Leonardo da Vinci Self-portrait
Bit gentler form of a famous, observed on almost twenty generations, characteristic of Habsburg family – both jaw and the lower lip sticking out towards the front. One can ask a question: Where’s the place for general enchantment there, as Vasari wrote, upon his phenomenal beauty? Even presuming, that an average good-looking citizen of Renaissance Florence, Milan or other Italian city thoroughly soaking through then with the culture of ancient Greece and Rome, differed himself considerably with his appearance, for example from Michelangelo (to show more distinct features among contemporary, rather ugly than handsome men) so where and when, as not there and then young Leonardo, with his appearance cohering rather to Olympian hero than effeminate fop as others want to see him today, could arise so exceptional admiration of him at fellow-citizens, with equally renaissance taste yet, though the more modest conditions.
My hypothetical portrait in here could be for example the “blue-eyed blond”. In Italy such a one gains more right of existence than it loses – because exceptional there, and also not so distant, from imagery of the good taste of that time, having peeped for example on Lucius Apuleius imagery in “Metamorphoses” – the Roman alteration of Greek original by Lukios from Patrai:
“…Really then, it’s Lucius! (…) It’s the same alive kind-heartedness and reliability of his most kindly mother Salvia! And bodily perfect is his beauty: the quite suitable is his growth, slender, though not thin in measure, ruddy complexion, bright hair and without some strange hairstyles, sure has blue eyes but bright and shiny, quite the eagle-like, a whole face brisk, the lordly walk and natural.”
Here the renaissance reader of the merchant’s Republic, gets to know the author, – the Corinthian merchant transformed into nothing else but the donkey, which portrays the most horrid human features of characters, observed in his wanderings.
Paradoxically, who knows? Maybe instead of the searching for Leonard’s traces of finger prints or saliva on cards of his manuscripts, just gens coding the color of eyes and hair would be more essential facilitation in identification possible remnants of Leonardo (?)
Such marvelous possibilities probably are far before us, because gens today exist more theoretically rather than practically. And despite, that the magazine “Science” already in 1968 trumpeted the end of genetics is very nigh, while we today, still have a sequence, or just a list of “spare parts” (circa 35000 gens of human genome – vide Bill Bryson “A Really Short Story of Nearly Everything”) not having a clue, how it really works. Expected by editors of “Science” leaflet containing a complete set of information on proteins (including us, humans) surely rests on the desk, but of our Lord instead and it’s doubtful, we will ever brows it page by page. The barrier here is an abyss, separating the simplest multiplication and then tormenting over a vivid cell, from real constructing (creating) even one, “the simplest” of them. Then, we may add to our gallery of exceptional subsets of living matter, from the good few thousand years of watching at, and then… eaten (livers, stomachs, pancreas, mutton’s brains, etc.) our genes which we have since recently been able to look at and …traditionally keep on fortune-telling. Undoubtedly this is progress, but if worth enough to cause that “trumpeting” in the media? A pinch of humility to these dreams of making eggs wiser than hen or, as one can prefer today – of “knocked down” mouse in a lab.
That grows like an epidemic nowadays, instead to stop kill each other, to stop oppress and eating… Isn’t that what for example today’s an average vegan, or vegetarian wants and what Leonardo himself has endeavored throughout his life? Then perhaps, even from vast Space would raise some hands to wave and start to talk with us. For now, as I presume, only from those less brainy than our Civilizations, to which unfortunately, we might need to get to by ourselves, to start trumpet “in situ” (like once among us on Earth, as some claim). So, as if there wouldn’t be time in this rat race, blindfolded and in darkness, trying to catch a gen, I assure, that there is enough time for both – for the voyage and trumpeting over there. And in addition if without God and faith then, the Crown of Creation no more belongs to us, so what can we count on trumpeting in the so-called Space? Every buzzing there with our earthly intellect will only raise a pan galactic laughter in the hall – the history of the DNA helix is about heavens older, than ours barely a half-century consciousness of its existence. We, the humans, who claim we’ve already got whole knowledge about ourselves, have to keep fall asleep though, in total unconsciousness which sadly takes us nearly a half of our not that long life, despite of constant efforts to prolong it.
