leonardo's madonna with the yarn winder

Leonardo's Madonna with the Yarn WinderAuthor(s): Emil MöllerSource: The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 49, No. 281 (Aug., 1926), pp. 61-63+66-69Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/862887 .

Accessed: 16/12/2014 15:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:26:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmpl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/862887?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


show his forcible personal touch. But much of the background and other details are painted with a touch that is far less decisive, that is close and smooth and minute, where Rembrandt would have been loose and varied and broad. The contrast between these two styles becomes conspicuous the moment that the panel is carefully examined. It can be explained only on one supposition, namely, that we have here one of those works in which the design and all the more important passages were the work of Rembrandt, and that the pots and pans, and part of the background were entrusted to his pupil Dou. Dou's work, it should be noted, has ceased to be that of a novice; it is up to his best standard. We may therefore assume that the picture dates from the end of his pupilage under

LEONARDO'S MADONNA I BY EMIL MOLLER

T the Milanese Exhibition held in A the Burlington Fine Arts Club in

Mbw 6 1898, there were exhibited under No. 59 (property of Lord Battersea) and under No. 60 (property of the

Duke of Buccleuch) two Leonardesque Madon- nas which greatly impressed students of the artist, but which till now have not been recog- nized as of the first importance.

The catalogue by Sir Herbert Cook mentions under Plate XVII that G. Frizzoni considered the Battersea Madonna to be by Sodoma and the Buccleuch picture to be a simplified replica of the former. G. Pauli, Miintz, Carotti, Cust, Seidlitz, Wolinski, S. Reinach, E. Voigtliinder and Suida have all published short notes about this composition. The Battersea painting has always been considered the more valuable and the Leonardesque version. It has further been assumed that lost studies by Leonardo might have been employed for the composition. As early as I909 I found from the catalogue that this composition is identical with the description which Pietro Nuvolaria gives of a Madonna painted for Robertet. At the same time I came to the conclusion that the Buccleuch Madonna is the damaged original. In I9Io I saw it for the first time at Montague House and dis- covered Leonardo's studies for it at Windsor Castle. In 1911 I found at Paris the Battersea copy. In 1914 the owner allowed the Buccleuch picture to be photographed in the actual size, and I am much indebted to His Grace for very kindly assisting me in my researches into the picture's origin. The following notes are extracted from many which I have made.

There is no composition by Leonardo of which we have such an exact description by an eye-witness. Isabella d'Este asked the carmelite

show his forcible personal touch. But much of the background and other details are painted with a touch that is far less decisive, that is close and smooth and minute, where Rembrandt would have been loose and varied and broad. The contrast between these two styles becomes conspicuous the moment that the panel is carefully examined. It can be explained only on one supposition, namely, that we have here one of those works in which the design and all the more important passages were the work of Rembrandt, and that the pots and pans, and part of the background were entrusted to his pupil Dou. Dou's work, it should be noted, has ceased to be that of a novice; it is up to his best standard. We may therefore assume that the picture dates from the end of his pupilage under

LEONARDO'S MADONNA I BY EMIL MOLLER

T the Milanese Exhibition held in A the Burlington Fine Arts Club in

Mbw 6 1898, there were exhibited under No. 59 (property of Lord Battersea) and under No. 60 (property of the

Duke of Buccleuch) two Leonardesque Madon- nas which greatly impressed students of the artist, but which till now have not been recog- nized as of the first importance.

The catalogue by Sir Herbert Cook mentions under Plate XVII that G. Frizzoni considered the Battersea Madonna to be by Sodoma and the Buccleuch picture to be a simplified replica of the former. G. Pauli, Miintz, Carotti, Cust, Seidlitz, Wolinski, S. Reinach, E. Voigtliinder and Suida have all published short notes about this composition. The Battersea painting has always been considered the more valuable and the Leonardesque version. It has further been assumed that lost studies by Leonardo might have been employed for the composition. As early as I909 I found from the catalogue that this composition is identical with the description which Pietro Nuvolaria gives of a Madonna painted for Robertet. At the same time I came to the conclusion that the Buccleuch Madonna is the damaged original. In I9Io I saw it for the first time at Montague House and dis- covered Leonardo's studies for it at Windsor Castle. In 1911 I found at Paris the Battersea copy. In 1914 the owner allowed the Buccleuch picture to be photographed in the actual size, and I am much indebted to His Grace for very kindly assisting me in my researches into the picture's origin. The following notes are extracted from many which I have made.

