Leonardo da vinci’s 18 years in milanwere the making of him.1 It was probably in 1482 that he journeyed from the mercantile republic of Florence

to this, the wealthiest and most populous of Italy’sdynastic city states, and he soon entered the orbit of itsmagnificent ruler, Ludovico Maria Sforza (1452–1508;nicknamed il Moro – ‘the Moor’ – probably because of his swarthy features: see cat. 2). And when, in about1489–90, Ludovico began paying Leonardo a salary, theprince was granting the painter the time and space toeΩect a quite extraordinary metamorphosis of the art ofpainting. Leonardo’s three surviving Milanese portraits(cats 5, 10, 17), not least his likeness of il Moro’s mistress,Cecilia Gallerani, chronicle a stylistic journey that was to revolutionise the genre.2 His two versions of the Virgin of the Rocks (cats 31, 32) were both painted for an eliteMilanese confraternity, packed with Ludovico’s courtiers.Superficially they look alike – their compositions are more or less the same – but in their details and hencetheir overall ambition they are revealed as profoundlydiΩerent from one another. These are disparities thatreflect Leonardo’s significant change of direction in theyears after 1490.

In 1550 Giorgio Vasari, the first great historian of art,placed Leonardo in the vanguard of what he dubbed themodern manner, notable for his ‘force and boldness ofdesign, the subtlest counterfeiting of all the minutiae ofNature exactly as they are, with good rule, better order,correct proportion, perfect design and divine grace’.3

Leonardo was being credited with the stylistic leap that resulted in what many art historians call the HighRenaissance. This changed sense not just of what picturesmight look like, but of their whole purpose and scope, isusually located in Florence during the years Leonardospent there immediately after 1500. But of all Leonardo’sworks Vasari devotes most attention to the Last Supper(fig. 105), a work of almost uncanny perfection (despiteits rapid decay), executed in Milan in about 1492–7/8.Quite properly, Vasari gives Ludovico Sforza a leadingrole in the narrative of its execution. For it was actuallywith this picture, and as Ludovico’s court painter, thatLeonardo had first attained that pioneering combinationof detailed naturalism, a feature already familiar from the work of Netherlandish painters and their Italianimitators, with something that is deemed new: the

‘divine grace’ that – with the artist seeking to surpass the beauties of nature – could take painting into therealm of the otherworldly.

In return for Ludovico’s protection, this marvellous,modern painter would be celebrated as ‘his’, the humanemblem of the Sforza court. The rhetoric surrounding his employment ensured that Leonardo’s highly visiblegifts were taken as the mirror of his patron’s more abstract talents as a ruler. And, particularly in the 1490s,Leonardo’s painting of a world made perfect by analysis,discipline and imagination could be understood as corre-sponding to the much promoted notion of the prince as the perfected ruler of an ideal state. Onlookers mayhave been aware of the ways in which the life stories ofLudovico and Leonardo chimed, making it clear that theirachievements were due to their outstanding talents, butalso the responsible ways in which they had honed thesegifts. Patron and painter were exactly of an age and theirroads to glory had been unconventional. Ludovico becameDuke of Milan only in 1494, but (with the title Duke ofBari) had ruled the city as regent for his young nephew,Gian Galeazzo, from 1481. However, as the fourth son of Duke Francesco Sforza, he had been brought up with no real expectations of power. Leonardo was bornwith even fewer prospects, the illegitimate child of a peasant girl and a middle-class notary, tucked away in the Florentine countryside until his late teens, butbecoming a painter whose gifts were so manifest and manifold as to guarantee his success. A publicly emblazonedpartnership between patron and painter could make theircontemporaries contemplate the question – of immenserhetorical importance to both men – of where talent comes to reside, of the diΩerence between a great man and the rest.

