Leonardo’s Ginevra de’Benci in a Poetic Context

Spring 2009

Introduction

To write a paper on one of Leonardo da Vinci’s works is a very challenging task since Leonardo wasn’t only a great painter and sculptor. He was also a scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, architect, botanist, musician and writer. Above all, Leonardo was the greatest teacher of the perfection of the imperfection and incompletion of man’s work. Thus, he tried to make his paintings perfect in their imperfection. He knew perfection in nature, life’s greatest painting. He was absorbing that perfection to a degree that made him decide to leave most of his works unfinished because he never reached satisfaction in imitating the perfection he envisioned.

Giorgio Vasari states that Leonardo was “too eager and that his constant search to add excellence to excellence and perfection to perfection was the reason why his work was slowed by his desire.” Vasari claims that Leonardo didn’t finish his projects because he felt “that his hand could not reach artistic perfection in the works he conceived, since he envisioned such subtle, marvelous, and difficult problems that his hands, while extremely skilful, were incapable of ever realizing them.” That is what happened when Leonardo was painting The Last Supper; when he decided to leave the head of Christ unfinished, “believing that he was incapable of achieving the celestial divinity the image of Christ required.”

Some might argue that Leonardo’s striving for perfection deceived him and made him a victim of both knowledge and perfection. Nevertheless, I will argue that Leonardo left most of his works unfinished for two reasons. First, he wanted the viewer to participate somehow in the painting and envision its last conceptual touch. That is why he provides codes and clues to search for interpretations beyond the painting. In other words, Leonardo motivates viewers to become innovators, like him.

Second, Leonardo was a visual poet and he wanted his paintings, specifically his portraits, to serve as poetic means to communicate the beauty and the reality of his sitters as individuals, symbols and ideals. That is why it took him so long to derive his themes from his head of his paintings, and this is what he was trying to communicate to the duke of Milan when the prior complained about Leonardo’s slow work. As Vasari relates about that incident, “He talked to him extensively about art and persuaded him that the greatest geniuses sometimes accomplish more when they work less, since they are searching for inventions in their minds, and forming those perfect ideas which their hands then express and reproduce from what they previously conceived with their intellect.”


Thesis

Since Leonardo’s greatest invention, in my opinion, are his paintings as visual poetry, he as a poet leaves all his paintings open to all possible interpretations without giving a definitive one. Leonardo says in his Notebook, “And if the poet claims that he can inflame men to love… the painter has the power to do the same, and indeed more so, for he places before the lover’s eyes the very image of the beloved object, [and the lover] often engages with it, embracing, and talking with it.”

Therefore, Leonardo actually challenged poets in motivating men to love. This is what my paper will attempt to prove using Leonardo’s portrait of Ginevra de’Benci as an example. I will talk about the portrait in a poetic context and link that to the social and cultural role of women and female portraiture in that time. I will also discuss some features of portraiture in the late 15th century and the beginning of the 16th century, such as the rise of secular portraiture, the expansion of portraiture beyond rulers and diplomats, the shift to three-quarter or frontal view of the sitter, and portraits depicting women independent from their husbands. I will use these descriptions to compare between Leonardo’s view of women and how they really were seen in the society.


Ginevra de’Benci’s Portrait

Ginevra de’Benci was a famous woman who was a daughter of a wealthy Florentine banker. She was known for her beauty, intelligence, and her knowledge of music and poetry. Lorenzo the Magnificent wrote two sonnets in her honor. She was depicted in poems that honored her. Indeed, she was known as the most beautiful woman in Florence in that time and accordingly served as a model and an ideal. She married Luigi Niccolini when she was sixteen, and some believed that the portrait was commissioned by her husband for the event of their marriage.

