REZENSION MARANI

Pietro C. Marani, Leonardo. Una carriera di pittore, Milan 1999 (Federigo Motta Editore), 383pp, ITL 260.000.

This book, beautifully produced with grandiose illustrations, deals with several aspects of Leonardo da Vinci`s career as a painter. In six chapters, three of which have been published before separately, Marani discusses practically all paintings attributed to Leonardo; and a number of important drawings and sculptural projects. After the main text there follows a catalogue of paintings attributed to Leonardo (including works by Verrocchio and other painters in which the young Leonardo might have been involved in) and of lost paintings. The catalogue gives technical data and short information about the provenance of each painting and in some cases a few bibliographical references. An appendix follows with a choice of 100 documents edited by Eduardo Villatta, mostly concerning Leonardo`s career as a painter. The documents, the major part published before by Beltrami, have been checked against the original sources in the archives of Florence, Milan, Mantua, Rome, Paris and Naples. This is a valuable task because, Beltrami`s edition of 1919, is now out of date, and does not contain the important documents discovered in the last few decades and very often it does not indicate the exact location of the documents in question.

        The leitmotiv of this book is the relationship between Leonardo`s paintings and drawings on the one hand,and sculpture, both antique and contemporary, on the other. Although no single work of sculpture which could reasonably be attributed to Leonardo has come down to us, the theme "Leonardo and Sculpture" has haunted generations of scholars. Probably, this interest reflects two very simple facts first, three dimensional models were important for the training of young artists in the 15th century; second, antique sculpture as such was higly praised because of its ideological value. But in discussing Leonardo`s interest in antique sculpture, one should not forget that most of his drawings are studies after nature or fantastic exercises about nature.
 Marani`s first chapter deals with Leonardo`s training as an artist in Verrocchio`s workshop and draws particular attention to the use of sculptural models, for example for the depiction of drapery. Marani tries to identify Leonardo`s hand in three of Verrocchio`s Madonnas in the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin, and in the National Gallery in Washington, and in Verrocchio`s "Tobias and the Angel" in the National Gallery in London. In particular the landscape backgrounds in these paintings show some similarities to landscape settings in Leonardo`s drawings, thus suggesting that the younger artist contributed to his master`s paintings. The evidence for this kind of attribution is naturally open to question and one could argue that for example in the case of the two Berlin Madonnas Verrocchio used popular types of landscape. Some years ago, E. H. Gombrich had directed our attention to a similar procedure for the use of facial types in Madonnas by Renaissance artists  and the same might be true for landscape types used by both, Leonardo and his teacher Verrocchio.

        Leonardo stayed for a quite long period in Verrocchio`s studio, yet his ability to depart from his master`s particular style becomes evident in his portrait of Ginevra de` Benci, which Marani believes to be produced on the occasion of Ginevra`s wedding in 1474 (pp. 38-48). Given the arguments presented by Jennifer Fletcher some years ago, this assumption is not convincing: most likely, the painting was commissioned between 1478 and 1480 by Bernardo Bembo and for this reason could not have beeen a wedding portrait, as Marani has it.  Bembo`s device on the back of the small painting clearly indicates Fletcher`s interpretation to be correct.

        In discussing the "Adoration of the Magi" and the "St. Jerome", Marani introduces the issue of antique sculpture which he considers responsible for Leonardo`s rendering of three-dimensional forms in his early paintings. Thus he argues that Leonardo was inspired by the study of antique sculpture in Lorenzo de` Medici`s "Giardino di San Marco" and finds this view confirmed by the Anonimo Gaddiano who speaks of Leonardo`s attachment to the said garden (pp. 113-116). Whereas one is inclined to perceive some vestiges of the study of antique sculpture in Leonardo`s "S. Jerome", the same cannot be said of his "Adoration of the Magi". Given the size, format and spatial arrangement of Leonardo`s "Adoration of the Magi", its major points of reference are not antique reliefs (which the artist may or may not have seen), but Botticelli`s "Del Lama-Adoration" (with a similar arrangement of figures) and Fra Angelico`s S. Marco altarpiece (still the most important prototype for high altar pieces in Florence before the turn of the century). It is the typology of such high altarpieces that makes us understand Leonardo`s "Adoration of the Magi" and, of course, its iconography to which Marani devotes surprisingly little attention.   One might add that Leonardo`s preliminary drawings for the "Adoration" are by no means inspired by antique sculpture, but show in some instances (e.g. Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz Museum. inv. no. 460) the typical features of life drawings.  `Sculptural´ qualities of the figures in the "Adoration of the Magi" have therefore to do with the study of nature rather than with the study of antique art.