The connections that can be traced between Leonardo’sartistic trajectory and Ludovico’s rhetoric of rule shouldemphatically not, however, be seen as matters of mere causeand eΩect. Unlike many of his courtier contemporaries,Leonardo was too creative and too independent to turnhimself into a servile panegyrist. And Ludovico was wiseenough not to attempt the complete annexation of hispainter’s immense creativity. Leonardo is often treated aspeerless, unconnected with the world around him, lockedaway in the tower of his own genius. But his artisticphilosophy evolved against a background of collectively

13

!"#$!%&'()*+,-.*'/012('345(678.9()*+,-.*'"''"&:;:""''""9"&''5,<)'"&

the rewards of serviceleonardo

da vinciand

the dukeof milan

L U K E S Y S O N

!"#$!%&'()*+,-.*'/012('345(678.9()*+,-.*'"''"&:;:""''""9"&''5,<)'"#

for a variety of purposes. The pose of the hand (fig. 44)appears in the Last Supper (fig. 46), as well as in Portrait ofCecilia Gallerani (cat. 10) and the Grifi Altarpiece (fig. 43) –a documented work by Boltra≈o and Marco d’Oggiono – both of which can be dated to the mid-1490s.47 Theunderdrawn Virgin’s head (fig. 45) is extremely similar to a reversed image of the head of a youth (cat. 76) usedfor Saint Philip in the Last Supper, probably planned atabout the same time as the London Virgin of the Rocks.48 Thedating of these various works, from about 1489 to 1493, isalso consistent with the documents of the initial contract

dispute concerning the Virgin of the Rocks, shortly post-datingDecember 1490, providing further confirmation of thestarting date of the London work – and thereby clarifyingits relationship to the painting in the Louvre. Interestingly,the preliminary sketch in the Royal Collection, which isclosest to the initial composition of the National Gallerypicture, also contains architectural elements that are closelyrelated to features that appear within the unfinished SaintJerome; this reinforces the evidence provided by its walnutsupport for dating this picture to Leonardo’s Milan years,started most probably in the very late 1480s.49

67

fig . 46leonard o da vinciThe Last Supper (detail of fig. 100 showing Saint Philip’s hands), 1492–7/8

cat . 10 (detail)

figs 44, 45Infrared reflectography details of the London Virgin of the Rocks(cat. 32)

!"#$!%%&'()*+,-)&./01'&234'567-8'()*+,-)&9&&9:;<;99&&9989"&&4+=(&>%

a lost original by Leonardo.44 Before the composition waslaid out on the panel Leonardo probably made similardrawings for the heads of all the protagonists, as he did for Saint John. Both provide early examples of Leonardo’slifelong habit of working out detailed elements withinlarger compositions through the targeted use of highlyfinished drawings, studies that may even have been made after painting had begun, a practice which is mostfamously evident in the next decade during the executionof the Last Supper.45

The Louvre Virgin of the Rocks (cat. 31) is a significantadvance on Leonardo’s previous work (coming just afterthe Adoration). For the first time we have a multi-figurecomposition that is fully completed, set within a remarkablycomplex landscape. Even in its compromised conditionthe picture demonstrates a remarkable level of execution:surviving details of hair, draperies and foliage display asustained degree of finish, equal to any of his portraits.More important, each detail is carefully calibrated withina larger scheme of relationships of colour, tone and illumi-nation, which are coordinated across the whole of the

composition – an interest of increasing importance toLeonardo, and one even more evident in the better-preservedversion of the painting now in the National Gallery.

The National Gallery Virgin of the Rocks (cat. 32) mightseem to be a simple reprise or variation of the Louvrepainting, but research undertaken in 2005 has made itclear that its production was a more convoluted processthan its appearance suggests. Surprisingly, the panel wasbegun with a wholly unrelated composition which appearsto be closely connected to compositional sketches for theAdoration of the Christ Child at Windsor and in New York(fig. 42, cats 30 and 40). The principal elements of thekneeling Virgin of that initial composition are revealed by infrared reflectography. Drawn with the brush in aliquid medium, her head and left hand are based on somesort of mechanical transfer from partial cartoons, whilethe drawing of her drapery and right hand is much morefree and improvised, the latter in particular still sketchyand unresolved (fig. 44).46