In the contrary, human brain (mysterious and maybe of use sometime in the future, in this half) – it behaves, as if it hasn’t been a subject to the cyclicality of earthly changes…
Memento mori My Friend, keep on searching, to get to what to ask about on the other side, as long as you will have an opportunity, that is …you’re not gonna messing up more than great grandfather Adam, experienced once by God Creator throughout one sleep – it was the first in our story (sleep and grandfather). Before the poor man woke up – there was Eve, then all the rest we try to find out ourselves – the history of Man (with missing link)
If to seek to be effective, how not to point onto the Bible, in which the world is so homely and much less capacious than this expanding to nowhere balloon inside which, they deign us to an official science with always-on supporters and their hot opponents. However, with today’s difference – more arguments are fading in favor of moving, colorful images, that are easier to convince. Lasts in exchange mockery and mutual ridicule, confirming only that old, indisputable fact, that unfortunately for both – for one and the other side equally, in face of traditional unknowns, invariably is accompanying and so far must be enough – the daily perceiving of world and our presence in it as something obvious, nay! – Entirely due us.
Our existential dilemma whether will come for us a moment at one time to account for? In a word, whether we received keys “the Earth and surroundings” on our own responsibility? – is staying in our consciences concerning exclusively extrasensory cognitions, that is with certainty the faith and just the intuition, which Leonardo da Vinci will more appreciate only at close of his lifetime, always with his feet on Terra firma (still flat in his times). I do not want to be judgemental here, but it’s worth, I suppose, to mention what we have been through, and where we are after five hundred years since Leonardo’s death – I would say it is much nicer to return to his times.
So, if to follow the track of materials collected by researchers farther (that is including ikonographical documentation attributed to the “Last Supper” as well) wouldn’t it be better, not to resign with some kind of experiment, which might be helpful, how it appears, in interpretation of well-known “Self-portrait” of Leonardo da Vinci, by the way undermining similar theses about other sketch, allegedly also showing Leonardo. Comparing the “Self-portrait” with one of sketches of apostles most thoroughly prepared by him – of the profile of St Bartholomew’s head, we are finding in both, one another answering constant points situated on the face (used in the anthropometry), of the accuracy being enough at attempts to make out the three-dimensional version of the portrait of the Master (look at illustrations). It is from the appearance not very visible resemblance (the age difference, the bushy facial hair, the different scale and direction of taking hold of the sitter) but is becoming more legible when to point to the analogous relation, besides of those kephalometrical points on the head – in descriptive characteristics of the head (today’s cefaloskopy) equally individual that is concerning its shape, the height and of tilting the forehead, the breadth of the face, including a huge amount of details of morphological parts of the facial head (also of ears – these are mostly the same), concerning the mouth, eyes, the nose etc. to which so much paid attention Leonardo – everything together with circumstances, the profile of “Bartholomew” came into existence, (of them farther in the text) allows us for recognizing a considerable amount of other sketches with figures about similar, sometimes completely identical physiognomy, as really being born of scratches of Leonardo. And in that case, even the image of the “blue-eyed blonde man” wouldn’t be an exaggeration here with these obviously bright pupils and a lighter tone of hair on those sketches.
