MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM

INDEX | PINBOARD | MICROSTORIES | FEATURES | SPECIAL EDITIONS | HISTORY AND THEORY OF ATTRIBUTION | ETHNOGRAPHY OF CONNOISSEURSHIP

M
I
C
R
O
S
T
O
R
Y

O
F

A
R
T

The Louvre picture traditionally known as La Belle Ferronnière is in a double sense a problem picture. One might ignore its relation to the now so-called ›American Leonardo‹ (picture see below on left), which is what we do here, assuming that the latter is indeed a much later copy of the Louvre picture.
But the Louvre picture is also a problem picture because it has been (and still is) surrounded by the controversy if it is indeed by Leonardo da Vinci, and not (rather) by Leonardo’s pupil Boltraffio (some have, by the way, argued that it is by both; others, on their turn, suggested other authors).
What we do here is to dig out the paper in which the traditional attribution to Leonardo has been challenged, and the problem been raised for the very first time. By Gustavo Frizzoni, Morelli’s other apprentice (next to Jean Paul Richter), who, in a 1894 paper (and in some sense with pointing to the opinion of Charles Loeser), raised the question, in a paper though, written in German, which has probably rather been neglected, if not forgotten by the scholarly tradition (Frizzoni does not figure, for example, in John Brewer’s monograph on the American Leonardo), but the paper, presented here in its crucial section and this also being translated, might still serve us as a point of departure, to think about the reasons for and against a certain attribution. And as always we are being most curious, less of what we are about to decide, but indeed of what we are about to learn and see.

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM


Gustav[o] Frizzoni (picture: artivisive.sns.it)


LIONARDO DA VINCI UND DIE BERÜHMTEN WEIBLICHEN BILDNISSE IM LOUVRE UND IN DER AMBROSIANA


(originally published in: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst (1894), p. 73-82)


»[…] [p. 78] Das andere weltbekannte Bildnis im Louvre, welches noch immer als ein Originalwerk Lionardo’s angesehen zu werden pflegt, ist dasjenige der vermeintlichen Belle Ferronière. Dass dasselbe gleichfalls ein edles charakteristisches Werk aus der Blütezeit der italienischen Kunst ist, wird niemand in Abrede stellen; ob es aber auf die Höhe einer Schöpfung des allervollendetsten Künstlers gestellt werden kann, das muss erst erwogen werden.
Da es keine quellenmäßigen Nachrichten giebt, welche dieses zweite Bildnis als ein Werk Lionardo’s bezeichnen, so sind wir umsomehr berechtigt, dasselbe vorurteilsfrei mit den sicherstehenden Werken desselben in Vergleichung zu ziehen. Betrachten wir nun einerseits den kostbaren Vorrat an echten Handzeichnungen Lionardo’s, welche namentlich in den Sammlungen von Windsor, Paris, Florenz und Venedig aufbewahrt werden, und andererseits seine an den Fingerspitzen abzuzählenden Werke der Malerei, die sich noch erhalten haben, so ist es schwer möglich, zu verkennen, dass in der Erscheinung der sog. Belle Ferronière, trotz ihrer bestechenden Eigenschaften, etwas Befangenes und Steifes liegt, was mit der freien, über alle Maßen gewandten Hand Lionardo’s nicht übereinstimmt noch übereinstimmen kann. Vor allem die Behandlung des Haares! Diese harte und kompakte Masse, die einer Perücke ähnlich sieht, wann hat sie der Meister je so gemacht? Ist sie nicht gerade das Gegenteil von dem, was uns in seinen Köpfen, auch wo es sich um Porträts handelt, begegnet, da er immer an den geschwungenen leichten Linien sich gefiel? Gut gezeichnet sind zwar die Gesichtszüge des Pariser Porträts, aber im ganzen doch etwas plump für Lionardo; wobei noch zu bemerken ist, dass auch die bestimmte Angabe der Augenbrauen gegen die Urheberschaft des Meisters zeugt, da er durchgehends, wie Morelli richtig beobachtet hat, an seinen weiblichen Figuren dieselben gar nicht zu betonen pflegte. (1) Vergleicht man endlich die Behandlung aller zur Kleidung gehörigen Details, so dürfte man vollends einsehen, dass der fast ängstliche Fleiß, der darauf verwendet worden, dem über das Kleinliche durchwegs erhabenen Geiste Lionardo’s nicht entsprechen kann. Ja, wir möchten fast so weit gehen, zu behaupten, dass das Motiv des Ornaments, welches im Saum des Halsausschnittes am Kleide durchläuft, kein spezifisch Lionardisches, wohl aber ein der gleichzeitigen lombardischen Schule eigentümliches ist. (2)
Ob Lionardo je dergleichen vollendete Porträts auf geschlossenem Hintergrunde gemalt habe, wollen wir dahingestellt lassen, da uns die nötigen Vergleichungspunkte dafür fehlen. Wenn wir außerdem nicht unbedingt darauf bestehen wollen, dass der große Meister in einer ähnlichen Darstellung gerne beide Hände oder doch eine Hand auf die Brüstung, womit die Figur begrenzt ist, gelegt haben würde, so können wir uns doch nicht der Überzeugung verschließen, dass, wenn hier auch nur eine Hand vorkäme, dieselbe wieder ein sprechendes Zeugnis gegen die Urheberschaft Lionardo’s abgelegt haben würde.
Nun hieße es aber, den wahren Autor anzugeben! Das ist freilich um ein gut Teil schwieriger, besonders bei dem keineswegs untadelhaften Zustande des Gemäldes, welches hauptsächlich in der Karnation, durch eine in früheren Jahren vorgenommene Reinigung, verrieben worden sein muss. Immerhin muss sich gewiss mit der Zeit die Überzeugung ausbreiten, dass dieses Bildnis doch um eine Stufe niederer steht als die authentischen Werke Lionardo’s, wiewohl es unter seinem künstlerischen Einfluss entstanden ist. Hat die moderne Forschung bereits nachgewiesen, dass das Lünettenbild im Kloster von Sant Onofrio in Rom vielmehr dem Schüler Beltraffio als dem Meister angehört (3), dass die großartige, aber wilde Madonna (il Madonnone gen.) in Vaprio, unweit von Mailand, sich als nichts anderes