There is no composition by Leonardo of which we have such an exact description by an eye-witness. Isabella d'Este asked the carmelite

Rembrandt. This year, 163I, would bring the picture into association with Rembrandt's Simeon in the Temple at the Mauritshuis, where we see, as in many of Rembrandt's etchings done between I630 and I632, that Dou's minute finish exercised a very definite influence upon his youthful master. Of that influence, as well as of their close association, this Tobit and His Wife is a striking proof, especially if we think of it in connexion with nearly contemporary works by Rembrandt, like The Philosopher in the National Gallery, where the master is completely himself.*

* Since this note was written the picture has been acquired by the Trustees of the National Gallery, where it will be placed on exhibition so soon as the frame and glass are ready.

Rembrandt. This year, 163I, would bring the picture into association with Rembrandt's Simeon in the Temple at the Mauritshuis, where we see, as in many of Rembrandt's etchings done between I630 and I632, that Dou's minute finish exercised a very definite influence upon his youthful master. Of that influence, as well as of their close association, this Tobit and His Wife is a striking proof, especially if we think of it in connexion with nearly contemporary works by Rembrandt, like The Philosopher in the National Gallery, where the master is completely himself.*

* Since this note was written the picture has been acquired by the Trustees of the National Gallery, where it will be placed on exhibition so soon as the frame and glass are ready.

YIITH YIITH THE YARN WYINDER THE YARN WYINDER

Fra Pietro da Nuvolaria to enquire about Leonardo's doings and to beg of the artist a small picture of a Madonna or at least another drawing of her portrait. In a letter dated April 3, I50I, the friar agreed to execute her orders. He paid a visit to Leonardo's workshop on " Holy Wednesday,' preached a ser- mon at the cathedral on Maundy Thursday and wrote on Good Friday (April 9) a most interesting letter, of which the original has been lost.'

Fra Pietro found Leonardo disinclined to all painting and occupied with mathematical and technical studies, but arranged nevertheless that " If the master should be able to free himself from the King of France without falling into disgrace (possibly in a month's time at most) he would serve her Excellency sooner than any other client. But in any case he would draw the portrait and send it to her Excellency as -soon as he has finished a small picture which he is painting for a certain Robertet, a favourite of the King of France. This small picture at which he is working is a Madonna sitting as if she would disentangle the yarn from the spindles on the winder. The Child putting his foot in the basket of spindles has seized the winder and looks attentively at the four spokes which have the form of a cross and as if he longed for this cross he is smiling and holds it fast and is not willing to leave it to his Mother, who seems wanting to take it away."2

Calvi invented from this description the title "La Madonna dei fusi," translated " Madonna with the spindles-" (sometimes also with the distaff). These erroneous names have caused

1 It has been published by Luigi Girolamo Calvi, " Notizie dei pih principali Professori che fiorirono in Milano durante il governo de'Visconti e degli Sforza," Parte III, Milano, I869, p. 97.

Fra Pietro da Nuvolaria to enquire about Leonardo's doings and to beg of the artist a small picture of a Madonna or at least another drawing of her portrait. In a letter dated April 3, I50I, the friar agreed to execute her orders. He paid a visit to Leonardo's workshop on " Holy Wednesday,' preached a ser- mon at the cathedral on Maundy Thursday and wrote on Good Friday (April 9) a most interesting letter, of which the original has been lost.'