        A very substantial chapter with mostly new suggestions is devoted to Leonardo`s first Milanese period, and to both versions of the "Virgin of the Rocks" produced for the confraternity of the Immaculate Conception in San Francesco Grande in Milan between 1483 and 1508. Almost all issues regarding the two versions are complicated and have, therefore, been discussed controversially. Following the largely accepted opinion that the Louvre-version was produced first, that is between 1483 and 1486, and then sold to Ludovico il Moro or some other client of similar importance, Marani comes up with some interesting ideas about the second version, now in the National Gallery in London. He argues that Leonardo had begun this second version in 1493, which was reworked in 1502 and finished in 1508 with very considerable involvemend of his pupils Marco d`Oggiono and Giovan Antonio Boltraffio (pp. 140-142). Given the visual evidence supplied by photograph of details of Boltraffio`s and d`Oggiono`s "Resurrection of Christ" in Berlin, this could in fact be accepted for the landscape background, because the somewhat schematic details of the rocks in both paintings are very similar. But for other features, such as plants and flowers, the argument seems far less convincing. Rather more acceptable is the assertion that the halos and the stick with a cross of the infant St. John are later additions (p. 139).

        Another of Marani`s suggestions concerns a golden necklace, donated to the confraternity of the Immaculate Conception in July 1482. The most accepted theory so far is that the necklace adorned the wooden sculpture of a Madonna which was placed either on top of the altarpiece or within the whole structure, and was practically covered by Leonardo`s "Madonna of the Rocks" for most of the year and displayed only on the feast of the Immaculate Conception.  Marani, however, concludes that the necklace mentioned in the documents had been fixed directly to the painting of the "Madonna of the Rocks" itself, because an x-ray-photograph of the relevant part of the painting shows two holes (subsequently closed with lead white and painted over) close to the neck of the Madonna. These holes supposedly held two nails and the nails held the necklace (pp. 142-143).

        This is certainly an ingenious solution, but some objections must be allowed for. First, the two "holes" are placed asymmetrically, one penetrating the Madonna`s right shoulder, and the other, in a slightly higher position, the rocks behind her left shoulder. Therefore any necklace would look as if it were fixed to a rock by a nail! Second, the "hole" could just be one of many losses in the painted surface, which is not unusual in old panel paintings. In fact, the London version of Leonardo`s "Madonna of the Rocks" has a number of such losses, about half a dozen of them even visible in the photographs published on pages 137, 139 and 143 (similar holes can be seen on the x-rays from the "Annunciation" on pages 58-59). Third, by the beginning of the 16th century Leonardo was already considered one of the most excellent painters of his time and it is hard to immagine that one of his Madonnas would be treated with nails.

        In the next chapter Marani discusses the history of the attributions of Leonardo`s portraits and gives a detailed and useful summary of the known technical data of these paintings (pp. 157-207). He also devotes particular attention to the importance of Antonello da Messinas portraits for Leonardo and advocates the older view (already put forward by Carlo Amoretti) that the "Belle Ferronière" in the Louvre should be identified with Leonardo`s portrait of Lucrezia Crivelli, mentioned in the Codex Atlanticus.

        In the following chapter, "Verso un nuovo classicismo: dal Cenacolo alla Sant`Anna", Marani re-introduces the fascinating idea that Leonardo had seen several pieces of antique sculpture excavated in Tivoli in March 1501 (i.e. Muses, now in the Prado in Madrid) and that this experience has lead him to develop particular "sculptural" qualities in his paintings, later known as "High Renaissance Style". This certainly is an intelligent explanation for stylistic changes which occurred around 1500, although one should also point out the impact of Michelangelo`s early Florentine works on Leonardos paintings and drawings in the first decade of the 16th century. Furthermore, one should keep in mind that we are not sure what Leonardo actually saw in Tivoli. There is also a slight problem with the evidence for the date of Leonardo`s visit to Tivoli, two short notes in the Codex Atlanticus (fol. 618v, formerly fol. 227va, here p. 259). The first note reads "A Tivoli vecchio, casa di Adriano" and bears no date, only the next relevant note gives the date: "Laus deo 1500, a dì 20 [?] marzo", but its handwriting is somewhat different and the date almost illegible. For this reason both Carlo Pedretti and Agostino Marinoni had suggested earlier that the date was not written by Leonardo at all , though later Pedretti convinced himself of the authenticity of the handwriting (p. 297).  However, some doubts remained and to explain the different handwriting Carlo Vecce suggested that the artist had written the date with a "mano tremolante" as if writing while riding on a horse or travelling on a stage coach.  Since the whole argument of Leonardo having studied antique sculpture in Tivoli in March 1501 is closely linked to this piece of palaeographic interpretation one hopes for more and stronger evidence to confirm Leonardo`s study of antique art in Tivoli in March 1501.

        In his concluding chapter Marani turns to yet another difficult issue, the discussion of Leonardo`s St. John in the Louvre. Almost everything about this painting is controversial, the attribution, date and occasion of its commission, as well as its exact meaning. Marani, as most scholars in the last decade, opts for a date around 1508. Thus he can return to the leitmotiv of his book, namely that sculpture had an important impact on Leonardo`s painting. In this case Leonardo`s ideas for the Trivulzio Monument supposedly influenced the sculpture-like form of his of St. John.