(›The other world-renowned portrait in the Louvre, which, it is still custom, does go as an original work by Leonardo, is the portrait of the purported Belle Ferronière. That it is a noble and characteristic work from the golden age of Italian art, no one will deny; whether it can be put, though, at the level of a creation of the most accomplished artist of all, this is still to be pondered.
Since no evidence does come from the historical record which would refer to this second picture as a work by Leonardo [Frizzoni has already discussed the Mona Lisa], we are entitled all the more to compare this portrait, without prejudgments, with the ascertained works by the latter. If on the one hand we are now considering the precious stock of authentic drawings by Leonardo, which, namely, are kept in the collections of Windsor, Paris, Florence and Venice, and on the other hand his still extant works in painting, which are to be counted by the fingertips, thus it is hard to fail to recognize that in the appearance of the so-called Belle Ferronnière, despite of her captivating features, lies something timid and stiff, which is not consistent (nor can be) with the free and beyond every measure able hand of Leonardo. Above all the rendering (apprehension) of the hair! This hard and solid mass, which does look similar to a wig, when did the master ever do this in this way? Is is not just the opposite of what we do encounter in his heads, also if it is about portraits, since he always delighted in the curved easy lines? Well drawn are nonetheless the facial features of the Paris portrait, but on the whole still somewhat awkward for Leonardo; whereat it is to be remarked that also the defined rendering of the eyebrows does speak against the authorship of the master, since he was not in the habit, as Morelli correctly did observe, to emphasize these in his female figures. (1) Does one, finally, compare the handling of all the details that belong to the clothes, one might get to see fully that the almost anxious diligence applied to these, cannot be in accordance with the mind of Leonardo that, generally, was above such pettiness. Indeed we almost should like to go as far as to claim that the motif of the ornament which, in the dress, continues in the hemline of the neckline, is not a specifically Leonardesque one, but characteristic to the contemporary Lombardic school. (2)
Whether Leonardo ever did paint finished portraits on a closed background, we leave undecided, since, as to this, the necessary comparative clues are lacking. If, moreover, we do not want, necessarily, to insist on the master’s presumable liking, in a comparable representation, of having put both hands, or at least one hand on the parapet which delimits the figure, we still cannot close our mind to the conviction that, if here only one hand would be shown, this very hand would have been a telling testimony, speaking against the authorship of Leonardo [this, by the way, is what historians do call counterfactual evidence and do particularly dislike].
But now, it would be about to name the actual author! This, indeed, is a good deal more difficult, especially if considering that the condition of the painting, which, mostly as to the flesh tones, must have been levigated by a cleaning done in earlier years, is not at all impeccable. All the same, with the time, certainly the conviction will disseminate that this portrait [in quality] does stand one step below the authentic works by Leonardo, although it was created under his artistic influence. If the modern scholarship has already established that the lunette picture in the cloister of S. Onofrio in Rome does belong much more to the pupil Boltraffio than it does belong to the master (3), that the magnificent, but wild Madonna (called ›il Madonnone‹) in Vaprio near Milan, has turned out to be nothing else…)

