seybold.ch | Dietrich / EyingGlass browse

MICROSTORY OF ART

ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM

Eying Glass

See also the episodes 1 to 11 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

Melzi the Secretary

And:

A Salvator Mundi Geography

A Salvator Mundi Atlas

Eying Glass

(26.7.2021) ›It can be proven‹, Leonardo da Vinci says somewhere, ›that the sun is warm and not cold (as also has been
claimed‹).
I like this for its ›as also has been claimed‹. One may wonder, if Leonardo here refers to a serious debate or just to a
more or less serious discussion at dinner table. Was this a serious question, if the sun is warm or cold? It was. Is this
still a matter of debate? It is (see here). ›Warm or cold‹, they will ask you, ›compared to what?‹. But this
is not our question here.
What I am interested here is the kind of discussion at dinner table. Leonardo might have raised a glass of water, or
perhaps he stood up, raising a glass of water, eying the glass, and perhaps, as his pupils at dinner table must have
known (we don’t), he then started a longer monologue, lecturing them as regards the colours of the rainbow for example,
or as regards other topics. But perhaps Leonardo was only pedantic as far as artistic quality was concerned, less
systematic in his teaching, as he was less systematic in his notes. In this case he may have stood up, raising a glass of
water, eying the glass… But stop. Is this about the eternal question of ›rock crystal or glass?‹, my readers may wonder.
It is. Here comes the twelfth episode of our New Salvator Mundi History, but this is not only about an eternal question –
it is about a final word.

One) Some Postscripts

I’d like to think the field of Leonardo da Vinci scholarship as a kind of archipelago. There is a main island where
facilities for hero worshipping and infotainment are located (may this island be hit by a torrential rainstorm).
But there are also all kinds of other islands, some of which have never been touched by scholarship. Who thinks, for
example, to write on Leonardo as a maker of lamps? He did use large glass balls – pure glass was required which does
require so-called refining (›Läuterung‹) –, and he had these large glass balls, into which lights were meant to be
inserted, filled with water. This was meant to produce brighter light (see Ms. F 23v).
I am mentioning this as we enter the boat to the main island, but no, we will not set foot on the main island, we will
sail around it, to hit more interesting shores. And yes, I am thinking of myself as the local guide who will show you
some pearls.
But while we are heading to unexplored territories that have never been eyed by mainstream Leonardo scholars,
I’d like to add some postscripts to recent episodes of my New Salvator Mundi History.

As far as the Dominican cloister of Santa Maria delle Grazie is concerned, one should not forget to mention that its
prior, Vincenzo Bandello (uncle of Matteo, the novella author), had been active as an inquisitor. In Bologna, from 1490 to
1493. What exactly he did there, I don’t know. But this is the time in which witchcraft trials were put forward (that
were perhaps even being expected from inquisitors to be put forward).
Bandello seems to have been a man of the establishment, but also entangled into the debate about the dogma of the
Immaculate Conception. So actually a very interesting figure, whether we see him in The Last Supper (as Judas) or
not. Ludovico Sforza once had a debate between Bandello and an unknown Jewish scholar or religious authority staged.

Further we should mention that Leonardo referred to the model for ›the hand of Christ‹ (he is writing ›per la man‹ (sic))
as ›Alessandro Carissimo from Parma‹ – whatever this means.

And thirdly, as we are approaching the island of optics within the Leonardo archipelago, I’d like to draw the
attention to the pearls on the shoulder of the angel Leonardo is said to have contributed to Verrocchio‘s Baptism of
Christ (c. 1475 or even earlier). Don’t these pearls (or gems, or precious stones, I am just refering to these orbs as
pearls for convenience’s sake), don’t these pearls remind of and even anticipate the Salvator Mundi orb (picture above:
wga.hu)?

Two) The Island of Optics

Now we have reached the island of optics, but we will not make a tour around this island, because it is far too large.
We will set only set foot on one tiny shore which bears the name of ›Colours-of-the-Rainbow‹-shore.
Leonardo da Vinci scholarship, no question, is a complicated field to navigate in. We will see that even the one Windsor
sheet this is about, is a complicated treasure map in itself. It was difficult to find images of the drawing that I want
to show, no, it was not only difficult: I had to produce them myself. And I am reproducing here images from Jean Paul
Richter (who edited Leonardo’s ›literary works‹ for the first time in 1883), from Pedretti’s commentary to Richter
(1977) and from the Kenneth Clark edition of the anatomical sheets from Windsor (second edition, provided with Pedretti’s
assistance). This does make sure that everyone knows that I am not making anything up here, and it does show, at the same
time, how Leonardo scholarship is being done, because these are the actual tools of Leonardo scholarship.

Let’s take a first look at the ›treasure map‹ (picture above: DS; Pedretti 1977); the drawing this is all about is in the
›field‹ on the left below in the picture above):

And now we are zooming in (picture below, also from Pedretti 1977). And what do we see (large picture is from Clark)?

We see an eye eying a glass of water. It looks like an eye eying a glass of mineral water with bubbles in it, but these
are bubbles in the glass. Because Leonardo is, while embarking on talking about the colours of the rainbow, referring to
these bubbles that are to be found in glass which is badly refined.