Fra Pietro found Leonardo disinclined to all painting and occupied with mathematical and technical studies, but arranged nevertheless that " If the master should be able to free himself from the King of France without falling into disgrace (possibly in a month's time at most) he would serve her Excellency sooner than any other client. But in any case he would draw the portrait and send it to her Excellency as -soon as he has finished a small picture which he is painting for a certain Robertet, a favourite of the King of France. This small picture at which he is working is a Madonna sitting as if she would disentangle the yarn from the spindles on the winder. The Child putting his foot in the basket of spindles has seized the winder and looks attentively at the four spokes which have the form of a cross and as if he longed for this cross he is smiling and holds it fast and is not willing to leave it to his Mother, who seems wanting to take it away."2

Calvi invented from this description the title "La Madonna dei fusi," translated " Madonna with the spindles-" (sometimes also with the distaff). These erroneous names have caused

1 It has been published by Luigi Girolamo Calvi, " Notizie dei pih principali Professori che fiorirono in Milano durante il governo de'Visconti e degli Sforza," Parte III, Milano, I869, p. 97.



this painting to be sought after in vain until now; particularly so as the basket does not appear on the original or any copy.

The Buccleuch painting [PLATE I], viz., the original of the Madonna with the Yarn- Wlinder, is on a panel of poplar wood, I9 by 142 inches (the dimensions hitherto given are not quite correct). The Madonna is sitting upon a brittle rock of chalk in a charming yet by no means simple attitude. The lower part of the body is in profile, the right leg extended, the chest bent forward, the right shoulder slop- ing down and held back. The noble head with its narrow face framed by rich curls is turned to the Child who, in an almost kneeling position, his back and leg forming a beautiful line, is resting upon a projection of the rock covered by a piece of His mother's cloak. He is holding a winder with both his hands and is looking with impassioned eyes at the cross. The mother holds him with her left hand and, wondering at the Child's action, is lifting up the right hand; this has been erroneously explained as signifying an intention to take away the winder. Only the basket of spindles is absent; it must have been standing under the right foot, where now a projection of the rock is hardly recognizable.

The beauty of the group, constructed as a pyramid, is surprising when it is cut out and laid on a flat background. The diagonal of the Child's body dominates the composition and foreshadows already the baroque. The sensitive- ness of the silhouette, the persuasiveness and distinction of the design and modelling of the heads (the Child's admirably foreshortened), of the Child's body and the mother's bust, the wonderfully realized chiaroscuro, will be obvious to every observer. The flesh tints seem in- vested with a mysterious light. The carnation is a warm brownish tone. The coherence of the details has a parallel only in the Gioconda, painted at the very same time. The colours are very subdued and are darkened and partly over-painted. A tender note of dark greenish blue in the cloak, a brownish red, now hardly recognizable, in the bodice, a delicate grey with bluish reflections in the veil, the chestnut of the hair, the yellow brown of the rock, form

2 " Se si potra spiccare dalla Maesti del Re di Francia senza sua disgrazia, come sperava, alla pii longa fra un mese, servirebbe piu presto V.E. che persona del mondo. Ma che ad ogni modo fornito che egli avesse un quadrettino che fa ad uno Roberteto del re di Francia, farebbe subito il ritratto e lo manderebbe a V.E. ... II quadrettino che fa 6 una madonna che siede come se volesse inaspare fusi, e il bambino, posto il piede nel canestrino dei fusi, ha preso I'aspo e mira attentamente quei quattro raggi che sono in forma di croce, e come desideroso di essa croce ride e tienla salda non la volendo cedere alla mamma che pare gliela voglia torre." The date of April 4 given by Calvi is impossible and most likely an erratum for April 9, as Dr. Gronau already assumed.

together a subtle and sober harmony. The desolate landscape is yellow brown, the sea and sky green-blue. It is interesting to notice the veil, folded like a turban over the head, the edge reaching the eyebrows (which are always lacking in Leonardo's juvenile figures); the whole being held together by two short scarves, fastened to one another at the forehead and twisted at the temples. The connoisseur of Leonardo's work will recognize from these details that there can be no doubt that the Buccleuch Madonna is the original; none of the replicas has anything like the same delicacy.