The relationship of this now hidden composition toother works by Leonardo is of fundamental importancefor our understanding of the working practices of hisstudio. The designs of the Virgin’s head and left handappear in other works, a clear indication of the existenceof partial cartoons, sometimes rescaled, for these features,as well of as the reuse and recycling of such elements

66 i n p u r s u i t o f p e r f e c t i o n

fig . 42Diagram of hidden composition in the London Virgin of the Rocks (cat. 32)

fig . 43giovanni antonio boltraffioand marc o d ’o g gionoThe Grifi Altarpiece (detail of fig. 98), about 1497

!"#$!%%&'()*+,-)&./01'&234'567-8'()*+,-)&9&&9:;<;99&&9989"&&4+=(&>>

cat . 15 (recto)

cat . 14

cat . 15 (verso)

!"#$%&&'()*+,-.*'/012('345(678.9()*+,-.*'%''%&:;:%%''%<9%;''5,=)'%>%

Within the oeuvre of an artist as keenly interested innature as Leonardo, his studies of animals assume aparticular value. In addition to his well-known interestin horses, he made numerous drawings of otheranimals, both real and fantastical.

These two sheets contain studies made from lifeand share a common provenance from the collectionsof Sir Thomas Lawrence (1769–1830) and CaptainNorman R. Colville (1893–1974).1 Both are executedin the same fine metalpoint technique on light pink or buΩ prepared paper and date from a period in whichLeonardo was focusing intensely on the animal world.

An analogous work to the Edinburgh study, dated a few years earlier, is that of the short-haired dog in the Studies of a dog and cat (British Museum, London,1895,0915.477). The two dogs probably belong to adiΩerent breed, as seen from the ruΩled and individualcurled locks of fur on the legs and between the toesand claws in the Scottish drawing.

Leonardo evinces a similar naturalistic accuracy inhis two drawings of bears – a beautiful head (privatecollection) and the Studies for a walking bear and his paw(Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1975.1.369),which share similar technique and preparation. Here theartist demonstrates his profound interest in the beast,probably an animal in captivity, with a superb economyof means in the fine, animated metalpoint hatching.2

These drawings have been variously dated betweenthe end of the 1470s and the mid-1490s.3 Though somescholars prefer to situate these studies in Florence, theyare better understood stylistically – and hence chrono-logically – alongside the revolutionary Portrait of CeciliaGallerani (cat. 10). Leonardo’s acute observation ofanimal anatomy and physiognomy as expressed herelooks ahead to the pictorial invention of the ermine inthat portrait – though with its exaggerated dimensions

and partially fantastical morphology Gallerani’s ermine should be seen not as a representation of a realanimal but as a symbolic presence or allegorical figure.4

The combination of fantasy and reality revealed in the invention of the ermine does not contradictLeonardo’s conception of the natural, which, as statedin the Treatise on Painting, can include constructing imaginary or unknown creatures by assembling theirparts from diΩerent animals.5

Thus both sheets can be seen as important prece-dents rather than true preparatory studies for thefascinating creature in the Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani. Thedog’s paws, minutely observed from diΩerent angles,anticipate those of the wriggling ermine. Similarly, the ermine’s powerful head may be associated with thestudies of the bear’s, in the structure of the craniumand shape of its features: small round eyes, cylindricalmuzzle and pointed nose. Furthermore, the presentstudies are characterised by their energised luminosity,with touches of metalpoint evoking the play of lightand shade reminiscent of that on the dense fur of the animal cradled in Cecilia Gallerani’s arms. ag

l i t e r at u r e

Cat. 14: Popham 1937, p. 87; Berenson1938, vol. 2, p. 115, no. 1044c; Popham1946, pp. 55, no. 78a, 125; Ames-Lewisand Wright in Nottingham and London1983, p. 74, cat. 8; Kemp in London1989, p. 96, cat. 37; Pedretti 1992, p. 188; Bambach in New York 2003, pp. 359–61. cat. 43; Wolk-Simon inCremona and New York 2004, p. 89;Kemp and Barone 2010, p. 106, no. 72.