Something in the appearance of his face had to compensate after all for that defect of lower lip lightly sticking out, for juxtaposing chin or strongly marked cheek with the clearly visible bones and indications (still before the forty) of going bald, since indeed his look was also being admired. When to compare “Bartholomew” exclusively with remained, rather rough and ready sketches (of apostles heads) is almost higher than of painted portrait due to details worked out, achieved with the help of only a red chalk and the red background of a paper. At applying identical measures for the presentation of those, drawn with the distinct contour line, one can observe the modester effect and the precision of chiaroscuro modeling figure. It is possible to conclude here about the different amount of the devoted time of the artist, but also about the exceptional patience of the sitter in the first pattern. Bartholomew’s very calm, submerged in the melancholic reverie face, stays in quite a “free report” not to say doesn’t match at all to the tension and growing impatience described earlier by me about apostles on the left part of the stage of Leonardo’s “Last Supper”, therefore it is possible to establish, that instead to show Bartholomew’s head, that sketch was used by Master as the initial for getting the profile of completely different person of the drama he described then – for a figure long and without success sought – of the Judas.
It is worthwhile stopping a little bit longer at this thesis, postulating the being into those concrete, representations of Leonardo alone (today exists as a truth, rather hazy belief, that still as a young boy posed in the Verrocchio’s workshop to the figure of his bronze “David”, as well as from the profile printed in “Lives” of Vasari, where their author is very asserting talking about the inaccuracy in presenting features of artists, – hence probably that fallacious belief is put on as the shape of his profile) usually, if a profile of Leonardo is being talked about, is quoted mentioned earlier, made with analogous technique, as in the case of heads of apostles, an image of the man in the age of c. 35-45 years, signed (?), or rather, having only the inscription Leonardo (da) Vinci instead. The problem consists in the fact, that both portraits (self-portraits) are mutually exclusive showing differences in situating those essential points on the head and differences regarding somatoskopy (cefaloskopy) ), but talking more clearly – they are lacking natural in such a coincidence of resemblance of features – of the simple similarity in the appearance, besides the exception of hair, actually the way of arranging them. By overdelicate scratches of the face theoretically he could point at the idealization concrete who knows originally of his own physiognomy (been put back finally) in his searches of traits of the Saviour to the “Last Supper” (?).
According to his notes, to the face of the Christ was also taken into consideration – “(…) count Giovanni from the family of the cardinal Mortare…”( Forster II, 3 verso). In the other sketch, of the indisputable authorship and undoubtedly considered to present the head of the Christ one can see the more clearly entire row of resemblances and similarities of many “registered” by him faces, of which proportion and mutual situating details proves both for proficiencies and correctness in presenting their natural beauty, as well as for perseverance in the laborious track of such searches (especially in the case of head of the Judas ). The excellent quality of copying and the anatomical conformity – suitability, ( beside him only Michaelangelo in his works took such a control), affords the defining and the verification (thanks to his numerous, orthogonal takings in sketches) of considerable number of anthropometrical points on hypothetical at least, outline of his head (is neither a novelty nor a secret, that also around a few hundred of his only bizarre and grotesque prepared sketches – either invented or taken from the reality heads , it is possible to appoint the shared part – set of certain features, dominating among others).
In 1927 The 3rd International Anthropological Congress, established full standardization of techniques and synonymous definitions of such points. They also concern those soft parts of head, not located in the rigorous report to lying under them bone structures. With the matter of French Revolution, researchers don’t possess Leonardo’s remains – if those remains were found the problem wouldn’t exist. However definitions of such points (how they were discussed on the congress) to speak of a given anatomical structure – should specify the most starting explanation by a drawing. The one whereas how I think, in the case of Leonardo shouldn’t wake any doubts up. His anatomical studies are well-known from a period he cooperated with Marcantonio della Torre, the academic teacher of medicine of university in Pavia, the quality of these drawings is unanimously determined as: going beyond of required in the scientific demonstration. About long-term try, in quest for the right face, for the devotion to the divinity of the Christ and her opposite, the despicable face of the Judas, wrote Giorgio Vasari quoting (with a little probability of truth in its end) story about the intrusive prior of the monastery and his complaints to the prince about the slowness in work of the Master –
“(…) Leonardo seeing that the prince is clever and prudent, discussed
the matter with him, (…).He added, that for him only two heads stayed to prepare: of Christ, to whom he didn’t
meet the pattern still on the world, and isn’t expecting, his imagination would be in the bodice to understand
the beauty and the heavenly favour which impersonated the divinity; apart from that stayed for him to per-
form head of the Judas and he would like to do it but he isn’t yet sure he could for himself depict it well because
it is the one who betrayed the Creator of the world. To get this one he is looking around everywhere and if not
for better foundling will portray the head of that unbearable and stupid prior. (G. Vasari “Lives…”).
