brought into somewhat undue prominence by unkind dissection. But if Zenale has gained in richness of colour, depth of tone, and a more 'modern' feeling (especially in the male heads), he has lost some of the qualities of modelling which give relief to the portrait in the Bergamo diptych, and the mechanical drawing of the hands and set expressions on the faces no longer show the imaginative power of his St. Michael. Probably twenty or thirty years separate these works, and in the interval Leonardo had arisen to disconcert the native mind. If for no other reason, Borgognone cannot have painted these groups, for of all the Milanese artists he is almost alone in pursuing his way to the end (he died in 1523) without becoming a Leonardesque shadow of himself. Fortunately he is well enough represented in the National Gallery to allow some other artist the credit of having produced these attractive groups, and Zenale's name suggests itself as the most likely solution of a puzzling problem. We are on surer ground in assigning to Zenale a full-length portrait of a lady belonging to Mr. George Donaldson.7 This is almost certainly a likeness of Bona of Savoy, wife of Duke Galeazzo Sforza; as it is painted in tempera on canvas and somewhat effaced, the charming effect of the original is lost in reproduction, but it nevertheless appeals by the decorative scheme of pattern, and by the simplicity of its pose. Modelling of bust, drawing of hands, and treatment of profile are characteristic of Zenale rather than of Ambrogio de Predis, to whom, when exhibited at the Milanese exhibition in 1898, this portrait was attributed; and indeed it is no easy task to discriminate between these artistic cousins, the more so as each was employed as court painter and at the same period, and consequently pourtrays the same people. There is good reason to suspect that if de Predis is really author of 7 Reproduced on page 207 the unattractive portrait of Bianca Maria Sforza, lately in the possession of Dr. Lippmann at Berlin, then its variant in the Arconati collection at Paris may be by Zenale. At any rate two different hands can be detected in these two portraits of Bianca Maria.8 A more difficult problem of identification has arisen with regard to Beatrice d'Este's various portraits. It is certain that she is represented kneeling opposite her husband Lodovico il Moro in the altarpiece in the Brera at Milan,9 formerly attributed to Zenale, and afterwards to Bernardino de' Conti. She it is, again, whose uncouth likeness is seen in the Pitti at Florence, clearly painted by a different hand from the last. 10 If the former be by Zenale, then the latter may be, as Morelli thought, an old copy after de Predis; but very great difficulty arises in adopting this view, and it is far more probable that we possess in the Pitti picture Zenale's likeness of Beatrice, and that some other painter introduced into the Brera altarpiece the portraits of the royal family, completing a work which may have been begun by Zenale. I think it most likely that this puzzling picture is really the work of two hands, and that the solution of much dispute as to the authorship may be found in this compromise. It is certain that Lodovico and Beatrice employed Bernardino de' Conti to paint royal portraits, for we have the likeness of the youthful Francesco Sforza by his hand in the Vatican gallery," and I believe that the same hand may be recognized in the portraits of the Brera altarpiece, dating from the close of 1495. 8 A reproduction of the Lippmann picture is given in the Illustrated Milanese Catalogue, Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1898; the Arconati example was lately published in Les Arts, July 1903. Reproduced on page 203. 10 Dr. Bode, Morelli, and Mrs. Ady (whose special studies of Milanese iconography give particular value to her opinion) all agree that this is Beatrice. There is a poor copy of this portrait at Christ Church, Oxford, and not the original, as Signor Venturi strangely asserts. 11 Signed and dated 1496. Lipp n the me b trice that tar Zenale's capacity as a portrait painter is, however, admirably shown in a painting which has long been in England unrecognized and forgotten. This is the profile portrait of a young lady,12 in the possession of Mr. Newall, at Rickmansworth, who allowed it to be seen this winter at the Burlington Fine Arts Club. Its Milanese character is evident at first glance, whilst the costume, the hair brought smoothly over the temples, the fillet across the forehead, the extraordinary pig-tail, and the ornamental net-work round the neck, are exactly repeated in the last-mentioned portrait of Beatrice in the Brera altarpiece. This is not, however, Beatrice, nor is the hand that of Bernardino de' Conti, but we have, I believe, the likeness of a lady celebrated in history as the mistress of Lodovico il Moro, and in art as the subject of one of Leonardo's portraits. This is Lucrezia Crivelli, a lady of high degree at the Milanese court, whose liaison with Lodovico caused the young duchess Beatrice much grief, and whose romantic story invests this portrait with peculiar interest.13 She here seems to be about twenty-five years of age, and from the style we may conclude that Zenale painted her about 1490-later, that is, than the Treviglio altarpiece of 1485, and before the Louvre Circumcision of 1491.14 It may be objected that this is mere conjecture on my part; there is no proof, someone will say, that this is Lucrezia Crivelli, or that the painting is by Zenale. I readily admit there is no documentary proof of either statement; there rarely is any in the case of these old-world portraits; but, short of such legal proof, there is sufficient cumulative evidence to warrant a working hypothesis which must be accepted until disproved. In this case, for instance, there exists a very curious piece of evidence, which it is hard to explain on Zenale as a Portrait Painter any other hypothesis but that this