M
I
C
R
O
S
T
O
R
Y

O
F

A
R
T

(1) In Bezug auf die Mona Lisa mag hier noch darauf hingewiesen werden, dass sie im Originale völlig ohne Augenbrauen ist, wohingegen in der Madrider Kopie dieselben mit einem scharfen Strich angegeben sind.
(›One might also, in relation to the Mona Lisa, point to the fact that, in the original, she [the Mona Lisa] is lacking her eyebrows completely, whereas in the Madrid [Prado] copy, these are defined by a sharp line [stroke].‹)


(Picture: telegraph.co.uk)

(2) Dasselbe Motiv kommt besonders in alten Rahmen öfters vor. Ein Beispiel davon hat man u. a. in dem ursprünglichen Teile des später vergrößerten Rahmens des Madonnenbildes von Boltraffio im Museo Poldi Pezzoli vor Augen.
(›The same motif is to be found especially in old picture frames. One example of this, among others, one does keep in sight in the original part of the later enlarged frame of the picture of the Madonna by Boltraffio in the Museo Poldi Pezzoli.‹)


(Picture: urbanfilemilano.blogspot.ch)

(3) S. die vergleichenden Abbildungen und Besprechungen in meinem Aufsatz über das Museo Poldi Pezzoli in der Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst vom Jahre 1881.
(›Cf. the comparative illustrations and discussions in my essay on the Museo Poldi Pezzoli in the Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, as of year 1881.‹)


(Picture: fondazionezeri.unibo.it)

M
I
C
R
O
S
T
O
R
Y

O
F

A
R
T

Charles Loeser (1864-1928)
(picture: itatti.harvard.edu)

[p. 79] als ein Werk des geistvollen Sodoma herausstellt (1), dass ferner das bekannte weibliche Profilporträt in der Ambrosiana [see picture on the right], wie wir es im Nachfolgenden bestätigen werden, unbedingt dem Lionardo entzogen und einem untergeordneten Mailändischen Maler zuerkannt werden muss, dass endlich die nicht weniger bekannte Madonna, welche aus dem Hause Litta vor Jahren in die Petersburger Galerie übergegangen ist, jedenfalls auch von einem lombardischen Meister herrührt, der sich höchstens einer Vorlage von Lionardo bediente (2), so hat wohl auch die Stunde geschlagen, in der man sich in Bezug der sogenannten Belle Ferronière eines Besseren belehren lassen mag. Wiewohl die edle Auffassung des Antlitzes, die wohl abgerundeten, durch eine einfache Verteilung von Licht und Schatten angegebenen Formen, die großen sinnigen Augen und der regelmäßige, wellenförmige Mund uns zu der Ansicht unseres jungen Freundes Carl Löser [Charles Loeser] hinneigen lassen, dass als Urheber dieses Gemäldes der Mailänder Edelmann Giov. Ant. Beltraffio angesehen werden dürfte (3), so glauben wird doch, dass es angesichts der beschränkten Anhaltspunkte schwer halten wird, zu einer ganz genauen und überzeugenden Bestimmung des rätselhaften Bildes zu gelangen.

