seybold.ch | Dietrich / MelziTheSecretary browse

MICROSTORY OF ART

ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM

Melzi the Secretary

See also the episodes 1 to 10 of our New Salvator Mundi History:

A Salvator Mundi Puzzle

Unknown Melzi

Francis I and the Crown of Charlemagne

From Amboise to Fontainebleau

Drones Above Chambord

Looking Back at Conques

Flaubert at Fontainebleau

Images of Imperial Ideology

The Chronicles of Santa Maria delle Grazie

Seeing Right Through Someone

And:

A Salvator Mundi Geography

A Salvator Mundi Atlas

Melzi the Secretary

(28.7.2021) Leonardo scholarship is in the habit of copying Leonardo: by leaving many projects unfinished. But Leonardo
scholarship is not in the habit of copying Leonardo in one respect: in defining problems and attempting to solve them.
Because every reader who only dabbles in Leonardo’s writings must find: this is a man who obviously was attracted to
(theoretical as well as practical) problems and, yes, also a man who obviously had fun, someone who was feeling at ease
trying to solve them.
In the 1990s a German scholar once made a list of problems, of things we do not know or do not know very well as regards
Leonardo, but nothing has come of this. And on that list, if I am recalling this correctly, there was nothing as to the
people in Leonardo’s orbit anyway, as if Leonardo had only existed within his own sphere. Francesco Melzi, as I already
have said and shown, causes a problem that Leonardo scholarship never seriously has addressed. And a Francesco Melzi
scholarship does not exist either. Why not starting one? But we have to start with defining problems and identifying the
stereotypes and contradictions within Leonardo literature and especially Leonardo biographies. Because there is one
tendency, one basic law (and I like to call it the Melzi law), of speaking of Melzi only as Leonardo’s secretary. He
might have been this, but the more and the more decisively one does speak of Melzi the secretary and only as the
secretary (and not as painter in his own right), the more you will be surprised that contemporary sources also saw Melzi
as a painter, that people have attributed pictures (and very fine ones) to Melzi, and that Leonardo inherited everything
that had to do with his profession as a painter to Melzi. Here comes the eleventh episode of our New Salvator Mundi
History, and it is just about one portrait left unfinished: the portrait of Melzi the secretary – the portrait of
Melzi the painter (picture of Villa Melzi at Vaprio d’Adda above: MarkusMark; title: Thomas de Keyser.

One) Stereotypes and Contradictions

Melzi was a nobleman, yes. And one recent Leonardo biographer has laboured to make this the explanation for Melzi not
having being a professional painter. Because the mechanical arts were not seen as appropriate a way of making a living
for a nobleman. But the same Leonardo biographer also does discover that for Boltraffio this obviously did not cause a
problem, apart from the fact that Leonardo had strived exactly for this: to make painting something more than a
discipline of the mechanical arts, a science, an art in its own right. And apart from the fact that, as also the same
biographer does concede, Melzi-attributed pictures resemble very much in style those of Leonardo, so that we have to
assume that the secretary, by some way of osmosis, must have learned to paint in the manner of Leonardo. But all this
does not make much sense.
Another recent Leonardo biographer tells us that Melzi was never a ›master painter‹ (whatever that means), only to
(uncritically) confirm that Melzi did paint one of the best versions of the Leda, while not telling us that Melzi, in
later years, seems to have taught or cooperated with the painter Gerolamo Figino. This does not make much sense either.
If, frustrated by more recent Leonardo biographies (the best being that of Charles Nicholl, may at least he be named), we
turn to the classic short biography by Kenneth Clark, we learn that Melzi was Leonardo’s ›friend and disciple‹. And
›disciple‹ or ›pupil‹ are indeed the words we should use, if we concede that Melzi must have been someting more than a
mere ›secretary‹.
But what sources do we have to work with?
I am proposing that we start with looking at what the ambassador of the duke of Ferrara wrote to his master in 1523:
Melzi is described as someone who paints very well – ›as far as I can judge‹, the ambassador says, which rules out
the possibility that the ambassador here only does report hearsay. He does not fully trust his own judgment, or wants to
appear as being modest, but the ambassador obviously has seen things Melzi had painted, or things the ambassador thought
Melzi must have painted. And Melzi is being described, in this source, as likable and very intelligent, not to forget.
I am proposing that we take this source (quoted, after Beltrami, for example in Volker Reinhardt’s Leonardo biography,
p. 332) as our starting point and then work our way backwards.
What does backwards mean? This means that we now take a look at Leonardo’s will of 1519 and at the description of the
journey across Europe that the cardinal Luigi d’Aragon did make in 1517/18, a description by the cardinal’s secretary
Antonio de’ Beatis. Only to arrive then, and only then, at the problem of the Prado Mona Lisa (below we see the
Leda version of the Uffizi).