It is believed that the portrait was painted around the years 1474 to 1478, according to the National Gallery Catalogue. The portrait has two sides, the preserve and the reverse. The front has an image of a woman simply dressed with a landscape in the background. (See figure 1). In the reverse, we can see a wreath of laurel and palm, which frames Ginevra’s juniper sprig. Curling around the three is a Latin inscription, VIRTUTEM FORMA DECORAT (“Beauty Adorns Virtue”). (See figure 2). Although it was a reference to Ginevra, it was printed over a slogan that says: “Virtue and Honor,” which is believed to be the motto of Bernardo Bembo, the Venetian ambassador. The laurel and the palm suggest the moral and intellectual virtues of the sitter. The juniper tree suggests Ginevra’s Christian name.


Role and features of female portraiture in the Renaissance


Portraiture in the Renaissance era served different dimensions in social and cultural life. It served as a means to remember and honor the dead and to maintain their social status. It also was meant to “immortalize” the sitter and keep her image alive. It showed the status of living women by referring to important events in their lives. Some portraits served an aesthetic purpose since they celebrated women’s beauty. Others, such as Ginevra de’Benci’s portrait, celebrated both the sitter’s beauty and virtue, or the sitter’s beauty as a complementary factor to her virtue.

Portraits were given as gifts among the aristocratic and the merchant classes. For example, in 1415 Isabella d’Este, Marchioness of Mantua, gave her portrait painted by Costa as a gift to the English ambassador. In addition, portraits were employed to play a role in the emotional dimension of people’s life. In some cases, they were created to keep in mind the memory of distant friends (e.g. Isabella d’Este’s letters to Cecilia Gallerani asking her to send Leonardo’s portrait of her “to see her face again”). In addition, in other cases they were meant to express love and affection.

The popularity and spread of female portraiture were accompanied by a new inclination in love poems: praising women’s portraits. Examples of lyric poems that praised portraits include Petrarch’s two sonnets on Simone Martini’s portrait of his beloved; Lorenzo the Magnificent’s poem about his beloved, Lucrezia Donati; and Bernardo Bellincioni’s poem about Leonardo’s portrait of Cecilia Gallerani.

Petrarch’s sonnets had a significant influence, not only on the artistic and literary life in that time but also on the social life. Indeed, they became a stereotype for poets and some even referred to it as the “Petrarchean model.” Petrarch’s sonnets and other poems of poets who followed him focused on praising physical features of the sitters, especially their eyes. Most descriptions of those features were repeated (e.g., skin described as milk, eyes described as the sun or stars, breasts described as snow or apples, and lips as cherry). Eyes in portraits were meant to serve to create an emotional reaction in the beholder by creating the sense of changing glances between the sitter and the beholder. Leonardo stated in the famous aphorism, “The eye is said to be the window of the soul.” This association of eyes and soul can be seen in the portrait of Ginevra de’Benci, in Leonardo’s conveying the “movement of the soul” which he learned in Milan from Antonello da Messina’s portraits produced at the Sforza. This is what is referred to as the animus or the mind of the painted image, which suggests the possibility of establishing an “imagined relationship” with the sitter.

Leonardo says on making portraits:

“When you wish to make a portrait, do it in dull weather or as evening comes, making the subject stand with his back to one of the walls of the courtyard. Note in the streets when evening comes when it is gloomy weather, how much grace and sweetness may be seen in the faces of men and women. Therefore, painter, have your courtyard designed with the walls tinted black.”

This confirms the idea that Leonardo attempted to create a sense of a real soul that can be seen in the faces of his sitters.

The rise of this trend, praising female portraits in poetry, also suggests its association with the new shift in portraiture to the three-quarter or frontal view of the sitter at the beginning of the 16th century, in which the sitter is engaged with the beholder instead of witnessing his/her presence which was the case in the profile portraits earlier in the 15th century.