Leonardo uses a technical term, if he speaks of ›vetri mal purgati‹. The German language has preserved the religious
undertones, because in German the technical term is ›Läuterung‹. One would translate this as ›schlecht geläutert‹ (›badly
refined‹). Which means that there are still bubbles in the glass, which actually, by applying various methods, could be
eliminated – to get really pure glass (as required for the aforementioned lamps, for example).

As I am giving also the exerpt from Richter (1883) – Richter has the passage as paragraph 288 within his anthology –,
one can see that the English translation does not give the technical term ›badly refined‹, it just says ›coarse‹ (picture below).

If one wants to know the date or the approximate date of this sheet or of this passage, one has to consult Pedretti’s
commentary to Richter. The date given by Pedretti is c. 1508(-10).

Finally, while studying all this and above all, the text of this passage, we learn that Leonardo mused about the light
playing in these bubbles. And yes, this is about the natural sciences, but actually this is also about daily life. And
this is why I have said above that I am interested in these debates at the dinner table. Because Leonardo may have simply
raised a glass of water, eying the glass… And so on. And everybody may have listened or not.

Three) Conclusions

I have a whole number of conclusions to draw from all this:

1) First of all I have always found it a bit exaggerated to call Leonardo an ›expert for rock crystal‹.
Yes, he may have eyed rock crystal too (who doesn’t?), and he may have been seen as the expert for everything (but who
if not him?), but I would expect from scholarship to make sure that there is a balanced discussion. And this would mean that
we ask for Leonardo possibly being an expert for bubbles to be found in badly refinded glass too.
Since from all of the above we clearly see that Leonardo did not only work with rather large glass balls himself (as a
maker of lamps), that he did not only make a difference between pure and badly refined glass (he does know and uses the technical
term), but also that he muses about how the light plays in the bubbles to be found in badly refined glass, and on top of
all that: he makes a drawing of an eye (his eye?) eying bubbles to be found in badly refined glass, a drawing on a sheet
that Melzi did preserve (apart from the likely possibilty that all this was discussed at dinner table). If all this is
left away or brushed away, I would not call this a ›balanced discussion‹.

2) I think that all of the above makes crystal clear that there is a very large probability that the artist who painted
the orb of the Salvator Mundi is either Leonardo himself or someone very close to him, someone in his orbit; and I think
all of the above makes it also a possibility which is not at all far-fetched, that, again, Melzi might have been this
artist; Melzi supervised by Leonardo at Amboise in the main place; but since Melzi did preserve that sheet as well as his
personal memories of Leonardo, this could, theoretically also have happened much later; at any rate: I am not accepting
any longer that suggestive pseudo-argument of ›who else but Leonardo delved as deep into the natural sciences?‹ – because
we clearly see: such delving in may have included more or less serious discussions at dinner table, and the reading of
Leonardo’s notes;

3) The find of the above drawing (it could be referred to as a drawing on Windsor 19150r a; r means ›recto‹) does not
change of bit of my argument that is based on the linking of the Charlemagne orb in the Crucifixion of the Parlement of
Paris and the orb in the Salvator Mundi version Cook; what I am thinking (see also the Conques episode) I’d like
to sum up in the following way (and I am speaking of both orbs at the same time):

The average viewer might have seen a crystalline something, and perhaps also have understood the meaning of cosmos and
the meaning of a symbol of rule; the more educated viewer could even see a depiction of the Ptolemaic system in the orb,
with the crystalline sphere on the surface, with representions of stars on the surface; the technically informed viewer
could have mused if this crystalline something might have been inspired by glass or rock crystal (it certainly was
inspired by badly refined glass), but for the average viewer as for the more educated viewer at the time of the
Renaissance, the Biblical assonances probably were much more important; so it is actually a literally technical
discussion if the inspiration was rock crystal or badly refined glass, few people (Leonardo and Melzi among them) were
prepared enough for such discussions at all, so that it also makes sense that impure glass, in this case and despite its
actual ›impurity‹, could stand in for the crystalline sphere of heaven or for the jewels of Heavenly Jerusalem; badly
refined glass did stand in, and it did not matter at all, because no one (exept Leonardo and Melzi) were aware of that
anyway; the important thing – as to (art) history and as to my Salvator Mundi history respectively – is the fact the in
two places a crystalline something replaced a much more common globus cruciger, and that this did, as I am assuming, not
happen by chance.

4) Finally, after we have found that it is rather likely that in the thumb pentimento in version Cook the repertoire
of a workshop does show (and not the creative energy of genius), we see another argument that the Salvator Mundi version
Cook was created by Melzi and Leonardo, because with all of the above we have listened in into the conversations within
Leonardo’s orbit; the orb inclusions were underpainted and accentuated by light and shadow, as Dianne Modestini has
pointed out in her lecture on the Salvator Mundi; Leonardo speaks of daylight and the colors of the rainbow in the
passage given above, but he speaks of light playing in these bubbles, and whoever had painted these inclusions either had
looked, had eyed a glass of water (and thought while looking), or had listened to Leonardo talking while eying a glass of
water. This could also have happened in the workshop itself, and not necessarily at dinner table (picture below is taken
from Frank Zöllner's large-size Leonardo monograph; photo by me after Zöllner).

Selected literature:

See Dietrich Seybold, Leonardo da Vinci im Orient. Geschichte eines europäischen Mythos, Cologne 2010, for a list of
tools of Leonardo da Vinci scholarship (and see also my biography of Jean Paul Richter, which was published in 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)?