In measure of the expiring years, the way into which Leonardo was in the habit of working by the mural, would make impatient even Benedictine monks. If to believe contemporary for artist relations, was able through a few of hours, only to stand and to muse in front of the painting. Days were, that for the moment flowed, to draw one thing with brush to mend something and immediately left the refectory. In the third chapter of his “Treaty…” is writing to this topic:
“..and is undoubted, that attitude and keeping the form requires more intellectual speculation than for a good painting; because it is possible to attain it through imitating the living figure. However moves for the figure should be a result of the deep deliberation of creative mind.”
One should add, that Leonardo as the only around contemporary authors never had been taken a module in the human figure, leaning always on rich comparative material juxtaposed in his sketchbook.
More and more often urged by superiors of the monastery, and earlier by his employer himself – prince Lodovico, was forced to peel a little bit different way of searches to appropriate presentation the last of the figure of apostles and at the same time for the perpetrator of those how dramatic events – Judas Iskariot. To date faithful for patterns carrying out from the nature can give, he didn’t find and didn’t want to commemorate anybody, as the most tragic amongst traitors. He acted most sensibly finally, transposing his own, idealized physiognomy into the deformed profile of the cruel man. In “working” portrait of Judas beside a technique of performance, stayed proportion of “Bartholomew”, arrangement of both heads with account of bars, and details of faces which are coming most often amongst sketched with hand of Leonardo (male) figures. By character of both presentations and by conscious exaggerations, he would appear as illustrating his own words directed to painters:
“The painting or rather depicted figures should to be shown in such a way, the spectator could easily guess from their moves the thought, their ghost. If you are supposed to show a honest talking man, try to give him moves which are accompanying good words; still alone, if you have to show the violent man, make him with strange movements, reproaching shoulders towards the listener, and head with the breast, leaning over the base of legs, let accompany hands of talking one .(…)For all whereas [remember], in order to participants of the coincidence described in the composition, if they show with their attitude admiration, pain, suspicion, fear or joy appropriately to a form and content which the group is supposed to show or their probable grouping. (…) States of mind are bringing the face up to different ways of a human.(…) One is showing anger, other mercy; the one is surprised, another feared, one different is showing the dullness, other thought and the mind. Those states of mind should to be agreeable with the face, as well as with hands and the entire attitude. “
Probably from the beginning conscious of the admiration by contemporaries, as for virtues of outstanding mind, as well as for of wonderful silhouette (at Vasari’s “Lives” we are reading, that personal charm and mildness combined with unusual fisical power have always won for him the audience), would be Leonardo in the obvious disagreement with his own nature of researcher, omitting in his researches the beauty and the harmony in the human body – his own unusual person, in which majority, if not all craved features, appeared at the same time. So frequent in his works – that of melancholy of passing – of human reverie above with helplessness towards of passing time, he conceals not in well-known “Self-portrait” either, not without disputes recognized (Bernard Berenson questioned in it too advanced appearance of the Master, when compared with the age indeed been affected by his life period); definitely the one of the latest of his sketches. There, once keen observer and researcher of Nature, the inspired genius in describing it, seems to see glitter going out of value which earlier fascinated him and thrusted into action… “I wasted my hours ” – resigned himself, he will write in the end, putting more and more often back, his paints and brushes. This final chapter of Leonardo’s life, dominated the pessimism in contemplations and apocalyptic visions of the extermination of the world, being seen at the last handwritten sketches.