Furthermore, that trend in poetry encouraged depicting women independent from their husbands since it focused more on the beauty and the virtue of women. The interest in individuals’ psychology and physiology accompanied the rise of independent female portraits. Therefore, painters might have done some studies on the lives of their sitters along with their studies of new approaches in depicting space, nature, and human anatomy in that time. Since writers back then focused on the biographies of famous individuals, the interest in individual portraiture can be considered as a “revival of classical antiquity.” That is what made some historians consider portraits as a part of writing biographies of their sitters. An example of female portraits independent of their husbands is Titan’s portrait of Isabella d’Este and Eleonora Gonzaga daughter of Isabella d’Eeste and wife of the duke of Urbino, Francesco Rovere.

With the poetic component of portraiture becoming more popular (or expecting poets to write about portraits), it was more likely for the rise of secular portraiture to take place, especially in northern Europe after the Reformation. That is how commissions for religious portraits disappeared and were substituted by secular ones. Gradually, and for the sake of the aesthetic component, the secularity of portraits helped the expansion of portraiture beyond rulers and diplomats. For example, the Dutch painter Jan van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait depicted non-elite secular sitters in a full-length pose, which was earlier a pose reserved for the very elite of the elite. The wealthy merchant and his wife were depicted in their own home instead of being depicted in a religious scene. That reflects the new tendency toward “naturalistic depiction” which can also be seen in the portrait of Duchess Mary of Burgundy (1457–1482), who was the first wife of Emperor Maximilian I. (See figure 3).


Platonic Love and its role in the Renaissance


I couldn’t look at letters or poems written by Bembo nor by Ginevra. However, did I look at letters by Marsilio Ficino who was a friend of Bembo with whom he exchanged many letters. In those letters, Bembo is described as being distinguished for his learning and authority. Marsilio’s letters were mostly intellectual but other times emotional too. But all of them, even the philosophical ones had a highly poetic flavor. Marsilio speaks very highly of Bembo and he calls him “sweetest Bernardo” and sometimes “beloved child of philosophy,” which refers to the two different dimension of Bernardo’s personality; intellect and spirituality. Going through the emotional kind of letters, we see that Marsilio talks about his love for Bembo and how he wants to give him his whole self: “I gave you Marsilio.” So, the word “love” or the concept of it was different from what we think of it today as the romantic love between men and women. It had the connotation of fidelity, high esteem, loyalty and unconditional devotion. It focused more on the spiritual dimension of human relationships. In Marsilio’s letter, “Consolation on the Death of a Friend,” he refers to the separation of body and soul and the eternal union of souls. Marsilio says “souls become present in thought, separate the mind from the body, your souls will quickly meet.” In another letter, he says “the souls of men are eternal,” which refers to the Platonic influence in the intellectual and social dimension of people’s life. Marsilio says in one of his letters to Bembo: “love is born of its own free will; it is therefore free and is never bought or sold at any price but itself.”

Seeking eternity and heavenly joy was the ultimate goal for noble souls. Marsilio says: “natural impulse, continually seek heaven, whence they are created and the King of Heaven, beyond”, and in another letter: “our souls are never fulfilled with earthly food, nor while they gorge on earthly things can they enjoy the heavenly feast.” . So, since divine virtue was the greatest motivation for poets and artists, idealizing virtues, including love and morals, was also the tendency among them as well.

Apparently, Marsilio’s translation of works of Plato from Greek to Latin had a great influence on the intellectual life of his contemporaries. Marsilio mentions his translation of Plato’s works in one of his letters to Bembo in which he referred to Plato as “our Plato.” In addition, he referred to “the manner of Plato” and associated it with giving to God instead of man. In other words, giving for the sake of giving to reach the attributes of the divine and those who can do so are great men that are godlike; “no divine man is not human: no man fully human is not divine.” And according to the Platonic philosophy human love was interrelated with the divine love since human love, when it’s for the sake of love itself, purifies and leads to true wisdom and eternal truth. Thus, the concept of perfection and dignity were associated with love.

