” at Mme. Andre’s in Paris (compare the
authentic work by him, the Tartagni monument
in the Bologna Cathedral) and probably Lorenzo
de’ Medici’s bust in the Shaw Collection in
Boston.

08 The Botticini question, which has long stood
in the way of a true recognition of Verrocchio’s
and to some extent Botticelli’s artistic person-
alities, has now, in all essentials, been made clear
by Crow and Cavalcaselle in VII B of their
history of painting. Further light has been
thrown upon it by Berenson and by Kuhnel, to
whose monograph (Francesco Botticini, Stras-
burg, 1905), I refer the reader.

“9 Tondos, some of them in the Borghese and
the Uffizi—an eclectic between Credi and Piero
di Cosimo, with starting—point in Verrocchio’s
studio.

Alunno d’Andrea (del Verrocchio). To this

262

"

 

 

 

 

NOTES

anonymous personality, whose works will be com-
pared in the following pages, I have given this
temporary name, as Berenson has done, for
instance, with an anonymous Alunno di Domenico
(Ghirlandaio). See the chapter on the Baptism
of Christ, p. 63. _

71 Giovanni della Robbia (1469-1529 ?) often
makes direct use of Verrocchio’s compositions for
his glazed pottery. In the Collegio della Quiete
at Carreggi we find Verrocchio’s Thomas group
actually reproduced in Robbia ware. Verrocchio’s
Madonnas are also repeated in the later Robbia
works, of which the best are Giovanni’s own.

72 Fiorenzo di Lorenzo from Umbria (1440-
1521), in his first work to which a date can be
assigned

 

an altar-piece in the gallery in Perugia
—shows that he is of the Florentine school.
Crowe and Cavalcaselle, as also Bode, Schmarzow
and Ulman, infer this to have been Verrocchio’s.
Berenson, on the contrary, puts him down as
possibly a pupil of Benozzo Gozzoli, and trained,
inter alia, under the influence of Antonio del
Pollaiuolo. Although I admit the correctness of
these observations of Berenson, 1 also consider
there is reason to include Verrocchio among the
artists who have influenced Fiorenzo di Lorenzo.

73 From Vasari (Milanesi, 111., p. 574) we know
that Perugino once, at any rate, painted Verroc-
chio’s portrait, namely, in his frescoes in the
Jesuit monastery in Florence. Berenson gives
the picture in the Uffizi (No. 1163) as a work by
Domenico Ghirlandaio and representing Peru-
gino’s portrait. 1 cannot agree with him in this
attribution. 1 see here, especially in the landscape,
in the drawing of the mouth and eyes, and in the
whole character of the expression, Perugino’s art
as we know it from his other portraits of the
Florentine period, from the fine portrait of a
woman in the Tribuna of the Uffizi (under
Raphael’s name), from Francesco dell Opere’s
portrait, and above all from his own portrait in
the Sistine fresco and the frescoes in Cambio.
On the other hand I have been strongly tempted

1263

to see Perugino himself in the person represented
but have given it up ; it is impossible to disregard
the likeness to the Verrocchio portrait that Vasari
gives, and which must be drawn from the picture
in the Uffizi.

7* M'Lintz, Leonardo, 22 et seq.

7'3 Eugene Miintz’s work gives an abundance of
false Leonardo drawings as genuine, among them
the vignette upon the title-page itself.

'7')" In addition to M'untz, Bode and Muller-
VValde.

77 Jacob Burckhardt has made valuable contri-
butions in his classical writing on the Renaissance
culture, more particularly in the chapters on
“modern fame ” and “ modern mockery and wit.”

73 Antonio Billi was the first (about 1516-1520)
to assert that Verrocchio was Donatello’s pupil
(see 11 Libro di Antonio Billi, edited by Frey,
Berlin, 1892, p. 47). From this writer it has
passed to the Magliabecchian Anonimo (Il Codice
Magl., Ed. Frey, p. 89). Subsequently Baldi-
nucci (Notizie dei Professori del disegno da
Cimabue in qua; Florence, 1845, 1., p. 536) also
maintains, in accordance with a very old MS. to
which he refers, that Verrocchio was Donatello’s
pupil and even mm da’ suoiprimi e 7107; ii minimo.
As opposed to these authors, Pomponius Gauricus
(De sculptura, 1502, Ed. H. Brockhaus, Leipzig,
1886, p. 253 et seq.) speaks of only an imitation
of Donatello’s art: Andreas Alueroc/zz'us Domiclli
sad z'am smis cmmlus. And Vasari, who has worked
with Antonio Billi’s MS. before him (see Frey’s
preface to the Anonimo), does not mention any
such relation of pupil and master, and must there—
fore have changed his mind. See also Curt
Sachs, Das Tabernakel fur Verrocchios Thomas-
gruppe am Orsanmichele; Heitz, Strasburg, 1904,
p. 30.

79 According as the year 1435 is reckoned as
that of his birth (the general assumption), or
1436, as it is recorded in the Florentine registers.
Hans Mackowsky chooses the latter year in his
in many respects excellent Verrocchio biography,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES

Vclhagen and Klasing, Leipzig and Bielefelt,
1901.

”0 Donatello’s residence in Padua and Venice
lasted from 1443 to 1453.

8‘ See, for instance, Ghiberti’s
relief for the Baptistery, Abraham’s sacrifice,
especially the shepherds in the foreground.
Verrocchio has also evidently studied Ghiberti’s
naturalistic ornament.

”'3 Mackowsky, too (p. 27) has noticed Ver—
with certain of

competition

rocchio’s close connection
Desiderio’s works, such as the Marzuppini tomb,
without venturing to assert the relation of pupil
and master. ‘In another passage (p. 14) he seems
rather to think of Bernardo Rosselino as Ver-
rocchio’s teacher.

”3 Bode’s Ciceronen, 8 Aufi., 111., p. 649. Mac-
kowsky’s Verrocchio. p. 79.

5‘ Morelli (Lermolieff) Die Gallerie zu Berlin,
2 Ausg.,p. 36.

‘ The outline of the drawing is pricked with a
needle, and has thus been transferred by pouncing.

“1" My attribution of these pictures, to Baldo-
vinetti, made several years ago, received further
confirmation from the fact that Berenson came
to the same conclusion. See his fine chapter on
Baldovinetti in the Study and Criticism of Italian
Art, Second Series, London, 1902, pp. 23-39.

37 See also the next chapter on the Two
Annunciations and Baldovinetti’s picture in S.
Miniato.
tioned Baldovinetti’s Madonna among Saints in

As further comparisons may be men-

the Uffizi and similar pictures from Verrocchio’s
studio. ,

”'5 See the head of a youth on the Windsor
sheet, p. 27.

5" Dr. Bode (Jahrb. d. preus. Ksm., 1882) makes
much of the difference in technique shown by the
two “hands” that have worked at the picture.
Morelli (G. zu Berlin, p. 36), on the other hand,
considers the “ oil-painting ”
with thick
which has once more been partially removed;

to be only some

restorer’s daubing yellow varnish,

but in this he is certainly mistaken; the picture
is actually the work of two painters.

“” The altar-piece for the Cathedral in Pistoia,
see p. 122.

"1 An illustration of it is given in Mackowsky’s
“Verrocchio,” p. 36.

“3 Ferri, “ Raccolta di disegni,” p.
Bode, “ Ital. Bildhauer,” p. 116.

”3 Berenson, “Drawings,” 1., p. 38.

5“- 1 will take this opportunity of drawing atten-
tion to a closely allied drawing of an angel’s head
to be found in the same place (Uffizi, Cat. 11.,
199), which is rather Credi’s work, but very much

159. W.

resembles the young Granacci’s drawings.

9" In his book on “Melozzo da Forli,” Pro-
fessor Schmarsow ascribes the drawing to Piero
di Cosimo.

9‘5 Berenson, “ Drawings,” 1., p. 40.

”7 Berenson, “Drawings,” Pl. XXVI., Vol.1.,
P 37-

” 1n the Malcolm Collection in the British
Museum (No.23) there is a drawing of drapery
for a sitting figure by Credi, which is a direct copy
of the beautiful Leonardo drawing in the Louvre
(p. 73). The difference in the manner of the two
artists can be best studied here.

"" For instance, the drawing of drapery, No. 434
in the Uffizi, under Leonardo’s name, is a study
by Granacci for his altar piece in the Berlin
Museum.

100 Concerning Leonardo’s customary way of
drawing draperies Vasari relates: “He was very
diligent in drawing from nature, and sometimes
in making models of clay figures. Upon these
he arranged wet cloths dipped in plaster, and then
patiently drew them upon very fine canvas made
of crape, or used linen, and did them in black and
white with the point of his brush in a miraculous
way, which can be confirmed by some of his that
1 have in my sketch-book.”

“’1 Joh. Guthmann, who has written a com-
prehensive account of “Landschaftsmalerei der
toscanischen u. umbrischen Kunst von Giotto bis

264

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES

Raffael ” (Leipzig, 1902), also considers the land-
scape in the Baptism of Christ to be Leonardo’s
work (p. 240).

102 Concerning the development of the feeling
for landscape, see a chapter in Burckhardt’s
“Cultur d. Renaissance in Italien.”

103 Compare Guthmann’s account in the above
mentioned book, as also Josiah Gilbert’s “ Land-
scape in Art” (London, 1885), and Wolfgang
Kallab’s “ Die toscanische Landskaftsmalerei im
XIV. Jh.” (i Jahrb. d. k. Samml. d. allerh. Kaiser-
hauses, Vienna, 1900).

10* The picture is unfortunately very much
painted over.

105

Guthmann, p. 183.
10" There is an intelligent little article on Uccello
by Charles Loeser in the “ Repertorium f. K. w,”
I898,pp-83-94-

’07 The three battle pictures are all in a more
or less bad state of preservation, and seem to
have changed colour in places (the horses).
They were, moreover, as long as 400 years ago,
restored by Bugiardini (see Vasari’s biography
of this artist).

“)5 It is significant that Baldovinetti's Madonna
in the Louvre was at first called a Piero della
Francesca. Cf. Berenson’s chapter on the artist
in his “Study and Criticism, 11.,” p. 32.

