But Dr. Richter, with more show of probability, suggests the date 1499, at which time Trivulzio returned in triumph to his native. city, from which he had long been banished by Sforza. Some thought of defiance and of vengeance may have inspired him with the idea of erecting on his tomb a statue, less colossal in dimensions, but not less sumptuous, than that of Duke Francesco Sforza. An elaborate project in Leonardo's own handwriting proves that the monument was to have been most ornate. base, very richly worked, was to be flanked by columns with bronze capitals, and adorned with friezes, festoons, and pedestals, with six panels ("tavole") bearing figures and trophies (evidently in bas-relief, as on the tomb of Gaston de Foix), with six harpies bearing candelabra, and with eight figures (the Virtues?) at a price of 23 ducats each. The statue of the Marshal, valued at 150 ducats, was to The marble crown the monument. The whole cost was fixed at 3046 ducats, 432 for the models in clay and in wax, 200 for the iron framework and the mould, 500 for the bronze, and 450 for the polishing and chasing. These figures are not without interest in their bearing upon the history of bronze sculpture at the end of the fifteenth century.1 The bronze statuette of a horseman in the Thiers collection may perhaps have had some connection with this design. A competent critic, M. Molinier, does not hesitate to recognise in it the portrait of Trivulzio; he is of opinion that the statuette originated in Leonardo's 1 Richter, vol. ii., p. 15 et seq. atelier, and is much inclined to believe that the master himself worked upon it.1 Leonardo deemed himself equally skilled in sculpture and in painting "Seeing that I execute sculpture no less than painting, and that I practise the one in an equal degree with the other, it appears to me that I may, without reproach, pronounce an opinion as to which demands the more talent, skill and perfection." Nevertheless, he showed himself relatively hard upon the former branch of art, which he systematically subordinated to the latter, always laying stress upon the fact that sculpture demands more physical than intellectual labour. A whole series of sculptures of more than doubtful authenticity have been attributed to the master on the strength of these pronouncements. According to a contemporary critic, the marble bust of Beatrice d'Este, in the Louvre, should be included in the list of Leonardo's works. But it is now declared to be the work of Gian Cristoforo Romano.4 Another famous bust, the marvellous bas-relief of Scipio Africanus, bequeathed to the Louvre by M. Rattier, has also been ascribed to Leonardo, but on insufficient grounds.5 I have yet to mention the stucco bas-relief, Discord, in the South Kensington Museum, which M. Müller Walde has not hesitated to ascribe to Leonardo. The composition, it is true, is marked by all the fire, the spirit, and the inspiration so characteristic of the master. But the general arrangement seems to me too soft and facile. The predominance of the rich architectural background, again, an unprecedented feature in any authenticated work of Leonardo's, is not a reassuring detail. Note the colonnades, the domes, the arches, the galleries, the pseudo-classic palaces, etc. Discord, a spirited female figure, striding along, brandishes a long stick behind her, after the 1 Revue de l'Art ancien et moderne, 1897, vol. ii., p. 421 et seq., 1898, vol. i., p. 74. The horse has been restored by M. Frémiet. (See Charles Blanc, Collection d'Objets d'Art de M. Thiers, léguée au Musée du Louvre, Paris, 1884, p. 22.) 2 Trattato della Pittura, chap. 38. Cf. chaps. 35, 36. 3 Courajod, Conjectures à propos d'un Buste en Marbre de Béatrix d'Este au Musée du Louvre, Paris, 1877, Gazette des Beaux-Arts. 4 Venturi, Archivio storico dell' Arte, 1890. 5 See the article in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts, February, 1897. |