Marsilio talks about how happiness should be gained by devotion to virtues and wisdom, and that it can’t be gained by fortune only. He says in his letter, “How False Is Human Prosperity,” that “worldly prosperity has clearly been proved deceitful to the human race.” And in his letter to Bernardo Bembo, “Oratorical, Moral, Dialectical and Theological Praise of Philosophy,” he personifies philosophy and talks about it using feminine attributes, calling it “our mother and our nurse.” Virtues in general were referred to by female pronouns too. Based on those letters I can assume that although women in general weren’t appreciated enough among the common people, they were like divine beings to intellectual and noble people. Indeed, they were the greatest source of inspiration and assets for their creative works. Critoforo Landino’s Poems has most of the Platonic love poems written among the nobles in that time. It’s believed that some of Ginevra’s poems to Bembo are included in Landino’s book. Marsilio mentioned Critoforo Landino as “a man worth of Minerva and the Muses.”


Leonardo and the parallel between poetry and painting


I couldn’t reach a conclusion about whether Leonardo was the first to conceive of the parallel between poetry and painting in the Renaissance. Nevertheless, I did find evidence that in the middle of the 15th century, poets were considered superior to painters specifically in Florence. Lorenzo Valla excludes painters from his list of artists and both Cardanus and Vossius consider them mechanical. According to Museo D' Arte E Scienza, this is what explained Leonardo’s desire to defend the interests of painters. He states: “Another explanation can be found in his desire to defend the interests of painters who, in Florence in particular, were considered inferior to poets, philosophers, theologians, etc.”

The dispute about which art is superior to the other is brought up in a story told by Baccio Bandinelli’s Memoriale about a debate between his cousin and the Vidame de Chartres regarding the value of painting. Chartres considered painting as a manual art which was a lower rank of art since it, as he claimed, didn’t have intellectual elements and wasn’t suited for noblemen in that time. Painters, on the other hand, tried to prove the distinction between themselves and craftsmen by emphasizing the intellectual component in their works. An outcome of that reaction was painting becoming more dependent on other kinds of sciences or knowledge, especially mathematics. For example, Alberti and Ghiberti explained the kinds of mathematics the painter must learn but Leonardo was the first to connect it to the art of painting.

Looking at the other side of the coin, poets’ attempts to support their abilities with other sources of knowledge reflect their sense of urgency to defend their social position and their desire to gain equality with poets. In other words, they felt threatened by the rising social position that poets maintained, and accordingly they wanted to prove that their art is as noble as poetry. Painters had to face some difficulties to accomplish that, one of which is that people didn’t think highly of manual or physical crafts, and painting is more manual than poetry. Manual crafts were believed to be “exercised by the ignorant.” As Equicola states: “Therefore, however worthy of praise painting, modeling and sculpture may be, nevertheless they must be considered far inferior to poetry in dignity and authority. Painting is a work and a labor more of the body than of the mind, and is, more often than not, exercised by the ignorant.”

Leonardo had an urge to defend painting and painters, and argued: “If you call it mechanical because it is, in the first place, manual, and that it is the hand which produces what is to be found in the imagination, you writers also set down manually with the pen what is devised in your mind.”

On the other hand, Equicola still thought that painting is nothing more than attempts to copy nature. He says, “Painting has no other concern except with copying nature with various appropriately chosen colors.” Castelvetro also believed the same thing, and argued that painting can’t represent human action as it ought to be and as poetry does. He says, “That which in poetry is first and of most account, the imitation of a human action, as it ought to be, is the last in painting and of no account, namely, that which painters call history.”

These arguments reflect the overall concept in Renaissance society of the inferiority of the manual or mechanical and the superiority of the intellectual. So, to call painters or consider them as craftsmen was a kind of accusation or insult.

Leonardo, in his reply to those critics, tried to prove the superiority of painting over all kind of arts and creative works. He claims that sight is the sense that enables one to appreciate beauty and stimulates one to express it. So, he did believe that all great artistic works are attempts to imitate reality, what one sees with one’s own eyes. He was specifically interested in comparing the process of writing with the process of creating a painting. He even claimed that painters capture the reality in their paintings with “simpler completeness” and more appealing conceptual sense. He argued that painting is a more universal language since it represents an accurate image of the actual man. In other words, he betted on man’s desire to see his reflection in paintings, and used the whole concept of immortalizing man to support his argument.

