Why Did Da Vinci Paint Two Versions Of “The Virgin Of The Rocks”?

In the Louvre Museum in Paris, there is one of the most famous works of Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), The Virgin of the Rocks. In the National Gallery in London, too. And the Florentine painter made two versions of this painting, which, due to different circumstances (and in a similar way to what happened with the Mona Lisa) ended up in two very different locations.

In his international best-seller The Da Vinci Code, The American writer Dan Brown (1964) put on the table a fantastic theory, according to which, Leonardo would have tried to hide a Christian message that was not at all orthodox. However, and despite the fact that there are many followers who follow this idea, there is no iota of truth in what the novel maintains. It is simply a literary device to build the argument.

Why did Leonardo paint two versions of The Virgin of the Rocks? Are there any clues in history that can shed light on this mystery? In today’s article, we tell you what secrets are hidden behind this famous work by Leonardo da Vinci, The Virgin of the Rocks.

The two versions of The Virgin of the Rocks, by Leonardo: what secrets do they hide?

To begin our journey through the history of these two paintings, we must go back to April 1483, when the Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception of Milan, located in the church of San Francisco the Great, commissioned the Florentine artist and the De Predis brothers to create of an ancona (that is, an oval altarpiece in its upper part) for its chapel.

The contract, which has been preserved, clearly stipulated the conditions of performance: The work was to represent, in its central part, the Virgin and Child, surrounded by two prophets and several angels, and, on both sides, four angels playing instruments and four more singing. Leonardo da Vinci would be in charge of the central board, while the De Predis brothers would run the sides.

As we can see, Leonardo did not follow the guidelines stipulated by his client, because, although he placed Mary and the child Jesus in the central part, he omitted the two prophets and the angels. He only placed Saint John the Baptist on the scene (that is, Saint John the Baptist as a child) and a single angel, Uriel. It can be said that he fulfilled part of the assignment, since, according to the Scriptures, Saint John the Baptist is the last prophet before the arrival of Christ.

However, all this does not answer the question we asked at the beginning: why did Leonardo paint two versions of The Virgin of the Rocks, versions that also present obvious differences?

Dan Brown’s novel theory

In reality, Dan Brown was not the first to launch the theory proposed in his novel, The Da Vinci Code. The idea that Leonardo had intended to capture in his painting the neglect to which the Church had subjected Saint John the Baptist in favor of Jesus (something decidedly unorthodox) was already circulating long before Brown wrote his best-seller.

According to the writer, in the first version (the one preserved in the Louvre), the archangel Uriel would be pointing to the true Messiah, Saint John, while The Virgin, with one hand in impressive foreshortening, would hold an invisible head, which the archangel’s index finger would pretend to cut off, in allusion to the end of the Baptist.

Continuing with Brown’s theory, the brotherhood would not have agreed with such iconography, and this would be the reason why Leonardo would have been forced to make a second, more orthodox version. What is true in all of this? Nothing. The Da Vinci Code is a novel that, like any other work of fiction, takes advantage of theories and hoaxes to build a surprising and impactful plot. There is nothing wrong with it;

References:

is that, literature, and the reader must be able to discern between what is real and what is, simply, a literary resource.

The original Virgin of the Rocks is in the Louvre

Let’s get a little closer to this Leonardo masterpiece; specifically, the original, the one currently in the Louvre Museum. The composition, in a perfect triangle, is typical of the Renaissance. The rigidity of the form is interrupted by the gesticulation of the characters: María raises her right hand in a magnificent foreshortening that demonstrates, once again, Leonardo’s mastery, while Uriel points to the Baptist and directs his gaze towards us. Christ as a child blesses his cousin, while he, on his knees and protected by the Virgin, prays.

The landscape is the typical Leonardesque landscape: the painter uses the resource of aerial perspective to offer us an impressive, almost fantastic landscape, featuring rocks that seem to house a cave, a place where the characters would be.

Some scholars have wanted to see in The Virgin of the Rocks (in both versions) the reflection of an apocryphal passage that we can find in the so-called Gospel of Santiago. In it, it is narrated that, while the Holy Family wandered through the desert on their escape to Egypt, they met Saint John. The absence of Saint Joseph, on the other hand, is typical of representations before the Council of Trent; the idea was to underline the divine conception of Mary.

So, if the one in the Louvre is the original work that Leonardo painted for the brotherhood of the church of San Francisco in Milan, why does the National Gallery version exist? Why did Leonardo paint a second work, practically identical to the first?

Money conflicts

Lovers of conspiracy and heretical theories will probably be disappointed. And the reason why Leonardo painted two versions of The Virgin of the Rocks has nothing to do with heresies or anything like that; The fact is related, plain and simple, to money.

Apparently, Leonardo and the De Predis brothers had problems with the brotherhood from the beginning. The money they had been advanced did not even pay for the frame of the altarpiece, so a bloody discussion began over the stipulated amount. Thus, another client was interested in The Virgin of the Rocks and, due to the amount offered (much higher than what the brotherhood intended to pay), Leonardo ended up selling the painting to this second and unexpected buyer.

We know this episode from a document dated 1492, in which Leonardo and his colleagues asked the brotherhood of San Francisco to recover the work, since they had received a much more advantageous offer for them. Once The Virgin of the Rocks was transferred to this second client, the painters were obliged to make another version for the brotherhood, since the first contract (that of 1483) was still valid.

Whether Leonardo participated more or less in this second version (the one currently in the National Gallery) is something that specialists still debate. Indeed, the copy appears to be of lower quality, although this is difficult to determine, given that the Louvre version has not undergone a proper restoration and, therefore, the colors and textures it displays are not the originals. Something similar happens with the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, whose reputation for mystery is largely due to the dirt accumulated on the panel, which has never been restored. A very different situation from that of its Madrid counterpart (the Prado), which shows off the bright original colors.

The basic differences between both versions

In the second version (the one that was finally delivered to the brotherhood and is now kept in the National Gallery in London) we observe certain differences that, although slight, are significant. For example, in the Louvre version the characters do not wear nimbuses, and the two children (Christ and Saint John) are naked. In the London copy, all the figures appear with haloes over their heads and, in addition, San Juanito is duly identified with the camel skin and the staff with the cross, characteristic of the saint.

Some scholars believe that, as Saint John carried his corresponding symbols, in the second version it was no longer necessary for Uriel to point him out in order to focus the viewer’s attention on him. In fact, in the National Gallery version the archangel no longer looks at us, so the only bridge between painting and viewer is lost. María, on the other hand, maintains the foreshortened raised hand that she already presents in the Louvre version.

Leonardo painted two practically identical scenes. Because? In light of the documents, it seems that the reason was the discussion between artists and clients about the money that they should receive for their work. While all this was happening, a second client appeared interested in the work, and Leonardo did not hesitate to give him the painting destined for San Francisco.

After several vicissitudes (some say that Eleanor of Habsburg took the painting with her when she married Francis I of France), the work ended up in the Louvre. However, as he had to comply with the original contract, the Florentine artist painted a second version, which would be the one that would be delivered to the brotherhood and which we can currently see in the National Gallery in London.

Now, why did Leonardo make certain differences between one copy and another? We don’t know for sure, and we can only guess. The new composition may have made some elements of the original version obsolete, such as Uriel’s hand, as we have explained in the article. In any case, these are not conspiracy or sectarian theories: we leave that to literature, of which The Da Vinci Code is a very good example.