1”” Vasari (Milanesi), 11., p. 595.

“0 A Madonna with Saints, in the long cor-
ridor in the Uffizi, is a work in every respect
Here, too, the
tops of cypresses appear above a hanging of
gold brocade that forms the background for

characteristic of Baldovinetti.

the figures. .
“1 Studio pictures in the Uffizi, Berlin and

Glasgow.

“‘3 Trattato della Pittura, Ludwig’s edition pp.
68-69.

“3 Bernhard Berenson has separated this artistic
personality from the Botticellian school production,
and in a charmingly written article (to be found
in the first volume of his “Study and Criticism”)

265

has characterised the anonymous personality
that stands behind the pictures he has grouped
together.

m The picture in particular of the Adoration
of the Kings in London, with the small figures in
the very wide, romantic, rocky landscape, recalls
directly in its arrangement and interpretation,
Flemish pictures by the continuators of the Van
Eycks, and even touches Patinier.

”5 Bernhard Berenson was the first to emphasise
Verrocchio’s important contribution towards the
development of landscape painting. In his book
on the “Florentine Painters,” he speaks of
Verrocchio (perhaps a little partially) as the
landscape painter par excellence in the Florentine
quattrocento: “ the first to feel that a faithful
reproduction of the contours is not landscape,
that the painting of nature is an art distinct from
the painting of the figure.”

1”Crowe 8: Cavalcaselle; Ital. Malerei bei
Max Jordan, 1V., p. 528.

”7 Bernh. Berenson,
pp. 56-60.

“8 Lermolieff; Die Gallerien zu Berlin, 1893,
p. 24. See also the Louvre catalogues, Cat.
Tauzia, No. 158, and Cat. Reiset, No. 219.

1‘“ Crowe & Cavalcaselle; Ital. Maleri bei Max
Jordan, 1V., p. 528.

”0 Lermolieff; Die Gallerie zu Berlin, p. 22.

I“ The editor of the above volume.

122 Adolf Rosenberg; Leonardo da Vinci,
Kt‘lnstlermonographien. Velhagen 81, Klasing,
1898, pp. 23-26.

""3 Bernard Berenson;
and “ Drawings of Florentine Painters,” London,

I893,L,p-33.
”4 Georg Gronau; Leonardo da Vinci, London,

“Florentine Painters,"

Florentine Painters ”

1902.
”'7 W. Schmidt; Zeitschr. f. bild. K., 1893,
pp. 139-141. '
‘2“ W. Bode:
111., p. 757. 1’.
Vinci, 1., pp. 38-40.

Burckhardts Cicerone, 8 Auti,
Muller-\Valde: Leonardo da
Sidney Colvin; Selected

LL

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES

drawings from old masters in Oxford. Frowde,
London, 1903-1907.

”7 A. von Beckerath; Ueber einige Zeichn.
alter Meister in Oxford. Rep. f. Kw., 1907,

pp. 291-293.

‘2“ H. de Geym‘uller; Gazette des Beaux- Arts,
1890, p. 97.

1'3" Gabrielle Séailles; Leonardo da Vinci,
Paris, 1892, p. 20.

”0 Eugene Mtintz; Leonardo da Vinci, pp.
50-51. As a possible study for the Virgin he
gives the splendid drawing of drapery in the
Louvre (p. 73 of this book), and for the angel
the drapery study No. 420 for a kneeling figure
in the Uffizzi.

“’1 Baron de Geym’uller assumes it to be the
seaport Porto Pisano.

“‘2 We may mention the following works by
Dom. Ghirlandaio which prove this influence:

(1) Berlin, No. 93. “Meeting between Christ
and John the Baptist,” which I agree with Bode
in considering an early work of Ghirlandaio
under Verrocchio’s influence.

(2) Uffizi, No. 1297. The early .’ ltar-piece
with the enthroned Virgin and archangels
SS. Michael and Raphael, etc. (Alinari, 422).

(3) Accademia, No. 66. Altar—piece with the
enthroned Virgin and four saints (Alinari, 1444).

Both these altar-pieces are built upon a scheme
of composition of which we have the prototype in
Verrocchio's altar-piece in Pistoia—a symmetrical
arrangement with the Virgin upon a marble throne
in front of a marble wall or open balustrade with
plants in vases, and behind it the dark tree tops
of the garden, oranges and cypresses, in regular
order. In the details there is also a resemblance
to Verrocchio, which has even misled a connoisseur
like Professor Vickhoffinto ascribing to Domenico
Ghirlandaio drawings of drapery that, both from
their technique and form, must have come from
Verrocchio’s pupils or followers.

(4) The Innocenti picture (1488), the Adoration
of the Kings (Alinari, 3779), with the Verroc-

chiesque Madonna and the angels flying in the
air, as on the Forteguerri monument.

(5) The Verrocchiesque Madonna lunette al
fresco over S.‘ Zenobius in the Palazzo Vecchio
(Alinari, 6484). a studio work that is probably
from the hand of David Ghirlandaio. It would
not be difficult to point out yet other points of
connection with Verrocchio among the numerous
and varied drawings of this early eclectic.

1“” Morelli (Lermolieff), Die Gallerie zu Berlin
p. 23.

1‘” Crowe and Cavalcaselle (IV., p. 528) write:
“ Das Bild l'asst auf den ersten Blick an Granacci
denken, doch macht die Uebereinstimmung mit
den vorgenannten Ridolfo’s Urheberschaft wahr-
scheinlicher.”

1”“ Fra Angelico’s fresco in S. Marco.

‘3” The Virgin was traditionally represented in
a walled garden.

“‘7 Muller-VValde; Leonardo, pp. 36-40.

‘3" Sir Sidney Colvin is of this opinion. He
says: “The fact that the present drawing”
(shown. on p. 100 of this book) “is certainly for
the sleeve of the angel in this picture, and as
certainly by the hand of Leonardo, seems to
place the attribution of the picture itself to him
henceforward beyond doubt.”

‘3” A. von Beckerath criticises the picture quite
sharply, and concludes with the words: “If the
Louvre picture is by Leonardo, then the Floren-
tine picture cannot be by him, but must be by
one of his artist friends, whose name we do not
at present know, and who has painted the picture
under his guidance.”

14“ VVickhoff, Frants; Jahrb. d. preuss. Kunst-
sammlungen, 1899, p. 213.

1“ See above, note 132.

”2 The so-called Bayersdorff Madonna. \V.
Schmidt in Munich sees the resemblance, but
believes that bOth pictures are painted by Lorenzo
di Credi. _

1“" Mt’iller-Walde, Leonardo, p. 36.

”4 No. 428. Morelli has put down the drawing

266

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES

as a “Flemish copy of Verrocchio ” (Doria-
Borghese, p. 266).

“"3 The drawing has been used as a model by
thatpupil of Leonardo who painted the Litta
Madonna in S. Petersburg. probably Beltraffio.

“‘5 Jahrb. d. Preuss. Kunstsamml., III., 1882,
p. 260, and later in Ital. Bildhauer, 1887, pp. 156
et seq.

“7 \Vaagen; Kunstdenkm'aler zu \Vien, 1866,
p. 276: “Mindestens doch besten
Scht‘iler des L., etwa dem Beltraffio beizumessen
sein dt‘irfte.77

“8 Mtiller-VValde; Leonardo, p. 66.

“0 Morelli (Lerniolieff); Die Gallerie zu Berlin,

1893,11 37-
”0 Berenson ; Florentine Painters, p. 130.

einem dcr

1'31 Mackowsky; VerrocchiO, p- 46-

m In Zeitschrift f. bild. Kunst, N.F., XIV.,
p. 274.

”3 “ Ritrasse la Ginevra d’Amerigo Benci, cosa
Vasari, IV., p. 39.
(iaddiano, ed. Milanesi, p. 11.

bellissima.’7 See also Anon
1'” Rosenberg; Leonardo, p. 28.
”"3 Muller-VValde; Leonardo, p. 66.
1”“ Berenson, Bernhard: Florentine Painters,
p. 109.
157 F. Sitwell (Types of Beauty in Renaissance
Art Journal, N.S., 1889,

p. 5) was the first to recognise Giovanna Torna-

and Modern Painting.

buoni in Ghirlandaio’s fresco of the Salutation.
Enrico Ridolfo (Giovanna T. e Ginevra dei Benci.
Archivio Storico Italiano, 1890, pp. 425 et seq.)
has proved that Ginevra (lei Benci could not have
been represented, as she had died in 1473. Cf.
also Ulrich Thieme in Zeitsch f. bild. K., 1898,
p. 192.

‘53 In a private letter to the author.

”9 Mackowsky, p. 46.

“‘0 We know it from the document called “the
memorandum of Tommaso the cloth—weaver.”

”’1 Mt‘intz (p. 38) wrongly reads 3ch for Sid and
(L di 2 dag/205m for addj 5 dag/10590.

W It is Uzielli who places the landscape in the

Montelupo district. Signor Ferri, in his catalogue
of the Uffizi drawings, adds the bewildering in-
formation that the drawing is a prima idea for the
landscape in the Virgin of the Rocks, which of
course is nonsense.

“‘3 Trattato della Pittura, Chap. LX.

‘0“ In addition to the Braun photograph there is
one by Oppenheim, Dresden, No. 9.

1“” The Dresden Cabinet’s manuscript list from
1738, p. 1191.

1““ Morelli (Lermolieff); Die Gal. zu Berlin, 1st
ed, p. 257.

""7 Morelli (Lermolieff); Die Gal. zu Mt‘mchen u.
Dresden, pp. 349 et seq.

1““ Beiblatt zur Algem. Zeitung, No. 215, I896.

1"” \V. Schmidt i Zeitschr. f. bild. K., 1893,
pp. 139 et seq.

”0 Berenson, Drawings, 1., p. 42.

”1 “ He did it badly: the eyes are out of draw-
ing, the neck is shapeless.”

1” Lermolieff, Die Gallerie zu Berlin, 1893,
p. 37 (Frizzoni’s note).

”3 Bode in Repert. f.Kw., 1899, p. 390.