Cat. 15: Popham 1937, p. 87; Berenson1938, vol. 2, p. 115 n. 1044b; Popham1946, pp. 55, 125–6, no. 79a/b; Kemp in London 1989, p. 98, cat. 39; WestonLewis in Edinburgh, New York andHouston 1999, pp. 14–15, cat. 1; Kemp and Barone 2010, p. 46, no. 4.

120

14leonardo da vinci (1452–1519)

Study of a bear’s headabout 1485

Metalpoint on prepared paper7 × 7 cmPrivate collection, New York

15leonardo da vinci

Studies of a dog’s pawabout 1485

Metalpoint on prepared paper14.1 × 10.7 cmThe National Galleries of Scotland, Edinburgh. Purchased by the Private Treaty Sale with the aid of The Art Fund 1991(d 5189r)

cat . 10 (detail)

n o t e s

1 A common French provenance has also been suggested: see Weston-Lewisin Edinburgh, New York and Houston1999–2000, p. 14.

2 The Studies of a dog’s paw were made fromlife from a domesticated dog – and not a wolf or bear, as has been argued(Weston-Lewis in Edinburgh, New Yorkand Houston 1999–2000, p. 14; Baroneand Kemp 2010, p. 46). They have alsobeen associated with other studies ofdissected bear paws (Windsor rl12372–5) usually dated to the early

1490s (Clark and Pedretti 1968–9, vol. 1, p. 52; Clayton in London 1996–7,p. 48; Clayton 2001, pp. 50–1) butprobably from the mid-1480s (I thankMartin Clayton for this observation).

3 Though frequently dated in the early1490s, these drawings were correctlyretro-dated to the previous decade(Popham 1946, p. 55; Weston Lewis inEdinburgh, New York and Houston1999–2000, pp. 14–15; Bambach inNew York 2003, p. 357–61; Barone andKemp 2011, p. 46), although too rigidlylinked to the end of the Florentine

period. The fact that they are on thesame paper as preparatory studies for theAdoration of the Magi (fig. 34) and that thispink prepared paper was not as wide-spread in Milan as blue prepared paper,does not appear to be su≈cientgrounds for excluding them from theMilanese period. Milanese sheets such ascats 3, 13 and the Studies of a horse (fig. 19)are similarly coloured and prepared.

4 On the allegorical and symbolic associations of the ermine see cat. 10.

5 bn 2038 fol. 29r; Urb. fol. 135r; r 585, mcm 554; k/w 573.

!"#$%&&'()*+,-.*'/012('345(678.9()*+,-.*'%''%&:;:%%''%<9%;''5,=)'%>!

!"#$!%&'()*+,-.*'/012('345(!678.9()*+,-.*':'':";&;::''<=9=>''5,?)'!=>

252

fig . 100leonard o da vinciThe Last Supper, 1492–7/8Tempera and oil on plaster, 460 × 880 cmSanta Maria delle Grazie, Milan

!"#$!%&'()*+,-.*'/012('345(!678.9()*+,-.*':'':";&;::''<=9=>''5,?)'!=!

!"#$%#%&'()*+,-)&./01'&234'!567-8'()*+,-)&9&&9:;<;99&&#=8=:&&4+>(&%#9

300

It has always seemed likely that Leonardo painted apicture of Christ as the Saviour of the World.1 In 1650the celebrated printmaker Wenceslaus Hollar signedan etching of Christ raising his right hand in blessing,holding a transparent orb in his left, with a nimbus oflight behind his head; the image was taken, he states,from a painting by Leonardo (fig. 111).2 Though Hollarwas generally well-informed, this would not be enoughon its own to prove that an autograph picture byLeonardo had once existed. By the seventeenth centuryany number of paintings by his pupils and associateswere firmly attributed to Leonardo himself and therewas no shortage of pupils’ pictures depicting theSalvator Mundi, all clearly related to one another, allunmistakably Leonardesque. In 1978 and 1982 one of these many versions was promoted as Leonardo’slost ‘original’, partly because of its similarities to theetching, a suggestion that has rightly been rejected.3