The shortened right shoulder of the Virgin, in spite of damage caused by repainting, proves remarkable anatomical knowledge. In the Madonna's left hand the middle and fore- fingers are spread as they appear for the first time in Leonardo's works in the cartoon of Isabella d'Este and in the Gioconda; later this feature became a pattern for Titian and others. The right hand appears heavy, but this is true of the hands in several pictures by Leonardo. Other details recall his other works; the rock of chalk, which may be studied on PLATE II, B, is closely related to those in many studies and paintings; the position of the seated Virgin is nearly the same in the cartoon of St. Anne, the falling shoulder of the Child reappears in the Leda and in the St. John, the head of the Virgin is very similar to the St. Anne in the Louvre.

Even the religious motive of this composition, unique in the history of art, is plainly Leonardo's own and corresponds with the B6nois Madonna which I entitled as early as I911, The Madonna with the Cross-flower. There the smiling mother offers to her Child a flower of the family of the cruciferae, and the young Christ is by the cross form of the blos- som reminded of his death. In the Buccleuch picture, Leonardo places in the hands of Christ another reminder of his passion, a yarn-winder through which, in accurate accordance with theological tradition, the divine Child recognizes sooner than his mother the symbol of his passion. It is characteristic of Leonardo's taste that he always uses religious symbols, such as might be

expected to interest a child. The cruciferous- flower and the cross formed by the winder are both the centre of the composition, the

object towards which eyes and hands are most directly turned; hence for this composition the title Madonna with the Yarn- Winder-Madonna dell' Aspo is adequate.3

The rough and clumsy landscape of the Buccleuch Madonna contrasts strongly with

3 I have found this kind of winder still in use in the valley of the Arno.

62



apaTzLl,l alIt)Zt a?ia 8a1M suvopPbf ssopeuoal *I 8leld

(qDnaloong Jo aana atJL.) ws 8@99 Aq tus ?@8b 'laued !ou! ep opJeuoa-I Xq se paylluapl aJatl 'sapul,l1 U1?2 9'/ 8/1X DUUOpPIt'



A Madonna with the Yarn Winder, here describeed as a copv, by a pupil of Leonardo, of the picture shown oln PLATE I. Canvas, 48.3 cm. by 35.5 cm. (F'ormerly in the collection of Lord Battersea)

Bg Detail of PLATE I, showing rock to the right of the pi(ture

Plate II. Leonardo's iliadonna vvith the Yarn Wsinder



Leonardo's unique qualities; it can therefore not have been painted by himself, and is indeed quite obviously a dauber's work. It is solely on account of its landscape that the Battersea replica [PLATE II, A] is usually preferred.4

Indeed, the Battersea landscape is absolutely Leonardesque, and its planning is masterful and similar to that of the Gioconda. There is the same rocky valley of a tortuous river, crossed by a stone bridge, the same necks of land covered with bushes, and in the background a sheet of water covered with haze, and above all there are Leonardo's usual phantastic rocky mountains. But the execution is beyond all doubt that of a pupil: the disturbed forms of the background spoil the group.

Of course, the Madonna's head is nothing if not pretty, but its beauty has something decidedly vulgar, the forms are less precise and the curls more deliberately symmetrical. A graduated but slightly gaudy blue is the dominating colour, the carnation is a kind of yellow-rose-all quite devoid of the spirit of Leonardo. The painter must have conscien- tiously copied the details, but he has missed the impression made by the whole. The design is heavy and uncertain; the head of the Child, his right hand and the mother's left are posi- tively wrong in drawing. The limbs are clumsy, the coherence of the forms is missing, the folds are at once too weak and too angular, not adhering to the figure, principally the knot of drapery under the right hand. The right shoulder of the Virgin seems almost mutilated. The little triangle of the bodice is lacking. The winder stands perpendicular, not inclined, and its cross-beam has not been foreshortened. Among other details I should draw attention to the rock which is carefully copied, but is far from equal to that in the Buccleuch Madonna, [PLATE II, B]. The crumbling stones are missing in the copy. To the right of them a tiny stream of water trickles down the fissures of the stone. The trained eye, comparing these details in the two panels, will easily recognize the inferior quality of the widely-praised Battersea painting.