        In conclusion one might say: this book contains an impressive amount of up-to-date information about Leonardo`s paintings and adds some interesting suggestions about his use of antique sculpture , it is only as far as pictorial content is concerned, that the book in some instances turns out to be rather unsatisfactory, and one would have wished to be provided at least with the basic references to the iconography of single paintings.  Also occasionally there are minor errors: thus Filippo Lippi`s Santa Croce altarpiece in the Uffizi is incorrectly attributed to Domenico Ghirlandaio (p. 17).

                                                                                                                                        Frank Zöllner, University of Leipzig
 

1. E. H. Gombrich, Ideal and Type in Italian Renaissance Painting, in: Ders., New Light on Old Masters, Oxford 1986, pp. 89-124.

2. Jeniffer Fletcher, Bernardo Bembo and Leonardo's Portrait of Ginevra Benci, in: The Burlington Magazine, 131, 1989, pp. 811-816. For this portrait see also Angelica Dülberg, Privatporträts, Berlin 1990, pp. 23-24, 11, 123-124 and 227-228.

3. See in particular M. Lisner, Leonardos Anbetung der Könige. Zum Sinngehalt und zur Komposition, in: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 44, 1981, pp. 201-242; Charles Sterling, Fighting Animals in the Adoration of the Magi, in: Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 61, 1974, pp. 350-359; Frank Fehrenbach, Licht und Wasser. Zur Dynamik naturphilosophischer Leitbilder im Werk Leonardo da Vincis, Tübingen 1997, pp. 89-114.

4. For a recent discussion of Leonardo`s preparatory drawings see Michael Wiemers, Bildform und Werkgenese. Studien zur Zeichnung in der italienischen Malerei zwischen 1450 und 1490, München/ Berlin 1996.

5. P. Venturini, L`ancona dell`immacolata concezione di San Francesco Grande a Milano, in: Giovanni Antonio Amadeo. A cura di J. Shell e L. Castelfranchi, Mailand 1993, pp. 421-437. - See also below, note 10.

6. C. Pedretti, A Chronology of Leonardo`s Architectural Studies After 1500, Geneva 1962, pp. 79-81; Augusto Marinoni (ed.), Leonardo da Vinci. Il Codice Atlantico nella Bibliotheca Ambrosiana di Milano, commentary, vol. 7, Florence 1978, p. 242.

7. See C. Pedretti, The Codex Atlanticus of Leonardo da Vinci. A Catalogue of its Newly Restored Sheets, II, New York 1979, pp. 42-43; I was not able to consult the article by Pedretti, Leonardo da Vinci: 13 marzo 1500, in: Ateneo Veneto, 13, 1975, pp. 121-123, where Pedretti changed his mind.

8. Carlo Vecce, Leonardo, Rom 1998, p. 200. One findes the same argument in Carlo Pedretti, The Codex Atlanticus of Leonardo da Vinci. A Catalogue of its Newly Restored Sheets, II, New York 1979, p. 43: "The dated note is in a trembling script as if it had been written on a stage coach."

9. One might add that Leonardo`s interest in the antique is most evident in his study and use of antique coins; cf. John Cunnally, Numismatic Sources for Leonardo`s Equestrian Monuments, in: Achademia Leonardi Vinci, 6, 1993, pp. 67-78.

10. See above note 3 and D. Robertson, "In Foraminibus Petrae": A Note on Leonardo`s "Virgin of the Rocks", in: Renaissance News, 7, 1954, pp. 92-95; J. Snow Smith, Leonardo`s Virgin of the Rocks (Musée du Louvre): A Franciscan Interpretation, in: Studies in Iconography, 11, 1987, pp. 35-94 (for the "Virgin of the Rocks"). - C. Gilbert, Last Suppers and their Refectories, in: The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion, ed. Charles Trinkaus and Heiko A. Obermann, Leyden 1974, pp. 371-407; D. Rigaux, A la table du Seigneur. L'Eucharistie chez les primitifs italiens (1250-1497), Paris 1989 ("Last Supper"). - E. Battisti, Le origini religiose del paesaggio veneto, in: Venezia Cinquecento, 1, 1991, fasc. 2, pp. 9-25; Meyer Schapiro, Leonardo and Freud: An Art Historical Study, in: Journal of the History of Ideas, 17, 1956, pp. 145-178 (Louvre-Saint-Anne). - M. Aronberg Lavin, Giovanni Battista: A Study in Renaissance Religious Symbolism, in: Art Bulletin, 37, 1955, pp. 85-101. - P. Barolsky, The Mysterious Meaning of Leonardo's "Saint John the Baptist", in: Source, 8, 1989, pp. 11-15 ("S. John").