Hollar might very well have been copying a copy. There is other evidence, however, that Leonardo

explored this or a related subject. As early as the mid-1480s he drew a ‘head of Christ’, in pen and ink, whichappears in the list of his works preserved in the CodexAtlanticus (see p. 25). And in the early sixteenthcentury he discussed painting an adolescent Christ for Isabella d’Este, Marchioness of Mantua.4 Mostimportantly, there survive two red chalk drawings ofdraperies, obviously related to the composition etchedby Hollar and the many workshop copies (cats 89, 90).But even these do not constitute proof that Leonardopainted a Salvator Mundi, and it has sometimes beenargued that these drawings might have formed the basisfor one or more finished designs – perhaps cartoons –that he made expressly to be copied by pupils but with no primary version by the master himself. Otherscholars have imagined, more straightforwardly, thatLeonardo’s own painting disappeared long ago.

The re-emergence of this picture, cleaned andrestored to reveal an autograph work by Leonardo,therefore comes as an extraordinary surprise. ThoughHollar’s Christ is very slightly stouter and broader, thetwo images coincide almost exactly. The draperies arejust a little simplified and there is no glow of lightaround Christ’s head. Otherwise the newly discoveredpainting has the same snaking locks of hair, expression-less face and uncannily direct gaze, and the sameswathe of monumental drapery across his shoulder.And the knot-pattern ornament on Christ’s crossed

stole and on the border of his vestment are very similarindeed, a particularly important consideration giventhat this ornament is the aspect most subject to changein the diΩerent surviving versions. There can be nodoubt that this is the picture copied by Hollar.

In fact this version of the Salvator Mundi is not a new discovery. It has been known since the beginningof the twentieth century but never seriously studiedand certainly not recognised as Leonardo’s own work.The picture was acquired in 1900 by Sir Francis Cookfor his collection at Doughty House in Richmond,Surrey, through or from his long-standing adviser, SirJ.C. Robinson. It has not yet been discovered whereRobinson obtained it. In 1913 Tancred Borenius cata-logued it as a ‘free copy after Boltra≈o’, twice removedtherefore from Leonardo. In 1958 it was sold from theCook collection, still as a copy after Boltra≈o. The lowesteem in which it was held is easy to explain: by thetime it came into Francis Cook’s possession it had beenvery considerably overpainted. Christ’s blessing handwas the least altered area but his head had been almostentirely reinvented. And that after 1958 it was knownonly from the poor black-and-white photographreproduced in Borenius’s catalogue only compoundedthe problem.

The reasons for such abundant overpaint are alsoclear. Though both Christ’s hands are well preserved,elsewhere the picture has suΩered. Sometime in thepast the panel split in two, causing paint losses alongthe length of the crack. It has also been aggressivelyover-cleaned, with some abrasion of the whole picturesurface and especially in the face and hair of Christ,where Leonardo’s sequence of delicate paint layers

l i t e r at u r e

Borenius 1913, p. 123; Suida 1929, p. 140; Clark 1935, vol. 1, p. 80; Suida in Los Angeles 1949, pp. 85–6;Heydenreich 1964, p. 109; Snow-Smith1982, pp. 11, 12, fig. 7.

91leonardo da vinci (1452–1519)

Christ as Salvator Mundiabout 1499 onwards

Oil on walnut 65.5 × 45.1 cmPrivate collection

fig . 111wenceslaus hollar (1607–1677)After Leonardo da Vinci, Salvator Mundi, 1650Etching, first state, 26.4 × 19.0 cmThe Royal Collection (rl 801855)

!"#$%#%&'()*+,-)&./01'&234'!567-8'()*+,-)&9&&9:;<;99&&#=8=:&&4+>(&%##