‘74 Berenson (Drawings, I., p. 42) bases his attri-
bution to Credi upon a study for the Baptist in
the His de la Salle Collection in the Louvre.
The saint is standing in the same position as in
the picture, but differs a little in the drapery,
the character of the head and the expression
(Braun’s photograph). The
doubted Credi. From this Berenson concludes
that the picture is also painted by Credi. The
reason why the two Baptists actually differ so

study is an un-

much from one another is, in Berenson’s opinion,
that the drawing was done in 1478 when the pic-
ture was ordered, whereas the picture was only
finished in 1485, when the demand was made for
its delivery. Credi’s development in the meantime
was to explain the difference between the two
Baptists. But this is an artificial conclusion. As
the two figures are really so different, it is more
natural to conclude that they are by different
artists ; the resemblance in attitude and type may

267

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES

come from their having had the same model and
from the pupil’s desire to imitate his master.
Credi, for instance, in his picture in S. Domenico
at Fiesole, imitated the Baptist in Verrocchio’s
Baptism of Christ. Credi actually worked from
his master’s pictures.

17" Francesco Granacci must have been born
about 1469. In 1480 his mother said he was
eleven years of age. He was undoubtedly a
pupil of Credi, and a fellow pupil of the so—called
Tommaso. \Vhen with Credi he must have
studied drawings by Verrocchio and Leonardo.
He does not seem to have entered Ghirlandaio’s
great studio until later. There he was principally
under the guidance of David Ghirlandaio, as his
numerous nude studies and drawings of drapery
Show. It must have been still later that the
Botticelli element began to blend with his art
through his acquaintance with Raphaelino del
Garbo, who for a time exercised a great influence
upon him. That he was at the same time an
admirer of Filippino, and studied that virtuoso’s
drawing technique is shown, inter-(11m, by his
silver-point studies for his Josephs (in the Uffizi).
Finally his eclectic development is completed by
contact with Fra Bartolommeo. In his later
manner, moreover, the impressions of Fra
Bartolommeo’s art are blended with those of
other contemporaries, e.g., Sogliani (who had
also begun as a pupil of Credi), Franciabigio
and Sarto. It is a very difficult matter to
determine who are the givers and who the
receivers in this reciprocation of influences. The
productions of this weakly-built and receptive
generation of artists are interwoven like a thicket
of pliable willow wands. At this time, about the
close of the century, when Leonardo disappeared
from the scene and Michelangelo had not yet
taken the command, Florentine painting was in
reality a hesitating transition art, possessing little
character. This section of art history abounds in
puzzles for the student, but has little to offer to
those who seek personality in art. The most

difficult point in the history of Granacci’sdevelop-
ment is the group of evidentlyarchaistic drawings,
in which quattrocento reminiscences rise to the
surface of his mobile art. This conscious reaction
appears to belong to his later years. In co-opera-
tion with Berenson, in 1901, I grouped together in
the Uffizi alone fifty-five of Granacei’s drawings
that are scattered about under the most varied,
and generally incorrect, names. Nine are called
by their right name, one is called Franciabigio,
five Domenico Ghirlandaio, three Manicm del
Glzirlmzdaio, seven Botticelli, one Mam'cm di
Botticelli, six Filippino, eight Piero del Pollaiuolo,
one Mania/i di Pz'ero del Pollaiuolo, one Leonardo,
three Pesellino, six Credi, three Sogliani, one Scuola
Fi0w72ti1m,altogether fifty-five drawings byGranacci.

17“ Photo, Philpot 752, Brogi 1897.

”7 Photographed by Brogi (No. 1662) as an
I gnoto fiormtino.

”3 Note the hatched background shadow down
the back, so characteristic of Granacci and
intended to throw up the outline; note also the
points of light on all the folds of the body.

17" Berenson, Drawings, 1., p. 38.

”0 Koopman, W.; Die Madonna mit der
schtinen Blumenvase. Repert. f. Kw., XIII.
(1890), pp. 118-122. Geym'uller, H. de; La vierge
a l’oeillet. Gazette d. beaux—arts, 1890, pp.
97-104. Lubke, VV.; Altes u. Neues. Breslau,
1891, pp. 280-283.

1“ Rieffell, F.; Ein Jugenbild Leonardos?
Repert., f. Kw., XIV. (1891), pp. 217-220. Morelli
(Lermolieff); Die Gallerien zu Mi‘inchen u. Dresden
1891, pp. 348-356. “ VIeiner Ueberzeugung nach
wurden beide Bilder, das in Dresden sowoals
jenes in M'unchen. von einem sehr unter-
geordneten Maler aus Flandenr nach Zeich—
nungen des Verroechio angefertigt.”

”2 At the same time Emile Molinier had
referred to another, evidently Flemish variant of
the same motive in the Louvre magazines
(Buelletin de la Societe nationale des antiquaires
de France, 1890).

268

 

i.
l
l.

<5
l

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES

153 Zeitschr. f. bild. Kunst, 1893, pp. 139-141.

‘54 Richter, L, p. 345, quotes Politian, Conjum-
tionis Pactimzw Commwztariztm, and Gino Capponi,
Sim/id della Rufmblica Florentine.
order given to Boticelli see Milanesi Arch. Stor.
IV. (1862), p. 5.

135 Taine is an exception.

Concerning the

\Vith psychological
clearsightedness and delicate artistic feeling, he
characterises the sensual element in certain
Leonardesque youths as follows: “Ouelquefois
parmi des jeunes athletes tiers comme (les dieux
grecs, on trouve un bel adolescent ambigu, au
corps de femme, svelte et tordu avec une
coquetterie voluptueuse pareil aux androgynes de
l’epoque impe’riale, et qui semble, comme eux,
annoncer un art plus avance’, moins sain, presque
maladif, tellement avide de perfection et in-
satiable de bonheur qu’il ne se contente pas de
mettre 1a force dans l’homme et la de’licatésse
dans la femme, mais que, confondant et multi-
pliant par un singulier me'lange la beauté des
deux sexes, i1 se perd dans les réveries et les
recherches des ages de decadence et d’immoralité.
On va loin quand on pousse a bout cette
recherche des sensations exquises et pro-
fondes. ” '

18“ Pico della Mirandola, the young, handsome,
highly gifted philosopher, was especially the object
of the warmest, sometimes quite enthusiastic feel-
ing of friendship from several elderly men among
the humanists. His teacher, Ficino, who wrote a
treatise on the SUbJGCt, Quam utz'lis amor Socra-
ticus (Ficinus; Opera. Basle, 1561, 11., 1362),
entertained extreme affection for his pupil,
Lorenzo il Magnifico was prepared to make any
sacrifice for him, and Girolamo Benivieni wrote
tender sonnets to him and attained the fulfilment
of his wish to rest in the same grave as his friend
Pico.

”7 The friendly relations between Politian and
Buoninsegni, between Ficino and Cavalcanti,
between Michaelangelo and the young Febo or

Cavalieri, find the most vehement, sometimes

quite sensual expression in letters and poems,
without, however, apparently giving sufficient
ground to characterise their relations as vicious.
The mode of expression of the period was fan-
tastical, and the idea of friendship in the Platonic
spirit a religious idea. For further particulars
about Michelangelo see Martha Drachmann Bent-

zon’s interesting book, “ Michelagniolo. Studier
over hans erotiske personlighed.” Copenhagen,

1908.

”s St. Bernard was one of the special patron
saints of Florence, and therefore had his own
chapel in the Council House.

1“" Copy of “Deliberazioni
Collegi,” 1478. Vol. 83:

“ I478, die 10 mensis Januarii (not 1 January,
as Milanesi and after him Uzielli and Muntz give

de’

Signori e

it) . . . . locaverunt Leonardo Ser Pieri de
Vincio, pictori, ad pingendum et de novo fab-
ricandum tabulam altaris capelli sancti Bernardi
dicte Dominationis, site in Palatio populi fio-
rentini. ”

“ 1478, 16 marzo, deliberaverunt quod camera-
rius Camere Armorum det et solvat Leonardo Ser
Pieri de Vinci, pictori, pro parte tabule altaris
dicte Dominationis fior. XXV. largos.”

The transfer of the work to Domenico Ghir-
landaio is dated 1483, the 20th May.

(Milanesi, Archivio Storico Italiano Serie 3,
XVI., p. 227).

”0 “Commincio a depingere una tavola nel
detto Palazo, la quale dipoi in sul suo disegno fu
finita per Filippo di Fra Filippo’ (Milanesi’s
edition, p. 11).

““.According to Gaye, Cartegg. 1., 581, on the
27th Sept, 1485, and 17th June, 1486, the picture
was paid for with a balance, of 1,200 lire.

“’2 Photo. Alinari 783. A similar, but far more
interesting composition by Filippino is to be found
in a pen—sketch in the Uffizi, No. 143 (Photo.
Brogi 1,673, Philpot 2,850).

103Joseph Strzygowski’s assumption that the
Adoration of the Magi was painted in sections,

269

 

 

 

 

‘._1

NOTES

some during Leonardo’s second Florentine period,
in 1494 and 1495, some under a third residence
there during the first few years of the 16th century,
is a theory that is quite without foundation, and
can be entirely refuted by the studies for the
picture itself, which, as we shall see, belongs to
Leonardo’s youth in Florence. On the whole the
conclusions at which Strzygowski arrives in his
work on Leonardo’s development (in jahrb. d.
preuss. Kunstsamml. B XV1., 1894) are incorrect.

“" The development of the Adoration motives
has been made the subject of an attractive little
book by Neena Hamilton, Die Darstellung der
Ambetung der Kenige in der toskanischen Malerei
von Giotto bis Leonardo, Strasburg, 1902.

1”" Edward McCurdy attempts to interpret the
youth’s head on the sketch-book leaf of 1478 in
the Uffizi as a study for an ecstatic S. Bernard;
but this, as we shall see, is quite unnecessary.
The sketches have a clearer connection.

1"“ Corozzi, Dintorni di Firenzi, 1881, p. 196.