Two) Working Our Way Backwards

I am not interested in the details of Leonardo’s will here (text for example in Shaw 2014), but we should take a look at
least at one paragraph (translation as Shaw has it):

»The aforesaid Testator gives and bequeaths to Messer Francesco da Melzi, nobleman of Milan, as a reward for the gracious
services he has rendered in the past, all and each of the books the said Testator possesses at the present time, and the
other instruments and portraits appertaining to his art and calling as a painter.«

Superficial scholars may think only of Leonardo’s manuscripts here as well of his drawings, but ›appertaining to his art
and calling as a painter‹ must mean here: also the cartoons as well as the preparatory drawings, brief all the
instruments that would have made it possible to continue working not ony in the style of Leonardo, but with his own
tools, and thus in his footsteps, including the methods of serial production (as far this was possible on the basis of
cartoons and preparatory drawings).

Now while Melzi is named in Leonardo’s will, he is not named in Antonio de’ Beatis famous account. But is Melzi implied, if
the secretary of the cardinal of Aragon does say that there, at Amboise in 1517, was one pupil (working well), who
continued, supervised by Leonardo teaching (and also still drawing) obviously painterly work? Isn’t it rather obvious
that this pupil must have been Melzi, to whom, two years later, Leonardo was to bequeath everything ›appertaining to
painting‹?
Yes, theoretically, it could be Salaě. If Melzi does not fit into your scheme, you will now turn to Salaě, to whom
Leonardo did not bequeath everything appertaining to his art and calling as a painter. Who is not named either,
who was only paid by the king of France as Leonardo’s servant (and not even all the time), and who seems to have produced
a signed and dated picture of Christ in 1511 that does raise questions as to his, Salaě’s accomplishments as a painter.
And in addition to that: there are no contemporary sources to convince us that Salaě did paint well. We have named here two
sources naming (respectively: implying probably) Melzi. And there are also other, later sources, that I am not going into
here. And certainly, Salaě died early, but we don’t hear anything either as to Salaě having taught or worked with other
painters. What we hear is Vasari saying that pictures by Salaě that had been retouched by Leonardo passed as originals in
Milan. Whatever we make of that. Those who are familiar with the history of Leonardo attributions must know that (another
law) everything is attributed to Leonardo everywhere at any point in time.

Three) The Prado Mona Lisa, Again

The reactions of leading Leonardo scholars as to the Prado Mona Lisa and as to the Prado attributing the picture to
›Melzi or Salaě‹ have been disappointing. Martin Kemp, who also seems not to be fully convinced that Antonio de’ Beatis,
in his account from Amboise, is referring to Melzi (see Kemp’s book on the Mona Lisa; a question mark is put behind
the name of Melzi), does simply state that the attribution is »unconvincing« (p. 213), and that we don’t have a reliable
corpus of Melzi pictures. Which is true, we have only some sort of corpus, and what we don’t have is a consensus in any
way, and we don’t have a Melzi scholarship, due to Leonardo scholars having neglected Melzi for a very long time. And due
to Leonardo scholars still neglecting Melzi. Despite of the Prado having proposed that the Prado Mona Lisa could be by Melzi.
Why is it reasonable to think of Melzi?
Because it is reasonable to assume, as Kemp does, that Leonardo continued working on the Mona Lisa (which probably
had not been commissioned by Giuliano de’ Medici), due to Giuliano de’ Medici wishing the picture to be finished. And
this would mean, around the year of 1512. At this time, Melzi, who still was very young, had already passed several years
in the orbit of Leonardo. It would have made sense that a copy of the Mona Lisa, which shows, due to technical
examinations, that it had been done ›in parallel‹ to the original, was started at exactly this period. When the
copyist could copy what Leonardo already had painted (in 1503ff.), to go on working with him and close to him ›in parallel‹.
Again: theoretically it could be Salaě. We don’t know much as to the trajectories of Melzi and Salaě during the years to
follow. Did Salaě advance, or did a more talented Melzi outshadow him, so that he turned to selling his pictures
(retouched by Leonardo) as Leonardo originals? But seriously: We have pictures and we have to place them somewhere. If
for example Pietro C. Marani is right that a study for the Berlin Pomona and Vertumnus (below) has been done by Melzi
c. in 1515-1520, then Melzi did this rather after he did the Mona Lisa copy, and while he was with Leonardo (and Salaě)
in France.

We have dates, we have pictures to work with, we have sources, we have defined problems, and we have questions (for
example what exactly did Melzi paint at Amboise?). Why we don’t have also a Francesco Melzi scholarship? Because we still
have to start one. Melzi is the assumed author of the above shown portrait of Leonardo. Now we have to work towards his
portrait – as a painter, and yes, also as a secretary.

