In the same refectory, and while occupied with the Last Supper, Leonardo painted the portrait of the above-named Duke Ludovico, with that of his first-born son, Maximilian: these are on the wall opposite to that of the Last Supper, and where there is a Crucifixion painted after the old manner.[1] On the other side of the Duke is the portrait of the Duchess Beatrice, with that of Francesco, their second son: both of these princes were afterwards Dukes of Milan: the portraits are most admirably done.[2]
While still engaged with the paintings of the refectory, Leonardo proposed to the Duke to cast a horse in bronze of colossal size, and to place on it a figure of the Duke,[3] by way of monument to his memory: this he commenced, but finished the model on so large a scale that it never could be completed, and there were many ready to declare (for the judgments of men are various, and are sometimes rendered malignant by envy) that Leonardo had begun it, as he did others of his labours, without intending ever to finish it. The size of the work being such, insuperable difficulties presented themselves, as I have said, when it came to be cast; nay, the casting could not be effected in one piece, and it is very probable that, when this result was known, many were led to form the opinion alluded to above, from the fact that so many of Leonardo’s works had failed to receive com-
- ↑ The Crucifixion is by Gio Donato Montorsani.— Ed. Flor., 1832-8.
- ↑ These portraits are, nevertheless, declared to have been undertaken by Leonardo with much reluctance. They were painted m oil on the wall, and quickly perished. — See Padre Pino, Storia Genuina del Cenacolo, &c,, who quotes the Padre Gattico as his authority. In the Ambrosian Library, in Milan, there are portraits of Ludovico il Moro, and of his Duchess, Beatrice d’Este, both painted in oil by Ludovico. —See Passavant, Kunstreise, &c.
- ↑ Not of Ludovico himself, as the manner of the text would imply, but of his father, Francesco Sforza.
sion has almost become a mere name. Even in Vasari’s time, the humidity of the wall, or other causes, had produced a lamentable deterioration of the picture. Cleaning or restoration, the neglect of the monks, who even permitted a door to be broken through the feet of the central figure (that of the Saviour himself, of course), with the rough usage to which the monastery was subjected in time of war, have all done their part to produce the wreck so universally deplored. — See Storia Genuina del Cenacolo, &c. Amoretti, ut supra, Gallenberg, Vita di Leonardo, and other writers, none of whom can sufficiently lament the misfortune of art in what may be called the almost total loss of this noble work.