Leonardo said:

“If you, historians, or poets, or mathematicians had not seen things with your eyes you could not report of them in writing. And if you, O poet, tell a story with your pen, the painter with his brush can tell it more easily, with simpler completeness and less tedious to be understood. And if you call painting dumb poetry, the painter may call poetry blind painting. Now which is the worse defect? To be blind or dumb? Though the poet is as free as the painter in the invention of his fictions they are not so satisfactory to men as paintings; for, though poetry is able to describe forms, actions and places in words, the painter deals with the actual similitude of the forms, in order to represent them. Now tell me which is the nearer to the actual man: the name of man or the image of the man. The name of man differs in different countries, but his form is never changed but by death.”

Leonardo also says, “Painting is poetry that is seen rather than felt, and poetry is painting that is felt rather than seen.” This statement reflects Leonardo’s conception of painting and poetry as intertwined arts since they are reflective of both the sensual and visual nature of facts. In other words, he refers to the fact that painting is somehow a form of visual poetry, and poetry is in some way a form of verbal painting, so to speak. Nevertheless, Leonardo states that sight is the origin of appreciation of all kinds of arts and beauty in the world. He refers to the eye as “the worthier sense” since it, as he claimed, satisfies people best:

“And if the poet gratifies the sense by means of the ear, the painter does so by the eye—the worthier sense; but I will say no more of this but that, if a good painter represents the fury of a battle, and if a poet describes one, and they are both together put before the public, you will see where most of the spectators will stop, to which they will pay most attention, on which they will bestow most praise, and which will satisfy them best.”

Leonardo elaborated the concept of painting to be the true representation of nature and even of God. Painting according to him represents all forms of nature and captures it on the painting, since it can represent the effects and the motions of nature.

“Undoubtedly painting being by a long way the more intelligible and beautiful, will please most. Write up the name of God [Christ] in some spot and setup His image opposite and you will see which will be most reverenced. Painting comprehends in itself all the forms of nature, while you have nothing but words, which are not universal as form is, and if you have the effects of the representation, we have the representation of the effects.”

Leonardo claimed that paintings are more eternal since they are more connected to people’s imagination and since painters are more godlike in their imitation of God’s creation:

“If you were to say that poetry is more eternal, I say the works of a coppersmith are more eternal still, for time preserves them longer than your works or ours; nevertheless they have not much imagination. And a picture, if painted on copper with enamel colors may be yet more permanent. We, by our arts may be called the grandsons of God”

In addition, Leonardo goes on in his comparison between painting and poetry to give painting philosophical, intellectual, emotional and motional dimensions. He even says that some pictures or paintings can serve as the actual things or substitutes of the real objects:

“If poetry deals with moral philosophy, painting deals with natural philosophy. Poetry describes the action of the mind; painting considers what the mind may effect by the motions [of the body]. If poetry can terrify people by hideous fictions, painting can do as much by depicting the same things in action. Supposing that a poet applies himself to represent beauty, ferocity, or a base, a foul or a monstrous thing, as against a painter, he may in his ways bring forth a variety of forms; but will the painter not satisfy more? Are there not pictures to be seen, so like the actual things, that they deceive men and animals?”

He concludes by suggesting that painting is greater than poetry because the painter recreates the work of nature with his own hands:

“But painting remains the worthier inasmuch as it serves the nobler sense and remakes the forms and figures of nature with greater truth than the poet. And the works of nature are far more worthy than words, which are the products of man ... And if, poet, you wish to describe the works of nature with your simple profession, depicting different places and the forms of various things, you are infinitely surpassed by the painter.”

In spite of that, Leonardo could have been a great poet, especially since he wrote some poems. Vasari confirms this, saying, “He would have made great progress in his early studies of literature if he had not been so unpredictable and unstable.” He also describes him by stating, “he was the best disclaimer of improvised poetry in his day.”