“’7 1n the State archives in Florence, Corpo-
razioni religiose sopprese. Convento di S. Donato
a Scopeto . . . Giornale e ricordi dat. 1479 al
1482, published by Milanesi in Archivo Storico
Italiano Ser. 3, XV1., p. 228. See also Muller-
\Va1de’s “ Beitrage,” I. ()ahrb. d. preus. Ks. 1897,
p. 121).

“’8 Mt’iller—VValde, “ Beitrage,” p. 119.

1“" Photo. Alinari 783.

2”” Filippino’s picture measures 253 centimetres
in height and 243 in width, whereas Leonardo’s
Adoration measures 230 by 230 cm.

201 See note 190.

20'3 Berenson (Drawings, 1., p. 152) takes it for
granted that we may conclude from the document
published by Milanesi that 1481 is the date of the
Adoration. “But,” he says in a note, “it does not
follow therefore that Leonardo never thought of
painting this subject before this date. . . . There
is every probability that some of the sketches for
an Adoration were made in 1478, and others may
be earlier still.” But this great number of studies

for the picture, and all the labour and care it cost
him, are surely special indications that it was for
an order for the Council House of his native city,
and not for a small monastery church outside the
town.

‘30” Jahrb. d. preuss. Kunstsaml. 1897, p. 121.

”“4 From the year 1473 Leonardo wrote the
reverse way (mirrorscript). Some of his con-
temporaries also wrote from right to left, c.g.,
Sabba Castiglione and the sculptor Raffaele da
Montelupo, who wrote all’ 65171160 (Gaye, Car-
teggio 111., 582). Ravaisson and Favaro consider
Leonardo’s reversed writing to have been a
means of keeping the contents of his writings
secret, some of them being dangerous enough in
those days. Solmi, on the other hand, thinks
that Leonardo was simply left-handed, wrote,
drew, and painted with his left hand, and there-
fore for the sake of convenience taught himself to
write from right to left. and consequently with the
characters reversed. This is confirmed by Luca
Pacioli and Sabba Castiglione, both of whom call
him “left-handed.” (Ravaisson, Le Manuscrits
de L. d. V., 1., p. 2). Morelli was the first to
point out definitely the fact that Leonardo’s
drawings are all (with a very few exceptions)
drawn with the left hand and are shaded with
slanting lines from right to left. Mt'mtz, Bode.
Geymt‘iller and Mtiller-VValde have indeed tried
to weaken this fact with examples of the reverse ;
but none of the drawings they bring forward
stand the test as genuine Leonardo drawings.
They are all copies, pupils’ work and imitations.

205 See, for instance, the red-chalk drawing,
“Two ages,” in the Uffizi.

20“ Richter, 11., p. 422, confuses the upper with
the lower line, and translates: “at Pistoia,
Fioravante di Domenico at Florence is my most
beloved friend, as though he were my (brother).”
My rendering of the words 6110 a/mrw mi 0
(or 0?) mm and did 2'0 (zmj may possibly be
disputed; but the writing is so cursive and so full
of strange flourishes, that it would be difficult to

270

 

 

l
I

NOTES

find another such difficult passage in Leonardo’s
MSS.

'1‘" Crolalaza, G.13. _di, Dizionario storico-
blasonico delle famiglie nobili e notabili Italiani,
Pisa, 1886, 1,, 411.

3"“ jacopo di Francesco, Memorie storiche della
citta di Pistoja, Lucc, 1758.

Vittorio Capponi, Bibliografia1)ist0jese,Pistoia,
1874, p. 180.

2““ Diario Fiorentino di Agostino Lapini al
1596, publ. da G.O. Corazzini, Florence, 1900,
P. 345-

Benedetto Varchi, Storia Fiorentina, Florence,
1838-41. The name Fioravanti is also known in
art history as that of an architect family, of
whom Neri Fioravanti is the oldest and best
known (in 1333-45 he built, together with Benci
di Cione, the Palazzo del Podesta or Bargello).
Fioravante di Fioravanti (circ. 1380-1447) and a
Bartolommeo Fioravanti both had business in
Bologna.

'3'“ The head in the drawing has been slavishly
used since by a pupil of Leonardo during his
Milanese period, for the figure of S. Leonard in
the notorious Resurrection picture in the Berlin
Gallery, which certain German art historians with
tragi—comic seriousness still maintain to be a
work by Leonardo. The copier has only turned
the head in the drawing from left to right.
Muller-\Valde sees of course in this sketch the
best proof of the genuineness of this weak and

unlovely picture.

 

2” Some have maintained €.g., Jul. Lange—
that the old man represented is too old to be
Leonardo.

2” The figure of S. John is also seen in a
Florentine tondo of about 1480 in S. Petersburg.
The Virgin is enthroned between two angels
playing on musical instruments, and SI john
kneels upon the step of the throne as in this
drawing (reproduced, M'uller-VValde, p. 101).

3‘3 I had expected that Gronau would bring
out these numerous points of contact between the

Madonnas of Leonardo and Raphael in his book
“ Aus Raphaels Florentinertagen,” Berlin, 1902;
but, strange to say, he speaks only of influence
from Leonardo’s fighting horsemen and other
later works.

'3” M. Ephrussi has also long since acknow—
ledged Leonardo as the artist in a paper in the
“ Gazette des beaux—arts.” ,

“’7 Morelli (Lermolieff); Die Gall. Borghese
u. Doria, 1890, p. 226.

‘3‘“ Henry Wallis; Drawings by Leonardo, Art
journal, 1882, pp. 33 et seq.

'“7 Lermolieff; “Gal. Borghese u. Doria,”
p. 277 Berenson; “Drawings,” 1., p. 1265. A
genuine sheet of studies with three pen drawings
of the Child embracing the lamb, in the gallery in
VVeimar, is closely connected with the sheets of
studies for the Madonna a1 Gatto in the British
Museum; but 1 prefer to take it up later in
connection with the S. Anne.

“5 Giovanni Antonia Sogliani (1492-1544) is,
more than any other Florentine artist, the type of
an eclectic. He began as Credi’s pupil and friend,
and for a time lived well on Verrocchiesque and
Leonardesque motives and technique (especially
drapery studies ~~ the head of a man under
Leonardo’s name in the collection of drawings
in the Uffizi.) Subsequently he developed step
by step into an imitator 0f Fra Bartolommeo
and Albertinelli, Franciabigio and Granacci, and
finally of Andrea del Sarto. See Sogliani’s sketch-
book in the Uffizi. Cf. Berenson’s “Drawings,”
1., p. 145.

2‘” Calls to mind the Madonna tondo in the
Tribuna in the Uffizi.

22" Morelli, manuscript note in the collection
itself.

2'“ Maximilian did not become emperor until
I493-

222 The old Medici villa, Poggia a Cajano,
built by Guiliano da Sangello, has large (arched)
fliers; but the villa was not erected until after

1479-

271

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES

’3“ A small drawing of the head of a suffering
Christ, with a hand grasping the hair (in the
Academy at Venice), is the only indication that
Leonardo has touched upon subjects connected
with the Passion; and there is nothing to show
that he ever seriously took up the subject of the
Procession to Calvary for pictorial treatment.

The terrible picture of the “ Resurrection,’

1

in the

museum at Berlin, is a libel on Leonardo’s genius,
and clearly not a work of that master.

'1“ MS AshburnhamY 1., 141) (from Richter, I.,)

297-298.

272

MS. S.I{.M., 11., Fol. 2r (Richter, 1., § 555).

 

rlu‘qa

gam—

1,.. V’T A,"" “-

 

 

 

Albano, Monte
Alberti, Leon Battista
Albertina, Vienna

V2737); and Awe/1 (Mari/(gr (Piero (1i Cosimo)

Albertinelli
Albertini's [Ila/Izorz'a/s
Albiera A madori
Albizzi, Giovanna (1’
Ambrosian Library, Milan
Amerigo (Ie’ Vespucci
Amsterdam, Museum Fedor
Andrea, Alunno (Ii

a pupil of Verrocchio

his style

marble relief in the Quiiicv Shaw colleetion

INDEX

I'AGES

27, 28, 114

213, 235

182
173
58
27
106
239
4o. 85
210

3+
68
68

)1inter of .\Ia(101111:1s‘ in the Berlin 1‘111I1kl'01‘t and
I 1 a

London collections
drawings in the Uflizi
(lraper11 studies
his landscape paintin<r

dr1win<1" 111 the British Museum 11tt1ibuted to

Angelico 1113.
Scenes from the I ife of ( I1rist..
influenced by (lentile (111 lubriano
his landscape art...

Annunciata, 8., Cloister of

A l/()/l 27/1 (1

Antonio da Vinci

Appenines

Arezzo

Aristotle

A1110

\rnulfo s clock tower

Artigoni, l‘1ancesc0

Bacon, Sir Francis

Baldovinetti, Alesso .
Scenes from the I ife 0f ( “.'.'l11ist
Vetrocchio 5 painting master
a realist .
landscape portraituie

apupil of Domenico Veneziano

:V (zfz'w'z‘y (Annunziata)
dimly/171a (National Gallery)
Baldovinettils pupils '
21111121110960” (8 Miniato :11 Monte)

Bargello, the
Verrocchio’s [a (lo/ma (z/le fie/[c zmz/zz'
a Donatello l)ust..

bust of a FIOIentine lady by De'side1io' (Ia Setti'gnano 58, 61

I3 aroncelli,
Bernardo (Ii Bandino, the Pazzi conspiracy
Bartolommeo, Fra

69 70,71,162

69

7317+

90

102
96,141,158
64

79

- 79, 80

29, 36, I64

35a 377 1407 I4-7

PAGES
Bayersdorfer 92, 105, 118, 128
Bayonne, Bonnat collection

drawings for the Mada/111a (2/ Gail?)