Returning to the Buccleuch Madonna, we have to admit its very evident defects. All are due to repaintings, hitherto unnoticed; the sharp silhouette of the Madonna and the rock,

4 This painting was once the property of Lady Lansdowne, was bought by Lord Battersea at Christie's, was exhibited at the New Gallery in I893-94 and is now in America. When I saw it in I9iI at Wildenstein's, it had been relined, cleaned, restored and altered in several details. The loin cloth had been removed, the restored two fingers of the Madonna's left hand had been cleaned off, the folds smoothed out, the veil on the bosom altered, and the piece of rock under the Child's foot made visible. The total impression was pleasant but overtrim, so that this important copy had largely been deprived of its original value. I am indebted to M. Wildenstein for kind information and for a photo of picture in its present state.

the barren foreground, the absence of phantastic forms in the mountains and of aerial per- spective, the inclined sea surface, the deeper shadows of the rocks near their outlines; the fact that all parts of the landscape are lighted directly from the left, whereas the light falls on the figures and on the rocky seat rather from the left above. The sky is a disorderly daub. The head of the Virgin has been painted round about with the pigment used for the sky, so that strips of the veils and the curls have dis- appeared. The curls of the Child have been spoiled by the painting of the sea, and have been repainted in a colour which has grown black. The outlines of His left arm have been damaged by painting the background. Since no artist paints sky and landscape round the finished figures, evidently the former must have been repainted. The cracks in all original parts, figures, rock, veils and bodice, are fine. In the sky they are painted over and new long parallel cracks are visible.

If we examine the panel sideways, we see that the parts representing the flesh and the rock are lower than the landscape, proving that the latter has been painted over. The surface of the blue cloak is very high and the cracks are deep, presumably the result of a thick var- nish. Even in the face of the Virgin there are seen strokes of glazing by another hand. The little triangle of blue at the bosom is a repaint. At the throat of the Madonna something has been restored, which had been destroyed by ironing down the peeling paint there. One can still see the marks of the linen cloth used for that purpose. It is just discernible in the photograph.

There is no doubt that beneath the present landscape is another, the same which we see in the Battersea copy, but of course softer and less obtrusive in the details. I could even recognize in a few parts the original landscape covered by the repainter-there are high forms of mountains to the right, a piece of plateau besides the right shoulder of the Virgin, the original lines of the landscape below the cross- beam, etc. Another argument in favour of this theory is afforded by several old copies of the Buccleuch picture which nevertheless show many details of the Battersea landscape. The original must have been painted over about 200 years ago, because at the Musde Napoldon there was a good copy of it on a copper plate, with the same landscape which is to be seen now in the Buccleuch painting.

It is, however, very doubtful whether the basket of spindles has also been painted over by the dauber; there hardly seems to be enough room for it below the projecting part of the rock. An X-ray photograph would probably

67



reveal all these repaintings. We have only one original study for this

Madonna (Windsor, No. 12514), which is reproduced here for the first time with the gracious permission of H.M. The King [PLATE III, A]5 It has first of all been sketched with a bone-point, and is actually drawn in dark red chalk on reddish tinted paper, 22 cm. by I5.5 cm. The drawing is admirable, with excellent harmony of line, masterly shortening of the shoulder, and a rare anatomical knowledge expressed through the delicate modelling, and the depiction of the puffed sleeves is full of charm. The line of the neck and shoulder is very similar to that of the Madonna and- St. Anne (cartoon of I5oi) and the bust of the Cecilia Gallerani (Cracovia). Gianpetrino used this drawing on a sheet of feeble studies (Venice Academy) [PLATE III, B]. W. Hollar, 1646, etched this bust (Parthey Catalogue, No. I589), adding another study of a head by Leonardo, viz., Windsor, No. I2533. At Windsor, too, is a study of the head [PLATE III, c] of this Madonna (No. I2663), in red chalk, on white paper, 20 cm. by 15.4 cm., not well drawn but Leonardesque, which must be a copy by a pupil. The reverse of the sheet has notes and drawings by Leonardo.