Selected literature:

Ludwig Pastor, Die Reise des Kardinals Luigi d’Aragona durch Deutschland, die Niederlande, Frankreich
und Oberitalien, 1517-1518, beschrieben von Antonio de Beatis, Freiburg i.B. 1905
Richard Shaw Pooler, Leonardo Da Vinci’s Treatise of Painting, The Story of the World’s Greatest Treatise
on Painting Its Origins, History, Content and Influence, Wilmington 2014

1495: At around this date Leonardo da Vinci is supposed to have begun The Last Supper. Giampietrino is documented as an active painter.

1516: Paolo Emilio, Italian-born humanist at the court of Francis I, publishes the first four books of his history of the Franks; death of Boltraffio.

1517: Leonardo da Vinci, with Boltraffio and Salaě, has come to France (picture of Clos Lucé: Manfred Heyde); 10.10.2017: Antonio de Beatis at Clos Lucé
1517ff: Age of the Reformation; apocalyptic moods; Marguerite of Navarre, sister of Francis I, will be sympathizing with the reform movement; her daughter Jeanne d’Albret, mother of future king Henry IV, is going to become a Calvinist leader.

1518: the Raphael workshop produces/chooses paintings to be sent to France; 28.2.: the Dauphin is born; 13.6.: a Milanese document refers to Salaě and the French king Francis I, having been in touch as to a transaction involving very expensive paintings: one does assume that prior to this date Francis I had acquired originals by Leonardo da Vinci; 19.6.: to thank his royal hosts Leonardo organizes a festivity at Clos Lucé.

1519: death of emperor Maximilian I; Paolo Emilio publishes two further books of his history of the Franks; death of Leonardo da Vinci; Francis I is striving for the imperial crown, but in vain; Louise of Savoy comments upon the election of Charles, duke of Burgundy, who thus is becoming emperor Charles V (painting by Rubens).

1521: Francis I, who will be at war with Hapsburg 1526-29, 1536-38 and 1542-44, is virtually bancrupt.

1523: death of Cesare da Sesto.

1524: 19.1.: death of Salaě after a brawl with French soldiers at Milan.

1525: 23./24.2.: desaster of Francis I at Pavia. 21.4.1525: date of a post-mortem inventory of Salaě’s belongings.

1528: Marguerite of Navarre gives birth to Jeanne d’Albret (1528-1572) who, in 1553, will give birth to Henry, future French king Henry IV.

1530: Francis I marries a sister of emperor Charles V.

1531: death of Louise of Savoy; the plague at Fontainebleau.

1534: Affair of the Placards.

1539: the still unfinished chateau of Chambord is being shown by Francis I to Charles V.

1540s: the picture collection of Francis I being arranged at Fontainebleau.

1544: January: Marguerite of Navarre sends a letter of appreciation to her brother, king Francis I., who has sent her a crucifix, accompanied by a ballade, as a new year’s gift.

1547: death of Francis I.

1549: death of Marguerite de Navarre; death of Giampietrino.

1553: Jeanne d’Albret gives birth to Henry, the future French king Henry IV and first Bourbon king after the rule of the House of Valois.

1559: publication of the Heptaméron by Marguerite de Navarre.

1562-1598: French Wars of Religion.

1570: death of Francesco Melzi.

1589: Henry, grandson of Marguerite de Navarre and grand-grandson of Louise of Savoy, but by paternal descent a Bourbon, is becoming French king as Henry IV.

2015: an exhibition at the Château of Loches is dedicated to the 1539 meeting of king and emperor (see here).

The 15 November 2017 inscribes into the chronicles of Santa Maria delle Grazie as well (pictures: youtube.com / Christie’s). Andy Warhol’s Sixty Last Suppers as well as the Salvator Mundi have their roots in the Milanese cloister. And there is something else: While the Salvator Mundi might mark the beginnings of serial production of paintings at the time of the Renaissance, Warhols work does practice and selfreferentially comment on serial production and on viral images (it had been a commission by an art dealer; see here). Does it also comment on the Salvator Mundi? How would Warhol have commented on the Salvator Mundi saga? Would he have created Sixty One Plus Salvator Mundi Versions? Perhaps he might have thought or said: why underestimating Leonardo? he did in fact invent the multiple. And perhaps Leonardo was even more furbo than anyone ever imagined – perhaps Leonardo did also invent and practice the selling of serial productions as (more or less unique) originals, each of every member of a series. Do we have a category for such objects, or do we still have to find one (even if just the Salvator Mundi version Cook might have been a gift and not a commercial product)?