Copy-Cat? A look into Leonardo da Vinci’s, The Virgin of The Rocks
Leonardo da Vinci, The Virgin, the Child Jesus, Saint John the Baptist and an angel, known as The Virgin of the Rocks, oil on canvas, 199.5 cm x 122 cm; thickness: 23cm, 4th quarter of the 15th century (around 1483 - 1494), The Louvre
Leonardo da Vinci was well known as the epitome of what it meant to be a Renaissance man. When it comes to unravelling the psyche of da Vinci, there are many layers to be considered, which mirrors how he applied paint to his masterpieces. Being a man of such intellect and talent, we are faced with inquiries when uncovering the mystery behind one of da Vinci’s most questioned-filled pieces – the two versions of, The Virgin of the Rocks. Both paintings, at first sight, contain the same subject matter; the Virgin Mary, the Holy Children, Jesus and John the Baptist, accompanied by an angel sitting in a grotto. Leonardo’s, The Virgin on the Rocks, does not present itself in one form but two. The first piece being home to the Louvre, Paris, oil on wood, 199.5 cm x 122 cm, 1483. The second in The National Gallery London, 189.5 cm x 120 cm, oil on poplar, 1508. Roughly made the same size with a few centimetres difference, we look to the hidden aspects of these paintings to reveal more truth. The academic debate surrounding these paintings comes down to whether Leonardo painted the London version on his own or did he have assistance. There are stark contrasts between the two paintings, visible in the application process and paint handling, as well as some subtle yet key factors in adjustments to ichnographical subject matter. This paper is to shed light on the creation of the two pieces, the subject matter eluding to, and whether there is validity in questioning the authenticity of Leonardo da Vinci’s two versions of, The Virgin of the Rocks.
The Virgin of the Rocks was initially commissioned as part of an altarpiece for the Brethren of the Immaculate Conception chapel in Milan. “The Louvre picture would still be the one painted in connection with the 1483 contract, and the London one now seemed to connect with the new documents of 1508.” (Gould, 76) However, Leonardo agreed to another buyer being pre-sold at a cost that he deemed more acceptable for the value he saw in the masterpiece. What brought about the second painting commission? “What circumstances could possibly have brought Leonardo to the tedious task of copying himself? The most widely accepted explanation derives from an undated petition signed by Leonardo and Ambrogio de ’Predis, sometime between 1490 and 1494, which asks an unnamed authority (very likely Ludovico Sforza) to intercede on their behalf to secure a better financial settlement from the Confraternity for a finished painting of ‘Our Lady done in oil by said Florentine’.” (Gregory, 29) Upon selling the original masterpiece, da Vinci was pressed to fulfill the contract for the previous commission. “The London panel was subsequently created to meet the artists’ contractual obligations.” (Gregory, 29) With this in mind, could we assume that da Vinci went into this second painting with that same energy, the feeling of obligation? Could this have affected his determination and excitement for the creation overall? We are presented with many hypothetical theories that could have manifested from the confrontation of the original said piece, as there are hidden factors in the London version that could give way to these discoveries.
The critical aspect in the debate regarding the authenticity of the paintings comes after closer observation of the two pieces highlighting the grotto. The geological references appear to be the most significant indicator of stylistic differences, as the rock formation of the grotto gives us insight into a prominent observational discovery. It goes without question that “Leonardo’s unwavering commitment to geological realism” (Pizzorusso, 2) causes speculation that the same person could not have painted the National Gallery painting compared to the original Louvre painting. The undoubted detail that da Vinci executes in the Louvre, Virgin of the Rocks, not only geographically makes sense but with the distinct stylistic execution of the mounds of horizontally layered sandstone accompanied with particular plant life references. “Viewed from a geological perspective, all of Leonardo’s paintings and drawings reveal a remarkable fidelity to nature. The Virgin of the Rocks in the National Gallery in London, attributed to him, displays no such fidelity. Let us compare it to the Virgin of the Rocks in the Louvre, whose geological accuracy is astounding. We cannot help questioning whether Leonardo himself painted the background in the National Gallery painting.” (Pizzorusso, 2) Not only are the illustrated aspects of the grotto in the London Virgin of the Rocks treated differently – it is paired with plant life that also differs from and contradicts the plant life used in the Louvre piece. These tiny details are essential keys to acknowledging the two pieces' authenticity. Documents suggest that Leonardo was to oversee Ambrogio Preda, a painter of mainly landscapes, in some of the process work during the creation of the second piece. “I assume that this second version, the present London picture, was in the usual Leonardo state –that is, only an underpainting – when Leonardo left Milan in 1499, that he then delivered it to the Confraternity, that Antonio da Monza saw it there, and that after Leonardo came back to Milan in 1506, he agreed to finish it and in fact worked on it a little, but that most of the top paint was done by his partner, Ambrogio Preda.” (Gould, 76) This could easily explain the difference in the application of components of the painting, like the grotto. This subtle observation opens a dialogue that trickles into the rest of the components of the painting.