167, 171

Adanzz’z'w/ of f/zc’ S/ze/J/zei ([1 182, 18 3
1311221, see Sodoma
Beckerath, A. 11011 2, 101
Beethoven 153
Bellini, jacopo

pupil of Gentile (1a Fabiano 79
Beltraffio

drawings. 55

“the pale lady in ihe fit <1101e 105

Iliadmzmz (1’0 oldi- I’ezzoli Museum) 166
Benci family 234

Benci \me1irro . 146, 147, 240

Benci. (Iinevra (lei, a po1trai't by I e011a1do 106, 109, 110

Benois collection, St. l’ete1sbuig 166, 167
Berenson, Bernhard
a drawing in the Uffizi 70

065211125 of F/m‘ezzz‘z'ne Pam/cry

71
011 British Museum studies 72
on \ err'occhio s feeling f01 land'sCape 89
attt‘ibutes Monte Oli1eto A/zmmzza/z'zm t0 Verrotchio 92
011 (11awings attributed to I e011a1 (lo 102
[/16 [fill/e [mil in [/zefir More 106, 109

011 the silV‘-e1-point by Veiiocchio' 111 the I')1(s(len (I alleiy 1 18
011 the l’istoian alta1‘p1ece

120
27 011 the fllzm’omza {mi/z t/ze I’M/c (Munich) 129

76 on the Ufiizi cartoon 147

40 011 a portrait of Leonardo 157

.. 235 011 a drawing in the Uflizi 168
27, 34, 86,113 011 a drawing at Windsor 171
94 011 a drawing in the Museum Fedor 210

..36, 143 Berlin Kaiser Friedrich Museum... 43

32 a Donatello bust... . 57

236 V1712)! and C/zz'la’ (No.1'08) attributed to Al'unno (Ii

. 65, 66 Andrea . .. 67, 68, 72

. 66, 87 Vemzs and Alan (Botticelli) .. 71

83 Amy/111mm)” (I’iero (1e 1 l’ollaiuolo) 89, 9o, 94

86 film/(HUM (I'Z' Cam Colon/m (Raphael) 169, 173

86 Bernardino (le’ Conti 59

86 Bernini 52

87 Bieci, Neri (Ii 54

87 Bode, Dr. 39, 43, 44, 63, 69,"' 92, 105, 109, 160, 111,

. 96, 97 118,120,128,147,158
Bonnat collection (see Bayonne) 167, 181, 182, 183

,55 59,60 Borohini 34,42

57 Bosch Hieronymus . 39

Boston, ()11inc11 8111111 colleCtion
marble 1elief [liar/alum 7027/2 an A/zgel... 68, 69 71 i
34, I31, 134 Botticelli, Sandro .. 158, 202, 233, 236
95, I27, 240 a pupil of Verrocchio 54
273 11111

 

 

 

 

 

his tvpes compared with those of Verrocchio

/ 522222171011
a drauing' 111 the Uffi/i
[mm mm’ Var: (berlin)

his place in the development of landscape art

Leonardo s unjust criticism

“ .-\mico (li Sandro "

ribbon decoration

and the Pazzi conspiracy

the 24110272221212

supposed portrait of
Botticini

a pupil of Ver‘rocchio

\Iadonna from S. Maria Nuova '(Ulfizi')

a drawing in the Uffizi

Botticini s work attributed to Vetlocch'io

Brancacci chapel
Br‘era Gallery
[Madonna 2212272 [/26 Lam/2 (Sodoma)

British Museum (see Malcolm collection)
sketches for the Madonna with the Lilies

a sketch book by Leonardo
studies for the 14127027222022
drawing of a man in armour
drawings for the Madonna a! Gallo
Brunelleschi
Budapest gallery
Easterhazy Madonna (Raphael)
Buglioni, Benedetto
Byzantine art
Camaldoli f
Car‘eggi, Villa
Castagno Andrea (lel
a realist
Vasari, 011 .
study of perspective
Castigliogne, Sabba
Castiglione d’Olona
Caterina, mother of Leonardo
Cesare da Sesto
(lrawings..
Chiti, Alfredo
Christ Church Collection, see Oxfoid
Clement VII.
Codex Atlanticus
Col/(20222 statue
Cologne, school of...
Cologne, Walraff—Richarz Museum
Figure studies for an Adoration
Columbus
Colvin, Sir Sidney.
Corot 011 Leonardo
Correggio
Cortona
Cosmo de' Medici
C1'e(1, ' L orenzo (li
a pupil of Verrocchio .
aportrait of \ errocchio' 111 the Uffizi

INLHiX

PAGES
55
55
7o
71
87
87,88,116
88
101

213213341157
, 142,157,211

I57

54
69
70

122

1671173

165
184,189
204
133, 21.1
167,168

502811941235

162
54
77
234
47, 234
245

134
236
36
82
27

56

120

40, 128
36
46
79

187

~ 235

92, 206

.. 116

85, 169

80

371402 51 I42

53
5+

l'At-l'is
Bap/23221 of 671221! (.-\cca(ler11ia, Florence) 67
a drawing in the Uffizi 70
his drapery drawing 72
Francesco Granacci a pupil 72
his tame landscape paintint,r .. 90
4212/21212212/2'021 in the Louvre i01i11e1h attributed to ()1
Monte Oliveto /1/1711(ll("llI/l(}/1 attributed to 92
his gardens 97
his technical skill ()8
drawings attril buted to 102
a doubtlul study... 109
l’istoian altarpiece attlibuted to 120
Credi and the Pistoian aitar‘piece 120
the I)1es<len Mm’wwm 123
1Waa’(222mz 7212212 ’ZI’Z'/{Zfl(}7t’lé’l.8 ( lu'ri11)124, 125
21212110200221)” (Ufhzi) 1 24
tondo in the Borghese gallery .. 125
sheet of studies in the Uffizi, No. 1,202 126
V2532” [)L’ZTL’L’EIZ [2210 51122125 (Louvre) 1 27
Iliad/212m: 2212212 2/28 I’M/c (Munich) 129. 130
directs Verrocchio’s studio at I’istoia 152
architectural b ackgrounds 170
and Sogliani 173
a (hauing 11011 attributed to I’iero di Cosimo. 182, 185
his youth . 236
Crowe and Cavalcaselle 7o, 89, 92, 147
Dante . 234
Desiderio (la Settignano 94, ()6
drawings. 39
monument in S. Croce 51
11 rancesco di Simone a pupil 52, 54
derivation of his type 56
a pupil of Donatello 57
his gaiety... 58
and Verrocchio .. .. 59
Donatello s assistant in the decoration o'fthe Bax/.1 Chapel 5()
Mm-zrzp/sz' sarcophagus, S. Croce .52, 59, 60 ()4
l)esiderio's busts of women 60
bust in the Bargello 5.8, 61
his death 236
Domenico Veneziano
portraits 61
a realist 83
his study of colour value 84
S. Luna ([6 13"am’2 (Ufiizi) 84
study of perspective 236
Donatello . 235
marble niche 111 the Or San Michele ”47, 21
influence 011 Verrocchio... 52
busts in Bargello and Berlin Museum 57
john 2722 [fa/22212....57, 21 4
his pupil Desiderio (la Settignano . 57, 59
Veriocchio possibly a pupil , 58y 59
the decoration of the l’azzi chapel 59
feeling for space. . 82
his (ir‘a\\i11g of the human {01m 192
font in S. (1iovanni Siena 214
Donati, Lucrezia de’ ..53, 1 10

274

 

.1: ‘..

.1, -_.¢ . ‘4

F‘— k—~A- -»~,—4

INDEX

PAGES

Donato, S., monks of ...29, 143
Donato de’ Medici, Bishop 120
Dresden Gallery

silve1»point drawing by Verrocchio 117

Main/ma 1'11 661’ [Jedi/212772667 1 2 3, 162
l)uccio

as a landscape painter 77

his pupil Simone Martini 77
Diirer 128,130
Edinburgh gallery

Madonna (Granacci) 125, 126
Falke, Professor 105
I4edo1 Museum Amsterdam 21o
Ferrara 234
Ferri, Signor 69
Ficinus, Marsilius . 234
l‘ie1avanti, family of (or I‘ioravan'ti) 151, 152
Fiesole,Mino da 236
l‘ioravanti, family of, (01 Fieravanti) 151, 152
l lemish influence 011 Italian art 79

Florence
in Leonardo‘s time (illustration from an old painting in

San Marco) 29
View ofthe city in 14901fro111 a contemporary engraving) 236
Leonardo's residence in... 34, 35
San Lorenzo 47, 51
Santa Croce 51
prosperity of Florence 57
Brancacci chapel 81, 82
MonteOliveto .. .. 92
in the Monte Oliveto 1421112172121112'1111 94
Porto Pisano .. 94
San Scopeto, monastery of 143
during the Renaissance 234, 236
Accademia
scenes from the Lz'fe ofC/m'st 64

Forteguerri, Cardinal 152
Francesca, l’iero della 236
portraits of young girls 61
arealist 83
pupil to Domenico Veneziano . 84
no resemblance to any other master 85
the [Cm/26707 Comtmzz‘z'ne .. . 85
Rembrandt, Leonardo, Giorgione, and 'Correggio 85
Nati'wz‘y and 81215215771 of C127 211‘ (National galleiy) 85
compa1ison with Manet.. 85
his portraits 85, 86
Queen of 52m and Bur'z'a/ 12f/112’m72 85
Franciabigio .. .. 95, 96
Francis King 31
Frankfort, Stadelsche Institut
Vzwz'n and C/zz/a’ (No 9) attributed to Alunno di Andrea 67, 72
Friedliind e1 . . .. . 92
F1izzoni,Dr. 92
Galeazzo, Gian 35
Galichon, Louis 195, zoo
Gautier, 'l‘heophile... 55

