 |
|
The subject of Ginevra
de’Benci (1474) retains nothing of the Mona Lisa’s inward amusement nor
Cecilia Gallerani’s (Lady With An Ermine) gentle submissiveness.
Instead, the young woman gazes past the viewer with a wonderful luminous
sulkiness. The difference between Ginevra de’Benci and the other
portraits is that the sitter does not display her hands. Numerous
scholars have surmised that Leonardo da’Vinci had truncated the canvas
and the rationale behind this sinister motive remains unknown. Is
da’Vinci blameworthy of this act or is the work of art an imitation of
Northern portraiture?
The infamous High Renaissance artist Leonardo da’Vinci (1452-1519) for
his copious skills in sculpture, architecture, engineering, and art. His
familial background is as insignificant as William Shakespeare.
Leonardo was the
illegitimate son of a local lawyer in Vinci, a small town in the Tuscan
region. His father acknowledged him and paid for his training. A
prevalent theme connects the lives of the distinguished masters of the
High Renaissance - each began their artistic career with an
apprenticeship to a painter who had already obtained excellent social
status.
Luckily, da’Vinci was instructed by sculptor and painter Andrea del
Verrochio (1435-1488). Verrochio’s best-known painting is the Baptism of
Christ because Leonardo is assumed to have painted the angel on the far
left. It was traditional for the novice to assist the master in his
works in order to learn and duplicate the same style.
Ginevra de’Benci has captured the interest of contemporaries merely for
the especial attention that Leonardo da’Vinci had devoted to his sitter.
The young woman was married to nobleman Luigi Niccolini in 1474 when she
was sixteen. Scholars have deduced that perhaps, Ginerva was fifteen
when Leonardo completed the canvas in celebration of de’Benci’s
engagement to Niccolini.
|
|
The sitter does not
possess the wittiness of the earlier da’Vinci images and she appears
rather solemn in contrast to Mona Lisa and Lady With An Ermine.
Ginerva’s pose is fairly rigid and her head taut.
Delicate ringlets cascade
down from her forehead. During the dawn of the Renaissance, the exposure
of the forehead in art indicated intellectuality intelligence. It is
quite obvious that Leonardo da’Vinci considered de’Benci as an academic.
These subtle ripples are repeated in the spikes of the juniper bush. Far
removed from the traditional Western Renaissance portraiture, Ginevra
de’Benci is portrayed from her head to shoulders only.
In the distant background a landscape of still waters, mists, and
darkened woods illuminate the pale features of the sitter. Placed behind
the young woman is a juniper bush that is pun on da’Vinci’s part. The
Italian word for juniper is Ginepro and alludes to Ginevra’s first name.
Also, the symbol of the juniper is an emblem of both virginity and
purity.
Possibly the most
intriguing part of the painting is the reverse. The opposite side of
the canvas has a large scroll with a Latin verse: VirtVtem For/ma
Decorat [‘Beauty Adorns Virtue’]. This scroll curls around the
iconographic images of the juniper twig, a palm leaf, and a laurel
branch. These three objects signal virginity, moral virtue, and
intellect respectively. In addition, located at the far right corner
is a red seal, which was the family crest of the Liechtenstein
clan—the former owners of the painting. King Louis XII allegedly
brought this work of art to France from Milan in 1499.
It is often debated that Ginevra de’Benci could have been severed and
that the bottom half may have been a replication of Andrea del
Verrochio’s sculpture bust La Dama dal Mazzolino (1475-1480). Andrea
del Verrochio (1435-1488), originally named Andrea di Cione was a
Florentine and trained as a goldsmith under the tutelage of Giuliano
Verrochio, whose name he later adopted.
|
|
Verrochio is
renowned for having operated a Florentine art academy and
including amongst his pupils were the eminent Early and High
Renaissance masters-Sandro Botticelli,
Lorenzo di Credi, Leonardo da’Vinci, and Perugino. Nevertheless,
it is suspected that several canvases accredited to Andrea were
indeed his students’ attempts at copying his artistic technique.
La Dama dal Mazzolino bears a striking resemblance to Ginevra. The
ringlets, modeling of the visage, apparel, and distant stare are
comparable. However, the hairstyle and clothing became the courtly
fashion for the period. If it is undeniably Ginevra de’Benci would
not Andrea del Verrocchio have entitled his sculpture bust to the
young woman. Also, the dates of the two pieces do not coincide.
Leonardo da’Vinci’s rendition is dated a year earlier than
Verrocchio.
Moreover, there was a large market demand in Italy for Northern
art, chiefly Jan van Eyck, Petrus Christus, and Rogier van der
Weyden in between 1470-1480. Perchance, the Northern artistic
influx may have had an influence on Leonardo da’Vinci during the
1470’s. Numerous Flemish portraitures depict their sitters in
stiff poses and no display of hands; this is a particular
trademark with Jan van Eyck and Petrus Christus. Rogier van der
Weyden’s Portrait Of A Man (1440) is of a unique importance in
comparison to Ginevra de’Benci on account of the reverse. Portrait
Of A Man shows the image of a holly branch with a gold Latinized
verse at the top. This type of portraiture was common amongst the
Northern artists.
It is clear that perhaps, da’Vinci did not truncate Ginevra
de’Benci and is mimicking the Northern portraitures. The Andrea
del Verrocchio theory is highly questionable as the sculptor was
adhering to court fashion and the fact that he did not submit a
title to his work of art in identifying the female model.
Tamara Pasztor
|
|
visual
art