Apparently, although Leonardo had poetical skills, poetry didn’t satisfy his striving for perfection in imitating natural reality. And that is what made him more fascinated about playing the role of poets while creating his paintings.


Leonardo as a love motivator


Leonardo challenges poets in motivating love in lovers. He argues that poets only describe what painters capture and depict in their paintings. He claims that poets can’t have an accurate embodiment of their lovers in poems whereas paintings can even capture the motion of their souls: “Take a poet who describes the beauty of a lady to her lover and a painter who represents her and you will see to which nature guides the enamored critic. Certainly the proof should be allowed to rest on the verdict of experience.”

Indeed Leonardo challenges poets in their ability to create the same sensual reactions in lovers with their poems compared to the reaction created by portraits of their beloveds. He emphasizes the difference of representing reality in painting and describing it in writing. He sheds light on the strength of representing reality versus describing it since it is, according to him, more like creating reality. This belief is what makes him describe painters as God’s grandsons in his Notebooks: “We, by our arts may be called the grandsons of God.” The ability of representing reality is what gives painters the capability and the power to create certain emotions and senses within their beholders.


Ginevra’s portrait in a poetic context


Investigating Ginevra de’Benci’s portrait, I found various signs or indications that Leonardo meant to paint it in a poetical context. A study of the reverse of the portrait suggests that the device, which was encircled by the greens, was the device of Bernardo Bembo who was a poet himself. Bembo used that device to decorate manuscripts in his possession. The device also suggests that portrait was commissioned by him as well, as an expression of his admiration for Ginevra. This suggestion is confirmed by the existence of the first word of his motto (virtus) which is also found on the restored Tomb of Dante, which Bembo commissioned in 1483 from Pietro Lombardo when he was Venetian Rector in Ravenna where Dante spent his last years after being exiled. The same device that appears in the reverse of Ginevra’s portrait decorates Bernardo’s autograph copy of Ficino’s Commentarium in Platonis Convivium de Amore. In that manuscript, Bembo referred to his admiration for Ginevra and her father who had given Ficino a rare Greek manuscript of Plato in 1462. Furthermore, this garland appears in another form drawn by Bembo’s friend Bartolomo Sanvito enclosing his motto ‘VIRTUS ET HONOR’ in his manuscript of Paolo Masari’s poem, which describes Bembo’s journey to Spain in 1468-69.

On the other hand, the sprig of juniper in the center of the wreath in the reverse of the portrait represents Ginevra who is a poet too. It refers to her Christian name since the word “ginepro” in Italian sounds a lot like her name. It also associates her with her role model, Petrarch’s Laura, since the green is praised by Petrarch in his two sonnets for its enduring proprieties. In addition, the palm is a symbol of “poetic genius and saintly virgins” who regularly overcome the temptations of the flesh.

Since Bembo dedicated a number of sonnets in Ginevra’s honor, it was suggested according to the catalogue of the National Gallery of Arts in Washington DC (supported by all the above facts) that the portrait refers to his platonic love affair with her, which was the outcome of him being an ambassador to Florence in 1475-76 and 1478-80. That Platonic love affair is confirmed by Ginevra’s poems recorded by Landino. In one of those poems, Ginevra plays on her name and points out that only two letters need to be changed to transform “Bencia” into “Bembia.” Leonardo takes advantage of that fact and fulfills Ginevra’s wish to join herself to Bembo’s house by binding the juniper to the encircling branches of Bembo’s personal device and using the first word of his motto (virtus) for the first word of hers (virlulem).

Considering all the above poetic indications of the portrait makes it less likely that the portrait was commissioned on the occasion of Ginevra’s marriage; and also considering the commonness of Platonic love in that time when it was quite normal for married people to have other love affairs in which the beloved figures would be more like ideals. The tradition of Platonic love was accompanied with other traditions like commissioning portraits by and for those beloved ones. And that is how the idea arose that the commissioners of paintings, not only the painters, are in some way their inventors. From there comes the idea that the reverse of Ginevra’s portrait can be claimed as Bembo’s invention as visualized by Sanvito.