Of copies of the Madonna with the Yarn- Winder, I know about twenty. The truest of them, and the only one made in the master's workshop, is the Battersea picture. It cannot have been executed by Sodoma, who was a more vigorous, as well as a more subtle, artist than the one responsible for this particular version.

In the history of the original several details can be ascertained. Florimond Robertet, who ordered the picture and was mentioned by Leonardo in I50I, was treasurer and secretary of Charles VIII, Louis XII and FranCois I. He was a lover of the fine arts, and the Signoria of Florence presented him with the David in bronze by Michel Angelo. Leonardo seems to have accepted the commission in November-

5 I am much obliged to the Hon. J. W. Fortescue, Keeper of the Royal Library, for the gift of this photograph.

SIAMESE ART BY ROGER FRY

ESSRS. YAMANAKA have brought together a small collection of specimens of Siamese art, which is something of a novelty for the London amateur, though

it has been fairly well known to Parisian collectors for some time. It is distinctly a com- pound art which has received many influences from different quarters, but the Siamese artists have known how to fuse these into a consistent

reveal all these repaintings. We have only one original study for this

Madonna (Windsor, No. 12514), which is reproduced here for the first time with the gracious permission of H.M. The King [PLATE III, A]5 It has first of all been sketched with a bone-point, and is actually drawn in dark red chalk on reddish tinted paper, 22 cm. by I5.5 cm. The drawing is admirable, with excellent harmony of line, masterly shortening of the shoulder, and a rare anatomical knowledge expressed through the delicate modelling, and the depiction of the puffed sleeves is full of charm. The line of the neck and shoulder is very similar to that of the Madonna and- St. Anne (cartoon of I5oi) and the bust of the Cecilia Gallerani (Cracovia). Gianpetrino used this drawing on a sheet of feeble studies (Venice Academy) [PLATE III, B]. W. Hollar, 1646, etched this bust (Parthey Catalogue, No. I589), adding another study of a head by Leonardo, viz., Windsor, No. I2533. At Windsor, too, is a study of the head [PLATE III, c] of this Madonna (No. I2663), in red chalk, on white paper, 20 cm. by 15.4 cm., not well drawn but Leonardesque, which must be a copy by a pupil. The reverse of the sheet has notes and drawings by Leonardo.

Of copies of the Madonna with the Yarn- Winder, I know about twenty. The truest of them, and the only one made in the master's workshop, is the Battersea picture. It cannot have been executed by Sodoma, who was a more vigorous, as well as a more subtle, artist than the one responsible for this particular version.

In the history of the original several details can be ascertained. Florimond Robertet, who ordered the picture and was mentioned by Leonardo in I50I, was treasurer and secretary of Charles VIII, Louis XII and FranCois I. He was a lover of the fine arts, and the Signoria of Florence presented him with the David in bronze by Michel Angelo. Leonardo seems to have accepted the commission in November-

5 I am much obliged to the Hon. J. W. Fortescue, Keeper of the Royal Library, for the gift of this photograph.

SIAMESE ART BY ROGER FRY

ESSRS. YAMANAKA have brought together a small collection of specimens of Siamese art, which is something of a novelty for the London amateur, though

it has been fairly well known to Parisian collectors for some time. It is distinctly a com- pound art which has received many influences from different quarters, but the Siamese artists have known how to fuse these into a consistent

December, 1499, at Milan. The painting, though well advanced by April, I501, must have been finished several years later, which can be proved by two facts. In April, I5oI, Leonardo was on good terms with the court of France. On July 29, I50I, he was still in receipt of the rent of his vineyard, but in the following year the latter seems to have been confiscated; we know that it was restored to the master in April, I507. If the panel had been delivered in I501 or at any time during the following years, the influence of Robertet would assuredly have prevented the confiscation. But as a matter of fact I believe we know the exact date on which the Madonna was delivered. Francesco Pandol- fino, Ambassador of Florence at Blois, wrote on January 12, I507, to the Signoria: " The King has a passionate desire that Leonardo should serve him immediately, and paint several little Madonnas or the King's portrait." Pandolfino continues: " And all this has been occasioned by a little painting by his hand, recently brought hither and esteemed to be a very excellent work."6 Therefore, in January, 1507, the first picture by Leonardo went to the royal court at Blois; but this picture was not the King's property, or he would not have expressed a desire to acquire a similar painting; it must therefore have belonged to a courtier, i.e., Robertet, whose Madonna was mentioned by Leonardo himself. As the picture was not included in the inventory of Robertet's effects, drawn up in 1532, presumably it had become the property of Francois I.