The Virgin on the Rocks holds sacred meaning and prophesizing hidden between the lines. When comparing the two paintings, critical symbolic adjustments are made to the London version that is visibly recognizable. After analyzing the hand gestures of the figures, we notice that the angel in the Louvre piece points to John the Baptist. This movement creates a pyramid composition, giving the viewer’s eye direction throughout the storytelling of the piece. In contrast, the London edition has that feature wholly eliminated, instead altering the angel’s gaze fixing on John as opposed to the pointed finger to guide the narrative. “In this sense, the angel in the painting, whom I identify as the Archangel Gabriel who announced the impending births of both Saint John and Christ, in pointing out John, the Infant Hermit, in his role, not only as the well-known precursor of Christ but also as the Mediator of the whole Trinity.” (Smith, 136) With the pointed finger, the Angel Gabriel guides the viewer to take a closer look into the importance of John the Baptist, cousin of Jesus. Placed in the setting of the grotto, we appreciate how Leonardo would foreshadow the significance John would have later in his life as the Baptist. Instead, in the London piece we see the addition of halos as a way to bring the viewer an understanding of the exalted status of the figures. “But if the angel had such proper importance in the first panel, as such accounts maintain, what, once again, could explain his extraordinary retrenchment in the second, where he seems demoted to a little more than a beautiful bookend?” (Gregory, 31) The importance of the angel falls short in the London painting, merely an accent to the scene. The angel also appears to have more emphasis on the dressing in the Louvre piece, painted in a completely different attire, complementing Leonardo’s technique in drapery. In the London version, there is a highlight on the wings of the angel rather than her dressing gown. Holding such symbolism in the Louvre painting, we have to ask ourselves, what was the intention behind the omitted stylistic feature of the angel? Was this a design detail tailored by the painting assistant? Was it related to the time of execution, or was it a critique by the Confraternity altogether? “One of the more intriguing discoveries has come from recent infra-red reflectographic (2005) and macro X-ray fluorescence (2019) analyses of the London painting: the revelation of a previously unknown underdrawing representing an entirely different composition – apparently an Adoration scene that was never realized.” (Gregory, 30) This raises the question, was there an attempt to completely change the narrative scene, starting with high ambitions that soon were realized to be too large? To fulfill the said contract, copying the original could have made the completion easier for Leonardo and his help, as there was an original masterpiece to reference.
After careful observation the stylistic approach of the Louvre painting aligns with the High Renaissance influence more than the London painting. “The version in the Louvre is acceptable, stylistically, as Leonardo’s own work. On the other hand, the picture in the National Gallery in London can be proved to have come from the Confraternity’s chapel, but on stylistic grounds, it does not look as though it were all Leonardo’s work.” (Gould, 74) We see this in the colouring and techniques; for example, the sfumato application of the background of the Louvre piece shows more attention to blending the scene to create an ominous setting. Whereas the London painting there is this use of highlights to bring a brighter feel. The treatment of Mother Mary and Jesus is stylistically different, changing the appearance and aura of the scene. “Both the historical and the technical research associated with the restoration reinforced the visual evidence of a picture that was notably uneven in its level of completion, and also not entirely consistent in its paint handling. The implications of these features are essential to the understanding of the picture's authorship; as far as the restoration is concerned, it was essential to be aware of these aspects, and to seek to avoid any imposition of a misleading stylistic homogeneity or harmonious level of finish falsely achieved through modern retouching.” (Keith, 41) After close observation, it is clear that undeniable differences set the two pieces apart from one another even through the years of restoration processes.
The idea of copying during the Renaissance comes during the early years of apprenticeship when a young artist is learning to master aspects of realism, creating a bank of knowledge one can refer to. Leonardo da Vinci’s, The Virgin of the Rocks introduces an air of mystery as there are ominous undertones throughout the paintings along with the academic discoveries that have trickled into the world because of it. With the differences in the painting of the grotto, the symbolic adjustments and stylistic differences we have no choice but to put The Virgin of the Rocks on a pedestal of inquiry. Easy to say that the enigma that is Leonardo da Vinci left us with a puzzle that is acknowledged and questioned to this day.
Leonardo da Vinci, The Virgin with the Infant Saint John the Baptist adoring the Christ Child accompanied by an Angel, “The Virgin of the Rocks,” oil on poplar, thinned and cradled, 189.5 cm x 120 cm, 1491/2-9 – 1506-8 c. The National Gallery of London
BAUCON, ANDREA. “<strong>LEONARDO DA VINCI, THE FOUNDING FATHER OF ICHNOLOGY</Strong>.” PALAIOS 25, no. 5/6 (2010): 361–67. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40606506.
Gould, Cecil. “The Newly-Discovered Documents Concerning Leonardo’s ‘Virgin of the Rocks’ and Their Bearing on the Problem of the Two Versions.” Artibus et Historiae 2, no. 3 (1981): 73–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/1483101.
Gregory, Joseph. 2020. Leonardo's Paris Virgin of the Rocks. Artibus et Historiae. 82.
KEITH, LARRY, ASHOK ROY, RACHEL MORRISON, and PETER SCHADE. “Leonardo Da Vinci’s ‘Virgin of the Rocks’: Treatment, Technique and Display.” National Gallery Technical Bulletin 32 (2011): 32–56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42616227.
Pizzorusso, Ann. “Leonardo’s Geology: The Authenticity of the ‘Virgin of the Rocks.’” Leonardo 29, no. 3 (1996): 197–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/1576245.
Smith, Joanne Snow. “An Iconographic Interpretation of Leonardo’s Virgin of the Rocks (Louvre).” Arte Lombarda, no. 67 (4) (1983): 134–42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43105428.