Gentile (la Fabrino

PAGES

Adoralz'mz of [/26 Mzgz' (Florence) 78, 141, 21 2

the predellas 78
Flemish or Cologne influence 79
his friends ' 79
influence 011 Fra Angelico and Masolino 79
and \Iasacc1o 81
Geym'uller, Baron . 93, 94, 128
Ghiberti 59
Fontat Siena 64,75
his feeling for space 82
Ghirlandaio, David... . 95
Ghirlandaio, Domenico 45, 142, 158, 212, 236
a pupil of Verrocchio . . 54
a pupil of Baldovinetti 87
dominated by Flemish influence 87
inferior to Pollaiuolo and Veirocchio .. 87
Monte ()liveto Annunaaz‘z'mz formerly attributed to 91
Anmma'atz'ozz drawing' 1n the Uffizi (No. 287) 94
studies of drapery in the Louvre by 102
the altarpiece for the Palazzo Vecchio 139, 140
contemporary fashion as shown in his frescoes 154
frescoes in the Trinita and S. Maria Novella 221
Adora/2'01; 0f [fie Kings (Uffizi)... 237
Ghirlandaio, Ridolfo
Monte Oliveto All/Wilfl'all'flll attributed to 92, 94
247171112262'121‘2'021 drawing in Uffizi. 94
Porl7az'lof a G1)/1z’x7izz'.t/1(Pitti). 95, 96
C/m'sz‘ 011 lzz's 71112}! 2‘0 Golgroz‘fla (National Gallery) 95
Gianpetrino.. .. ...56,172
Giorgione 85
Giotto . 158
frescoes at Padua ...77, 141
campanile 94
Giottino . 134
Giuliano de Medici 51, 53, 131, I42, 233, 234
Goethe .33
Gondi, palazzo, Flo'1ence 129
Gossart I30

Gozzoll Benozzo 79,80, 141, 142, 158, 233

Granacci, 1‘ rancesco

a pupil of Lorenzo di Credi 72

master of R. Ghirlandaio 95, 96

Madonna (Edinburgh) 125, 126

H001 Famz'b' (Pitti) 127

and Sogliani 173
Gronau, George ...92,147
Grosso,Nanni 54
Giinsburg, Bavaria 128
His-(le—la-Salle collection 163
Hokusai 114
Hiibner, Herr 123
Hungary, King of 53
Knapp, Fritz 109
Koopmann, W. .. 128
Landini, Christoforo 234
Landfredini Francesca di Ser Giovanni 28
LEONARDO DA VINCI

his manuscripts 23, 36

275

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX

l'AGF/S
drawings in the Uffizi 24
Leonardo’s art 26
The Florentine l’eriod 26
his father and mother 27
his stepmothers 27, 28
early education 28
removal to l*l01ence .. 29, 33
rJVasari on his beauty and talent 30
his youthful character 31

his philosophy ..
~l-1is drawings submitted to Venoc'chio

32
..j%{/g§

enters Verrocchios studio .. 33, 53
a member of the Company of Painters 33, 46
~41ictim of an anonymous accusation . .

Lorenzo de’ Medici assists him... 34-
journey to the Duke of Milan 34, 35, 36
a house in Florence 35
his residence with G. 1:, Rustici 35

model for the Sforza statue
Madonna will; S. A 11/11:
Alanna Lira

56, 153
. 36 55,62 153,193
36, 6,1 62,90,97,109,111, 112,114,193

his early paintings . . 37
Headry'Metz’nsa... 38,39
Caricatures 38
Vdrawing from nature, and clay models. 39

“ lreatise 011 Painting,” 39, 62, 72, 88, 93, 116, 160, 171, 226,
231, 234, 243

lost cabinet paintings 39
a lost [1111110111111 rzrz'Z/zflowerx 39, 40, 1 28
not to be identified with the Munich [Madonna 40
[Va/1111716 drivingr /zz's 1611 name; 37, 4o
poltrait drawings... 40
55127117220112}; 4o
fo/zn t/ze Ba/n‘irz‘... 40,62, 188
lost cartoon of the Flt/Z... 4o, 42
Adoraz‘zon of l/ze Magi .. . 26, 42, 55, 62
Vasari’s notes on Verlocchio and Leonardo 44, 45
-reona1do’s debt to Verrocchio 45
Leonardo’s influence on Verrocchio 46
The Leonardesque smile 55, 56

Virgin 0f [/16 Groiz‘o

..55, 100
study for S. Anne .. 60, 145. 153
Leonardo and the Velrocchio ideal 61
the change during the Milan period 62
Leonardo’s entry into Verrocchio’ studio 63, 64
Leonardo’s work on Verrocchio’s Bat/111's”; 63, 64
drawings in the British Museum 72
Leonardo’s drapery studies 72
an early drawing at Windsor 74
and Piero della Francesca 85
Leonardo’s criticism of Botticelli 87, 88, 116
Leonardo’s landscape art 90

the Monte Oliveto Annmwirzz‘im (Ufiizi) 91, 92, 93, 94, 95,

100, 101, 104
Annnna'a/im (Louvre) 55, 67, 91, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104
R. Ghirlandaio’s imitations of Leonardo 95
'Porz‘mit of (z Go/dslnit/z (Pitti) 95
studies of flowers 104

276

1‘\(;1r.s
l/n’ fla/U /(1/1_’1 in Me f). 1110714 10 5
\ asaii 011 the port1ait of (linevra dei lienci 106
studies of hands at \\ indsor 109
landscape drawing in the Ufi'izi... 113
Virvin of i/zc [Bot/es .. I 14
chalk drawing of a cloud burst.. 1 14
Leona1 do and ( orot 116
Leonardo s theory of land scape painting 1 16
the Dresden Maia/Ina .. . 123
[Madonna 1011/1 f/zc/in/c (Munich) attributed to 128, 130
Leonardo and the l’azzi conspiracy 131
drawing of Bandino Baroncelli 132
an anonymous accusation 135
Leonardo’s journals 136
his paintings of woman 136
Leonardo and the sexes. 137
an altarpiece {01 the Palaizo Ve'c'chio . 139
.S.]e7mn€(Vat1can) 140,147, 229
Adora/ion (1f [/16 IWafli 139, 142,157, 177, 178,181, 218
see also Admwlinn (1f [/26 snap/12111.1 222
undertakes an altarpiece for S. Donato a Scopeio 143
drauing' 111 the Uffizi 149
probably visited Lorenzo di Cred 1 at P'istoia 152
Leonardo s drawings at Windsor 153
drawing of the [115! 51/15/767 (Windsor)... 153
Leonardo 3 Col leoni type .. 156
his attitude toward 5 port1aiture in sacred pictures 158
his portraits 158, 160
Madonna with the Plate 0t l‘ruit 161
alost Madonna inspires Raphael 162
a drawing in the His-de—la Salle collection 163
Madonna (1] Gal‘z‘o 165, 174
sketches for the Madonna 7027/2 1711’ [1111} .. 165
Madonna wit/1 2716 Flower (St. Petersburg) 166, 167
imitated by Sogliani 173
Adoraz‘ion of Me S/zep/zem’s 182
a lost Mama . 183
sketch book 111 the British Museum 184
the Valton drawing 111 the Louvre 190, 193
I eonardo and Michelangelo 191
the Galicl 1011 drawing 195, 200, 21 1, 212
drawings for the Battle of Anghia1i 196 '
studies for the Adomz‘zon, &c., (Louvre) 200, 204
studies for the Adoraz‘ion (British Museum) 204
studies for the Adoraz’ian (Louvre) 205
the Bali/e (1fAi4'g/zza7i 209
study for tilting (\Vindsor) 209
drawing in the Rothschild collection ,210
drawing in the Fedor Museum 210
perspective drawing in the Uffizi . . 21 1, 217
Leonardo the architect .. 211, 212, 213, 214
compared with Donatello and Venocchio 214
analysis of the Adora/ion 222, 226
his dramatic study of life 227
Vasari 011 the religion of Leonardo 230
Leonardo and dogma . 2 3o
influence of the 2412707111101! 011 Italian a1t 237

his influence 011 Raphael 237,

238,239

 

‘i

k-

as

)1,

4.

.-'— 44— A .1.

 

the Last Sufi/Mr

Lermoliefi', Ivan, see Morelli, Giovanni

Lille Museum

Liph art, Baron von. ..

L,ippi Filippino
landscape art
an altarpiece after L eonardo
the Adm'az’z'wz

INDEX

1‘A1;1<‘,s

241, 246

39

92

142, 236

88

140

I411 I443 1471237

and Masaccios f1esco' 111 the Carmine 218, 221

Lippi, I‘ra Filippo ,
[Madonna at [/26 I szla’mv (Uffizi)
his drape1y studies
unintluenced by Masaccio
Mza’amza (Galleria Colonna)

Lomazzo
London (see also I) r'i'tish \Iuseum)
National Gallery
Vz'm‘z'u and C/zz'/a’, No.

158, 212
69

72

82

126

38

296, attributed to :\lunno di

Andrea . 67, 72
Deaf/z 0f P77151719 (Piero di Cosimo) 71
Bali/c same (Uccel lo) 83
fl/[aa’mma (lIaldo1i11etti).. 87
Ada; (127071 of [/26 182/101 (Amico ('li Sandro) 88
C717 2".‘1/ (m /12.1‘ ma) [0 Go/gal/za (l\. Ghirl andaio) 95

Lorenzetti, Ambrogio . 77, 78
Lorenzo, Fiorenxo di 54

Lorenzo de’ Medici 34, 51, 53, 110.