The social and cultural role of women according to the portrait


The possibility of Ginevra being an intellectual poet is confirmed by the historian Jacob Burckhardt when he claims that upper class women in the Renaissance received an education equal to that of men. Burckhardt talks about women’s education in that period and how the elite ones received formal education: “women stood on a footing of perfect equality with [such] men… and the education given to women in upper classes was essentially the same as that given to men.”

Although it was more common for women to write about domestic or feminine issues, a minority of women in the Renaissance did write poetry, prose and drama. Nevertheless, the concept of women being involved in social and intellectual life was quite controversial. Indeed silence was considered a virtue for women and “loose tongues” were linked to “loose morals.” We can see that in what John Ray says: “many women, many words; many geese, many trades.” Thus, the idea of women exposing their thoughts to the public was associated with exposing their bodies to the public too. That is why the majority of women who did write couldn’t get their work published, which resulted in insufficient records in that regard. Some women, such as Mary Wroth, author of Urania, and Marie Dentiere, were able to print their work, which suggests that restrictions on female writers varied from one place to another. But gender was a big factor in evaluating and judging works of art.

In spite of the difficulties women faced to fulfill their cultural and intellectual role in society, they were not without opportunities in the arts. In the 16th century, some women worked as professional artists and commissioned works of art. Women who commissioned art were mostly economically independent, widows and nuns living in the convents. Widows commissioned tombs of their deceased husbands, which was the most common commission for them, as well as funerary monuments for their husbands. One of those commissions that was documented is Atlanta Baglioni’s commission to Raphael who commemorated her murdered son. Artemisia’s model was a widowed queen who commissioned an incredible tomb for her husband, King Mausolus, which was so great that it came to be regarded as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

Before women could have themselves portrayed independently, some wives appeared as kneeling donors together with their husbands (e.g. in the portrait of Nera Corsi in the Sassetti chapel). Even in those commissioned portraits in which she didn’t appear, there was a reminder of her patronage through inscription, by including her coat along with her husband’s.

Some women made remarkable contributions to artistic patronage, such as Isabella d’Este who had insatiable collecting habits. Coming from a family with strong artistic interests, she tried to buy the best antiquities she could afford in addition to her interest in writing letters (she wrote more than 20,000 letters). She took advantage of the fact that she was female in the way she treated artists, since she tried to control the way they did their work in detail. For example, she sent Perugino a detailed drawing and a piece of string to determine the length of the figures in the painting.

An astonishing female figure in that time was The Bolognese painter Lavinia Fontana. She inherited the family business because her father, Prospero, was an artist and she didn’t have any brothers. Not only did she produce portraits of male academics, prelates and aristocrats, but she also had painted lots of self-portraits. She cleverly took advantage of the unusual situation of being a female painter by doing images of female patrons, since women were more comfortable dealing with her.


Features of the portrait that support the poetic interpretation


One of the most significant features of the portrait that supports its poetic context is the “lack of conventional decorative elements” which Leonardo used to guide the viewer’s perception. This “poetic homage” supports the idealism of that female and suggests Leonardo’s perception that “denies the specific peculiarities of the physical characteristics of an individual and of the details of clothing.”

In fact, the whole concept of having the landscape interrelated and at the same time contrasted with the sitter’s details gives the painting a poetic flavor or atmosphere. The juniper bush embracing Ginevra’s figure and uniting its existence assisted in creating the poetic identity of the portrait. Not to forget the space conception that makes the figure look closer or further depending on the angle of looking at it. Since Leonardo guides his viewers through the sensations caused by his study of light, plant, hair and textures, he worked on reflecting the poetic context of the portrait through these means. The poetic atmosphere of the portrait is also enhanced by engaging the viewer with the eye’s gaze and the emotional response that is caused as a result.