[...]«

(…than a work by the gifted Sodoma (1); that, moreover, the well known female portrait in profile of the Ambrosiana [see picture on the right], as we are going to confirm in the following, by all means has to be excluded from Leonardo’s oeuvre and to be attributed to a subordinate Milanese painter; that, finally, the no less known Madonna, which, years ago, has come from the house of Litta to the gallery of St. Petersburg, at all events goes back to a Lombardic master too, who did, at best, make use of a design by Leonardo (2), and thus indeed the moment of truth has come, when one might be taught better as to the so-called Belle Ferronière as well. Although the noble apprehension of the countenance, the well-rounded forms, defined by a simple apportionment of light and shadow, the large meaningful eyes and the regular, wavelike-shaped mouth leave us to be inclined to share the opinion of our young friend Charles Loeser, according to which the author of this painting might be seen in the Milanese nobleman Giov. Ant. Boltraffio (3), we do believe, however, that considering the limited number of clues, it hardly does stand to attain a precise and convincing identification of the mysterious picture.‹)

(1) S. die Abbildung davon auf der Tafel unseres Buches »Arte Italiana del Rinascimento«, Milano Fratelli Dumolard editori, 1891.
(›Cf. the reproduction of it on the table of our book »Arte Italiana del Rinascimento«, Milano Fratelli Dumolard editori, 1891‹)

(see here)

(2) S. die Handzeichnung im Louvre, photogr. von Braun.
(›Cf. the drawing in the Louvre, photographed by Braun.‹)



(3) Man vergleiche dieses Bildnis namentlich mit einem anderen, sicheren Frauenporträt von Beltraffio im Besitze des Grafen General del Maino in Mailand.
(›One ought to compare this portrait namely with another, ascertained female portrait by Boltraffio, in possession of Count General del Maino in Milan.‹)

M
I
C
R
O
S
T
O
R
Y

O
F

A
R
T

Compare also this version (Borromeo Collection):

The so-called La Belle Ferronière, that gets to travel any time soon, to be shown for some time (after a short trip to Milan) by the newly opened Louvre Abu Dhabi.

Finally a few words as a commentary from my side (DS): During the 20th century the discussion on the La Belle Ferronnière, of course, shifted also to the more technical side of the attributional problem. It is ›probable‹ as one does read often, that the panel of the Lady with an Ermine (see here on the right) and the panel on which the La Belle Ferronnière is painted were being made from one and the same tree. This seems, although it indeed seems to establish the close relationship between these two pictures (however: what does ›probable‹ mean? [the possibility has now been ruled out (4 May 2015)]), rather be of importance for the discussion on the American Leonardo. But given that it is true, we could still assume that the two panels were simply being used in one and the same workshop, but not necessarily by one and the same hand (alone). Other more technical arguments relate to the painting technique being used, but here some experts find that the technique and finesse being used are consistent only with other works by Leonardo (in the Louvre), and others find that they are not (it depends, actually on what is being compared, and I find (still naively and idealistically?) that everyone who decidedly is in support of a certain attribution should clarify on what exact comparisons his or her attribution does rest in the end; the public does not know all by itself, nor do other experts, nor it is, assumingly, a mystery to the expert him- or herself). Experts, by the way, have noted later overpaintings in the sitter’s face (the line of the lower chin; and, most important, the hair on the sitter’s left face was not hanging down that low).
As the main source of information as to the more modern discussion on the ›Boltraffio or Leonardo?‹ problem, as I do call it here, I warmly do recommend Pietro C. Marani’s Leonardo monograph which, in German was published in 2005. The book, that gives much space to the arguments of those not supporting the Leonardo attribution (Marani does support it, while he seems still being interested especially in why David Alan Brown does not) was called Leonardo. Das Werk des Malers (see p. 178ff.).
What I have learned by reading Frizzoni and by putting together this documentation was not only that the Morellians, occasionally, were in the habit of relating patterns in pictures to patterns in picture frames, but especially the importance that was given to the female portrait coming from the del Maino collection (›il cosiddetto ritratto di Clarice Pusterla‹; present whereabouts are unknown to me; it was apparently on sale at Christie’s in 1997). Because, if one does not know that it is this picture that is to be seen as the important reference picture for the ›Boltraffians‹ (as one may call them, although Frizzoni is not one of them), the whole discussion on ›Leonardo or Boltraffio?‹ seems to remain a little mysterious (which is why, above, I have reproduced the portrait even twice and also next to the La Belle Ferronnière).

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM
HOME

The now so-called ›American Leonardo‹
(picture: theartwolf.com)

(Picture: pinterest.com)

(Picture: colnect.net)

Top of the page

Microstory of Art Main Index

Dietrich Seybold Homepage

© DS