131, 132,138,142, 157,
158, 201, 234

Louvre
jo/m [/26 b’a/J/z'sl‘ (Leonardo’s studio) .. 4o, 62
Aunnmz'afz'mz (Leonardo) 55, 67, 91
Drapery study (Leonardo) 72
studies of drapery not by Leonardo 102
V 1731771 [lffiila’ll 17110 Saz'm‘s (Credi) 127
La [id/e jara’z'm'r‘re (Raphael). 162
a drawing 111 the His— de— Ia- Salle collection 163
studies for an Adora/2021 (I e011a1do ) Valton collec-
tion 190, 193
the Galichon (ha'wing 195, 200
sheets of studies for the AdM'az‘z'o/z, &c. 200, 210
studies in the-Louvre and British Museum 205
studies for the Last Supper 246
Liibke, \V. 128
Ludovico \Ioro 35, 36, 140, 143
Mackowsky... . 63, 70,92,106 110, 111
Mac/za/awfiz, anonvmous biogra phy of I eona1do 1n the .. 34
Majano, Benedetto da .. 236
Malcolm collection (I British Museum) 156, 204
Mantegna,
his drawing of the human form 192
Aa’m'az‘z'mz 177, 240
Marco d’ Oggionno 56
Masaccio 158, 235
his landscape influenced by Gentile da IIainan'o 79
his landscape art .. 80
Vasari quotes Fabriana as his master 82
82

influence 011 Michelangelo
frescoes in the Carmine

.218, 221,235

PAGES
Masolino
influenced by Gentile da Fabriano 79
his landscape art... 81
Maximilian, Emperor 183
Medici, family
Leonardo’s father their legal adviser 29
inventorv of the 38
villa at ( areggi 47
Verrocchio a favorite artist 50
antiques 1estored by Verrocchio 53
their generosity 234
see Cosmo de’ Medici
see Giuliano de’ Medici
see Lorenzo de’ Medici
see Octaviano (le’ Medici
see Piero “ il Gottoso ”
see Donato de’ Medici, Bishop
Memlinc 124
Mercato Nuovo a clock 011 the 53
Michelangelo 33, 34, 37, '45, 158,171, 173,237
influenced by Masaccio 82
and Piero della Francesca 85
the Lari/(mfgment 178
the Sistine ceiling 191
his art .. 192,193

Milan (see I’oldi- l’eZ/oli M'1iseu111,l‘heia Gallery, Ambro~
sian Library)

35,36 143.166 234,243

Milan, duke of 34
Milanesi 140, 147
Mira11dola,1’icodell'a 235
Monaco, Lorenzo 141
Montefeltro, Federigo da 86
Montelupo 1 14
Monte ()liveto 91
Morelli, Giovanni
011 date of Leonardo’s journey to Milan 35
rejection of Vasari s anecdote 63
attributes Louvre Amzma‘za/zmz to Leonar.do .. 91
attributes Monte Oliveto Anmma'afz'oa to R. Ghilv
Iandaio . 92, 94, 95
on Louv1e studies of drapery 102

011 [/26 fNZ/E [aaj1 m 2715 fir WW

011 the sllv er point drawing by Verrocchio' 111 the Dresden
gallery

011 the Pistoian altarpiece

Morelli’s dispute with Bode

the Dresden Mm’omza

011 the Munich Madmma

on a drawing in the Ufiizi

011 a drawing at Windsor

Miiller-Walde

28, 92, 105,108,128, 147, 171, 196

.105,106,111

118
120
122
123
128
168

171

Miindler 39
Munich Gallery
Madonna wz'l/z Z/zc Pia/c 128, 130
Danae (Gossart)..130
Madonna dz' Casa Tam/)2 (Raphael) 174
Miintz, Eugene
011 date of Leonardo’s journey to Milan 35

277

 

 

 

 

 

IPJI)}3)(
l’AhHS
character of Verrocchio 45 46, 47 [lam/CV (Uffizi).. .
on Verrocchio s fa\ ou1ite type . 55, 56, 58 fol/7 my (gf [b/Iz'av ( l urin)
on I eonardos awe when pupil to Verrocchio )3 his d1 r'aning of the human form...
and the Monte ()liveto 21717110101160” 93 his strength
011 the Pazzi conspiracy... 132 the brothers
on the Uffizi cartoon 147 the tvpe
011 the Ark/77117077 by Leonardo 157 Pollaiuolo, l’iero del
on the Galichon drawing in the Louvre 196 A7171177zr7a/7'07/ ( lerlin)
on a drawing at Windsor 21° Porto Pisano
Naples gallery 122 Portugal, King of
Napoleon Ill.’s collection... 91 Pucci, Marchese, collection
Newton, Sir Isaac 32 Pulchi
Niccolini 108’ 11° Raffaellino . .
Nori, Francesco 132 lxaphael ..
Octaviano de’ Medici 42 his relation to Perugino..
O1vieto 50 his Madonnas based upon a lost I e011ar(lo
()xford collection Christ Llitircli [fl 57/]g/(17-‘T'7/777717e (Louvre)
Starrmmm'a . 40 Esterhazy Madonna (Budapest)
Min/1 ofrm Ange] 100 Madonna of the Meadow (Vienna)
.1ilver point drawing f01 the Adomz’z'mz. 206 drawing in the His-de-la-Salle collection
l avia . 36 [Ila/10717171 (z’z' Cam (To/(7717771 (Berlin)
l’azzi conspiracy 341 131, 1571 233 [Madonna 0'6/ (£71171 Dzmz (l’itti)
Peiugino 451 158: 236 Madam/a {17' Case Tail/52' (Munich)
a pupil of Veirocchio 1 55 frescoes 111 the Vatican
11or‘t1ait of Veirocchio' 111 the Ufl‘izi 54 Maggy/m d7 [vb/z'u‘fio (Vatican)
Pesello 67, 72 Ravenna
l’etrarch 234 Rembrandt
Piero da Vinci, father of Leonardo . 27, 28 Richter, Dr. J P.
his acquaintance with Cateiina 27 Rieffel, Franz
marries Albiera Amadori 27 Robbia, Andrea della
marries Francesca di Ser Giovanni Lanfredini 28 Robbia, Giovanni della
his house in Florence 29 Robbia, Lucca della
his skill as a notary . 29 Rome,
his third marriage, and legitimate family . 29, 34 St. Peter’s .
his fotuth marriage to I.uc1eziad iCortegiani, and family 30 iorghese gallery
takes Leonardo’s drawings to Verrocchio 33 Colonna gallery
his friendship for the monks of S. Donato I43, I47 Vatican
l’iero (ll COSllDO 97 I{Osenbe1‘g Adolf
Deaf/z of l’mrrz'x (National Gallery) . 71 Rosselli
V7'7;<rz'7z am! A7/gre/r Adm 7711r (Albertina) 182 Rossellino
his vouth. .. 236 monument in S. Croce
his study of Leonardo 241 the brothers
Piero de’ Medici, “ il Gottoso " . 51, 64 Rothschild collection
l’inturiechio 158 lxubens
Pisa 27, 86, I31 Rustici, Andrea della .
Pisanello . 79 Saint Petersburg, Benois collection
Pistoia 34: 50,52,120,152

Pitti Gallery, F lorei1ce

P07171127 (7fa (zoldsmz't/z (R. Ghir'landaio) . 95. 96
[Io/y family . 127
Madonna del G7 077 Dam (Raphael) I73
Plato 235
Poldi— Pezzoli Museum 166
Portrait by an unknown master . 61
Politian .. 53, 131 234
Pollaiulo Antonio del 66, 67,- 75, 83. 86
his landscapes 87
pupil of Baldovinetti 87
278

IVaa'mma wzz‘lz flze fi/OYE'L’I (I eonal‘do)
Salaino
Saltarel 1i, Jacopo .
Silviati. archbishop of Pisa
Sandio, Amico di
anonymous imitator of Botticelli
Adoraz‘z'wz of file K'z'nvr (National Gallery)
Sa11<rallo,Giu1ia11o da
Sarto, Andrea del
Savonarola
Savoy, Bona of
Schmarzow

 

J-

PAGES
87
87
I 92
202

LL

236
64

89.90194
94

. 40,42
109, 110
531 2.14
236

- 37.95

45
162

162,163
162,163
163

-L

11.

163
173
173
174
240
240
141
221 4"
149
130
236
54
236

16%

237;
2391

218, 221,

I70,
I47,
129,

85,
351
. I28,

52
125
I66
I40
147
158 1

126,

92, 108,

51
236
210
105
236

..40,
166, 167
56

I35
151

29
951961173
291233

53

92

:iu

4‘3

\

‘ f

/’ *A‘\_
d

 

1.

 

‘LJ'

4’),

INDEX

PAGES
Schmidt, 1\7., of Munich 92’ 118. 129 Botticini’s Madonna "AGES 61
3001”“), San . 143 drapery studies (No. 437) 7:
Sea1lles, Gabrlel ..93, 147 drawing by Pollaiuolo 75
Segni. Antonlo 40 paintings by Uccello 83
Seldutz, von 118 S. Lama dz Ba7dz (Veneziano).. 84
Sepolcro . 84 flown/es (Antonio del Pollauiolo) 87
Sforza fannly 31 36 143, 153, 210, 217, 246 Annnntzalzon (Leonardo) 91
Sforza, Batt1sta 85 Annnnrzatzon drawing (No. 287) by D. G hiilandaio 94
Sforza, Galeazzo 53 landscape drawing by Leonardo 1 I3
Shakespeare 1 14 Annnnrz'alz'on (Credi) 124
Siena 77 sheets of studies (No. 1202) 126
Signoria Florence 297 341477 501 891 1317 135, I47, 234 An Adoralz'on (N0. 373) 126
Simone, Francesco d1 . . 52’ S4, 71 Vz'raz'n ent/zroned (No 1268) 140
S1mon'e Martmi . Adoratzon (Leonardo) .1 r40
'pupll of Ducc1o 77 a drawing of two profiles (I eonardo) 149
Snnonetta 234 Two Mzdonnas, a drawing (Leonardo) 153
SIstme frescoes 158. 192 drawings for the Madonna a! Gaz‘fo . 167
Sixtus IV. 50 perspective drawing for the Adoration 21 1, 217
Socrates 138 Adoration of t/ze King: (I). Ghirlandaio) 237
Sodoma (Bazzi) altarpiece of San Scopeto (Filippino Lippi) 237
drawings 55 Urbino . 60,85
flze pale lady 2n Ina/fr wrong 105 Va1t0n Paul, collection see Louvre
Mzdonna roll/z l/ze Lain/1 (Brera) 167, 173 V211 l‘amblosa 53
Sogliani, Giovanni . . . 166’ 173 Vandyck 105
Solmi _ 136 Vasari
South Kensington I\I11seu111 on Leonardo’s youthful arithmetic .. 28
terra cotta sketch of Forteguerri monument 52 011 Leonardo’s beauty and talent . 30, 31
manuscript by Leonardo in 245 1118 confused histOI‘y 34
Strozzi family 234 quotes from the Anonz'nzo 35
Strozzi, Marietta 60 on Leonardo’s youthful paintings .. 37, 39
Strozzi Nonnina 1 10 anecdote about the shield . 37, 38
'l‘adda, Francesca . 46, 47 on Leonardo’s imaginative powers 38
Tolstoy . 137 on his drawing and modelling 39
Ion1111aso,Vc1rocchio s brother 47, 50 on the Mptnne chalk drawing 4o
Iommaso, an unidentified painter 54 unidentified portrait drawings .1 4o
Tornabuoni, Giovanni 1 10 on the lost cartoon of the Fa/Z... . 4o, 42
'l‘ornabuoni, Lorenzo 106 biography of Verrocchio 44
'l‘oscanelli, Paolo 235 Vasari’s prejudices .. 45
Turin Gallery on Verrocchio’s energy . 49, 54
fourney of Toln’as (A. del Pollaiuolo) 87 list of Verrocchio’s pupils 54
Mzdonna foil/z wild/forever: (Credi) 124 Verrocchio's master 58
Red chalk drawing of Leonardo 158 Donatello paralysed 59
Turner 114 011 Leonardo’s pupilage to Verrocchio... 63
Uccello, Paolo and the monks of S. Salvi 68
a realist ' 83 on Leonardo’s brush drawing 72
as a landscape painter 83 011 the b’ajiz‘z'sm of C/zrrs! 4 . :36
his perspective 83, 236 011 Masacc10 and Gent1le da Pabriano 32
works in the Uffizi and National Galleiy 83 on Baldov1nett1 " " ( i 6
his perspective drawing“. 213 po1t1ait of Ginevra dei Benci by Leonardo 10), 110
Uffizi Gallery, Florence and the Pazzi conspi1acy ( 134
drawings by Leonardo 24 on Leonardo‘s Adoraf‘zon I4 ), 143
Head of Medusa. .. .. 39 on Leonardo s portralts 15:
Adolaz‘zon of [/25 fl/agrz , 26, 42 on Sogliani 1;:
Porz‘razt of Verroa/zzo (Perugino rather than Lorenzo a lost 1Vaizm/y by Leonardo I o
(11 Cledi) .. . 43, 54 011 the religion of Leona1do 230
study by Verrocchio of an Angel’ 5 head ()4, 65 Vasco da Gamba 3
drawings attributed to Alunno di Andrea ...69, 162 Vatican
Fra Filippo’s Madonna a! flu: Window... 69 S. ferome (Leonardo) 140, 147, 229
279