is really Lucrezia Crivelli. The portrait, it seems, was traditionally ascribed to Crivelli! The absurdity of such an attribution is so evident-no layman would connect it with Venetian art-that its very extravagance rouses curiosity. This is not another instance of the generic name supplanting the specific, or of a plausible likeness of an accidental kind accounting for some wild attribution; there is absolutely nothing to explain Crivelli's name on the label except that 400 years' tradition has miscarried, and that the portrait of a Crivelli has been confounded with a painting by Crivelli. Again, tradition has it that the so-called Belle Ferronnière of the Louvre,15 attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, is the portrait of Lucrezia Crivelli. It is notoriously difficult to identify likenesses when one is in profile and the other full-face, but it appears to me (to put it at its lowest) that the identity is quite possible, the Louvre picture representing her a few years later than the other. I would point to the high cheekbones, the thick nose, the well-marked chin, and the forehead and hair, as plausibly alike in each case, and leave the reader to decide whether or no the identity is probable.16 Admitting, however, that there is no inherent impossibility in reconciling these likenesses, we find that the Crivelli tradition in each case is not to be lightly dismissed, and I would go so far as to say that the only explanation possible of this two-fold tradition lies in the hypothesis of identity of person. Dates again very well agree. For if Zenale (as already suggested from the style of painting) produced his likeness of Lucrezia about 1490, and the Belle Ferronnière can be put about 1496, most people would, I think, agree that, in appearance, a difference of five to ten years separates these two portraits, Zenale representing a woman of 16 Reproduced on page 114 (frontispiece). 16 The resemblances of dress, ornamentation, etc., are no evidence, except that both these ladies conformed to the court fashion which is also seen in Beatrice's portrait. When, however, the two pictures are judged as works of art, there is a gulf fixed which no difference of age can explain. Zenale treats his subject attractively enough, and he had just sufficient skill to give individuality to the person without altogether losing himself or her in decorative detail. Elaboration of accessories is, however, the cardinal note in the picture. Turn to the Belle Ferronnière. What subtlety of characterization, what distinction, what charm! We are fascinated (that is the word always for Leonardo), and we come back time after time to gaze spellbound by the magic of his terious power. Let those who deny Leonardo's hand in this portrait live with the finest paintings of Boltraffio, or Luini, or Solario, and then return to La Belle Ferronnière, and if the overwhelming greatness of Leonardo is not instantly felt in presence of this mystery then no words will ever convince.17 mys Zenale then stands before us as a portraitpainter of recognized position among the Lombard artists of his time; and as the testimony of the oldest writers agrees in stating that he was held in esteem by none other than Leonardo himself, it is clear that he was an artist of some distinction. It is on record that he lived to the age of ninety, dying in 1526, and that in later life he held 17 I take this opportunity of fully retracting my former pub. lished opinion that Boltraffio was author of this painting. The best account of it is to be found in an article by M. Gruyer in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1887, pp. 462-467. the honourable position of architect to the cathedral in Milan, although (as Vasari adds) 'la sua prima e principal arte fu la pittura.'18 A long list of paintings, many in fresco, might be given which more or less approximate to his style as revealed in the examples here published, but it would serve no cause to discuss at present such paintings when his very name is unknown to the world at large, and even students are found to-day to re-echo Morelli's mistaken view, "über die Bedeutung dieses Meisters bleiben wir duchaus im Dunkeln."19 Fortunately Herr von Seidlitz has given us a study of the master which deserves wider recognition than it has hitherto received, and this, though published some years ago, anticipates some of the results of more modern and independent work now published in these articles. 20 'On the ground of this material,' he rightly concludes, and with the additional help of the scattered notices of Zenale's life and works, we are enabled to get a clearer picture of this artist than of any other Lombard painter with the single exception of Foppa.' 18Life of Garofalo,' VI, 514. Vasari tells us practically nothing else about him, an omission which is characteristic of his ignorance on the subject of Milanese painting in general. 19 Die Galerie zu Berlin,' p. 133 (1893). 20 See 'Gesammelte Studien zur Kunstgeschichte. Springer Festgabe. Leipsig. 1885. 1 I may cite for the benefit of English students a drawing in the British Museum representing Christ before Pilate, and bearing Zenale's name, the authenticity of which I see no reason to doubt. (Reproduced in "Archivio Storico dell' Arte," 1897, P. 351.) Also two full-length saints in Sir Frederick Cook's gallery at Richmond, to which my attention was only recently called by Signor Corrado Ricci, who rightly recognized their connexion with Zenale, of whom as a fact they are typical examples. Mr. Vernon Watney possesses a small variation of the Brera altarpiece, but I am not convinced in this case as to the correctness of attribution, although it is remarkable to find Zenale's name traditionally attached to this puzzling little work. भ PORTRAIT OF ANDREA DA NOVELLI, BISHOP OF ALBA, BY BERNARDO MARTINI (ZENALE); IN THE BORROMEO COLLECTION AT MILAN PORTRAIT OF BEATRICE D'ESTE; DETAIL OF AN ALTARPIECE IN THE BRERA GALLERY, MILAN |