The Buccleuch Madonna was probably pur- chased by Mary, Duchess of Montagu, who married Henry, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch. The panel is mentioned in an old Manuscript List, which the Duke assumes to have written about 1770.

May this precious work, cleaned from repaintings, soon take the place of honour which is due to an original by Leonardo, painted at the same time as the Mona Lisa!

6 Et tutto questo ^ nato da un piccol quadro suto condocto ultimamente di qua di mano sua; quale ^ suto tenuto cosa molto excellente.

December, 1499, at Milan. The painting, though well advanced by April, I501, must have been finished several years later, which can be proved by two facts. In April, I5oI, Leonardo was on good terms with the court of France. On July 29, I50I, he was still in receipt of the rent of his vineyard, but in the following year the latter seems to have been confiscated; we know that it was restored to the master in April, I507. If the panel had been delivered in I501 or at any time during the following years, the influence of Robertet would assuredly have prevented the confiscation. But as a matter of fact I believe we know the exact date on which the Madonna was delivered. Francesco Pandol- fino, Ambassador of Florence at Blois, wrote on January 12, I507, to the Signoria: " The King has a passionate desire that Leonardo should serve him immediately, and paint several little Madonnas or the King's portrait." Pandolfino continues: " And all this has been occasioned by a little painting by his hand, recently brought hither and esteemed to be a very excellent work."6 Therefore, in January, 1507, the first picture by Leonardo went to the royal court at Blois; but this picture was not the King's property, or he would not have expressed a desire to acquire a similar painting; it must therefore have belonged to a courtier, i.e., Robertet, whose Madonna was mentioned by Leonardo himself. As the picture was not included in the inventory of Robertet's effects, drawn up in 1532, presumably it had become the property of Francois I.

The Buccleuch Madonna was probably pur- chased by Mary, Duchess of Montagu, who married Henry, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch. The panel is mentioned in an old Manuscript List, which the Duke assumes to have written about 1770.

May this precious work, cleaned from repaintings, soon take the place of honour which is due to an original by Leonardo, painted at the same time as the Mona Lisa!

6 Et tutto questo ^ nato da un piccol quadro suto condocto ultimamente di qua di mano sua; quale ^ suto tenuto cosa molto excellente.

style with its own peculiar flavour. As we might expect from their mixed Khmer and Lao origins, the Siamese practised an art which derived mainly from the Khmer tradition. Indeed, it seems difficult to draw any clear dividing line between the two arts in the earlier periods.

The Khmer empire was a Brahman theocracy which began to take a dominant position in Cambodgia about the ninth century of our era.

style with its own peculiar flavour. As we might expect from their mixed Khmer and Lao origins, the Siamese practised an art which derived mainly from the Khmer tradition. Indeed, it seems difficult to draw any clear dividing line between the two arts in the earlier periods.

The Khmer empire was a Brahman theocracy which began to take a dominant position in Cambodgia about the ninth century of our era.

68 68



A Study for the Madonna with the Ycarn Winder hy Leonardo. Red chalk on tinted paper, 22 cm. by I5.5 cm. (Windsor Castle)

B- Copy, of study shown above, by Gianpetrino. (Accademia, Venice)

C Study for the Madonna with the Yarn b[inder. Copy by a pupil of Leonardo. Red chalk on white paper, 20 cm. by I5.4 cm. (Windsor Castle)

Plate III. Leonardo's Madonna with the Yarn Winder



leonardo's madonna with the yarn winder

Documents