Leonardo’s capability and proficiency in using his means of the natural elements gave the portrait its realism feature because he searches for a way to translate nature through art. Thus, Leonardo’s Ginevra, although a beauty ideal, is also a special individual since the sense of personality was established and since feelings and sensibilities appeared in the history of Quattrocento portraiture. That is why some historians have considered that specific portrait as “a study of appearance of reality.”


Conclusion


Leonardo’s defense of the superiority of painting against poetry is not only reflected in the signs of the intellectuality and virtuousness of the sitter and the commissioner; it is also represented through the historical background of the debate and its reflection on artistic and social traditions. Platonic love, love poems, the tradition of commissioning paintings for beloveds, females as artistic objects, patronages and artists helped in the appearance of independent female portraits. The commonness of Plato’s philosophy along with the view of the female as an inspirational being was a great factor in associating females with poetry which was considered the greatest art in that time. This is what motivated Leonardo to try to give his portraits a poetical identity as a way to respond and challenge poets in their tasks. He took advantage of the different historical and poetical references to the love affair between Ginevra and Bembo in addition to his usage of the poetic symbols in plants. The focus on the sitter as connected to nature through the landscape in the background on one hand, and the focus on the engaged eyes gaze on the other hand, support the interplayed perception of the figure as a poetic ideal of femininity and as a realistic individual with unique characteristics. This complexity and mysteriousness of Ginevra’s personality in the portrait is what made the portrait more likely to motivate its viewers to love it and seek for it.


Bibliography

Beck, James. "The Dream of Leonardo da Vinci." Artibus et Historiae , 1993: 185-198.

Blunt, Anthony. "The Social Position of the Artist". In Artistic Theory in Italy 1450-1660. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1940: 48-57

Brown, David Alan. "Virtue and Beauty: Leonardo's Ginevra De' Benci and Renaissance Portraits of Women" On View at The National Gallery of Art. National Gallery of Art (exhibition catalogue), September - January 30-6, 2002 Washington, D.C.: 240.

Brown, Meg Lota, and McBride, Kari Boyd. Women's roles in the Renaissance. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005.

Bull, David. "Two Portraits by Leonardo: ‘Ginevra de 'Benci’ and the ‘Lady with an Ermine’." Artibus et Historiae, November 13, 1992: 67-83.

Ficino, Marsilio. The Letters of Marsilio Ficino (3 Volumes). London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1978.

Fletcher, Jennifer. "Bernardo Bembo and Leoandro's Portrait of Ginevra de' Benci." The Burlington Magazine, December 131, 1989: 811-816.

Manca, Joseph. "The Gothic Leonardo : Towards a Reassessment of the Renaissance." Artibus et Historiae, 1996: 121-158.

Richter, edited by Jean Paul. "The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci ." 1880.

Scienza, Museo D' Arte E. Treatise on Painting: Appreciation Art through the Eyes of Leonardo. Milan: Museum of Art and Science, 2009.

Tanaka, Hidemichi. "Leonardo da Vinci, Architect of Chambord?" Artibus et Historiae, 1992: 85-102.

Tinagli‏, Paola. Women in Italian Renaissance art: gender, representation, identity‏. Manchester: Manchester University Press‏, 1997.

Vasari, Giorgio. The Lives of the Artists. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Wasserman, Jack. "Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper: The Case of the Overturned Saltcellar." Artibus et Historiae, 2003: 65-72.

Figure 1

Leonardo da Vinci, Ginevra de' Benci, c. 1474/1478, oil on panel, National Gallery of Art, Ailsa Mellon Bruce Fund

Figure 2

Leonardo da Vinci, Ginevra de' Benci (reverse), c. 1474/1478, oil on panel, National Gallery of Art, Ailsa Mellon Bruce Fund

Figure 3

Portrait of Duchess Mary of Burgundy (1457–1482), the Metropolitan Museum of Art

"Master H.A or A.H: Mary of Burgundy, Tyrol(?) (1975.1.137)". In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–.