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX

PAGES PAGES
Raphael’s frescoes .. 221 a church bell for Vallombrosa 53
11111110217111 (I’z' I121/zgm1 (Raphael) 23‘) a Cl_OCk 011 the Marcato Nuovo.... 53
Vecchio, l’alazzo 47, 139 deslgns for dresses and decoratlons 53
Venice a helmet for (liuhano de’ Med1c1 53
Accademia 53, 79, 234 :1. (loge s tomb .. 53
draning of an 211111211/11111 (l eonardo) 183 marble well for the King of Htii1'14a1‘y. 53
drawings for the Battle of \n1rhia1i 196 his pupils... .. 53
study foi the 1,115! Sufi/>111 245 the son of a b1iel;maker 54
Vespucci, Amerigo de’ . 4o, 83 his favourite type . 55
Vespucci, Simonetta 53 Madonna relief 111 the Urn/1 44, 55, 56
Verona 79 the “ Verrocchiesque " quality 58
Vienna Verrocchio no decadent... 58
Liechtenstein Gallery Verrocchio and Ghiberti 59
[/15 fa/e [1:11:11 2'11 l/zeflrgmzrc . 105, I 12 affinity with l)esideri0 da Settignano 59
[11111111111111 11f l/zc 1116111111111 (Raphael) 163 portraits 61
Albertina Jeonardo and Veirocchio 61
Vinci, town of 27 Le0na1d0 and the [HI/7115111 (1f C/l/‘z'xz‘ 63, 64, 66
Vinci, View of 28 Balrloviitetti Verrocchio's painting master . 66, 87
Vzr1rm undid/111615 (11111712111; (l’iero di Cosimo) 182 llerlin, Frankfort and London Madonnas 67
V1:RRoccH10, ANDREA 111:1, “ Alunno di A11drea”()8
forerunner of Leonard0._. 26 marble relief in the Quincy Sha'w collection ()8
opinion on Leonardo's drawings 33 \ errocchiesque dranings 0, 71
Leonardo becomes his pupil 33‘ d1“ape1y studies . 72, 74
his portrait 34, 43, 54 Verrocchio s feeling for landscape 89
an anonymous accusation ..34, 135 Monte ()liveto 241111111111'11/11111 attIibuted to 92, 97
departure for Venice ..135, 120 f/zc [111/11 /a(1’y 2'71 l/zeflr 417717111 105, 106, 1 10, 1 1 1, 1 12
drauinns 39 a silver—point drawing in the Dresden gallery 118
as scu lptor and paintei 43 female head, chalk drawing in British Museum 118
Vasari s biog1aphy 44 the Pistoian altarpiece .. 120, 121, 122, 127
prejudices against Verrocehio 45 new attributions by Bode 120
character by Eugene M'untz 45 Botticini's work 122
work as a goldsmith 46 the Dresden Mada/111a 123
work as a sculptor 46 the anonymous accusation against Leonardo 135
influenced by Leonardo... 46 work at l’istoia 152
Col/130711 statue 46, 47, 50, 52, 53, 120,156 Sogliani, a late pupil 166
Bay wit/z #26 00/75/2171 46, 47, 51, 56, 60, 122 architectural backgrounds 17o
his brother Tommaso .47 50 his studio rivalled by della Robbia 236
Medici sarcophagus 59, 60, 94 Waagen 105
marble lava/111111 Old Sacristy . . , 47, 50, 51, 58 Wagner collection .. 1 18
silver relief, Beheading of S. jo/m l/zc Zia/21151, 47, 48, 53, \\’a11aff lxichar‘1 Museum, see Cologne
120, 214 \\ arburg 109
the T/zoma5 group 46, 47, 48, 50, 52 55, 56,64, 72,120,122 Wergeland 1 14
his unremitting energy 49 Wickhoff, Professor 102
lost cartoons for a mural painting 49 Wille, Professor 1 10
Zia/11mm of 672725! 50, 63, 64, 66, 68, 72, 75, 89, 97, 101,102, Windsor collection
114, 122N1>tmze . 37, 40
Forz‘egmrrz' monument 50, 52, 72, 101, 120 Porfmzz 111 silx er 'p'oint 62
lost architectural designs 50 an eall y draning of a kneel 111g figure 74
bronze candel abra for the Siunoria 50 studies of hands by Leonardo 109
wo1k for Sixtus IV and the Medici 50 drawings by Leonardo 153
La [lo/ma al/e ée/[z 7llaIZZ' in the Baraello 51, 55, "',56 59, 60, 97, drawing of an old man 158
108,154 drawings for the/11111111111111 166
David 51,56, 59, 64, 122 drawing of an Adaraz‘z'ozz 183, 206, 209
Tor/111111111111 monument 52 studies for the Laxz‘ 511111167 246
influenced by Donatello... 52, 58, 59 Woerman, Professor 118
casts guns for Venice 53 Zevio, Stefano da 79
280
1 2 4 5 4 6

 

 

A Nana’s—u ..

 

GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY

Imum»ugulnglfllm I!!! mm "mm t

 

.(\.-\.,'k~A-N\q”. ’""..~..;7-v..- .7.“ " _ .
Ler-l rm :- 3- . 7 . 713 a mi 7 - ~ --
p ' \w . a. x .1 z .w I van-«1 v.7... r 77. .st , ”W75
M1mvv7w .M.:Mm:‘ ":7- wwn--~~~ www-7777L- -- ~77 I-“ r _, . 1.. 7 3W1A$
)5! $3.3 74.7.4}. , 7.7.7.; .w,,g;v,.,;.,.1w. u .. "‘" “*1“ 1“ .m‘lq :5w" 7, -,
w'mtnm. .. . . < 1......2,» 7-43 . w ..— 3 ' . -x-:Mq+‘>s~«, '-yv1r.r'3'
”"7 7 33.17? 7'13“:ng afffi». :17: ”mm“ ”mam-M
n—«nMot-v; "r“- Mam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7'."- ll \ V ?‘ il‘lf‘z‘f

~ 7 i" .71..

' ‘ 1! hivrvM’fi2nv - - -
«7w. 37 77W.

 

-.-7 x.-

1- ‘v mun»..- 77-1»: ‘13 H—«un-«wr
”.7. ”.73." MC: .'7

n- 51-"“' JW
. ._ _ ..7 .. .
7.2771 - 7- 3.7.715..- 72.11: an".-
_ , . . -. . ..—...:-~- 7'.
4 ,7. .. ".1... "flat...” ' . r- «r '—-77 .7- . *qu
.7 .7. 7 ,- . 7.74 «.7.--
a 3;. - am ~ ' ,..-. '7 '- ”—0"-
‘...”‘"' "2 ‘1 47.3.71; 4.5.22.»
'r ».7.w.7agv’~'
’«

97.1;réiw“;"x HEW}!- " w
7 7. «m 1- -r

 

 

;:;z;-'~

o3-

_;;7§:7-.

P
z

”‘47, 7““, .3411

x;b[r

1‘29

f!

. ’ "bum
.7 .7 .7L...m7

4' 7.7;... 7-

n-CR'K 7. .
’77, « vilg- ‘7'.

i' J‘i;-:k _-«-17- — :71:

-. 7+
7. l 1.. 7 FN‘J‘S‘4‘A‘;¥3¥H\.4 «7-5;; 3:14am.- 7 ‘7 77-74-
n -.- . - w‘. e .
v’rufl 7 v.

5 4 7. ,
- 5137:1517.» 7. .3 7 L — 2’
7. «72.7 . .. 7 1...»: ,7 <
1. ;‘ _ "’ ‘-' -4- «a» 545-74 alawmuwwww 4 I, L
5.71 77 s 7: . .47

«AM a 7-7.7
h'uj‘» .4. 1r.
mnfoa-n pun-4w 4

. 7—;~ <xuc:z='t-,AL-W ‘ #:fiQv-nt’wr J7...»
_ . - 7.37..