OSSERVAZIONI GENERALI

sulla tesi esposta nello studio pubblicato sul seguente link https://www.academia.edu/129874487/Cristo_di_Lecco_storicizzazione_plausibile_su_antiche_fonti_documentarie

ttps://www.academia.edu/129897351/CHRIST_OF_LECCO_PLAUSIBLE_HISTORICIZATION_BASED_ON_ANCIENT_DOCUMENTARY_SOURCES

L’ipotesi di storicizzazione proposta è densa, ben strutturata e si basa su uno studio accurato su fonti archivistiche e storiche, in particolare in relazione alla provenienza e alla possibile identificazione del cosiddetto Cristo di Lecco con un disegno perduto, o oggi non più inventariato, originariamente attribuito a Leonardo da Vinci.

1. La forza dell’ipotesi: convergenze documentarie e stilistiche

La connessione tra il disegno indicato da Giuseppe Pelli Bencivenni nel suo Inventario generale dei disegni (1775–1784) e il Cristo di Lecco è suggestiva, soprattutto per alcune convergenze:

• Tecnica: "matita rossa" (sanguigna) => esattamente come il Cristo di Lecco.

• Soggetto: "busto, forse ritratto, con folta e lunga chioma" => descrizione coerente con il disegno il Cristo di Lecco.

• Ambiguità interpretativa ("forse ritratto") => un dubbio che anticipa l’attuale indecisione tra autoritratto, ritratto di Cristo o volto simbolico/universale.

Questi elementi non costituiscono una prova, ma supportano una ipotesi plausibile con solide basi indiziarie.

2. Discontinuità inventariale e dispersione

La verifica dell’ apparente sparizione del disegno n. 1 (inventariato dal Pelli Bencivenni) dagli inventari successivi (Gotti 1873, Ferri 1890) è estremamente rilevante:

• Il fatto che già nel 1873 manchino 4 disegni rispetto ai 31 originari del Pelli Bencivenni indica dispersioni o trafugamenti avvenuti prima del grande saccheggio napoleonico, o nel periodo immediatamente successivo.

• La storia nota delle spoliazioni artistiche e collezionistiche dal tardo '700 in avanti (soprattutto verso Francia e Inghilterra) rafforza il contesto di scomparsa silenziosa, assai frequente nei fondi grafici dell’epoca.

Questo punto è cruciale per avvalorare l’idea che un disegno leonardesco possa essere uscito dagli Uffizi tra fine '700 e metà '800 e riapparso poi, seppur in condizioni alterate, nel XX secolo.

3. Restauro e tracce di provenienza americana

Il riferimento al restauro (descritto come invasivo e poco professionale, avvenuto negli USA nel XX sec.) corrisponde a molte storie simili di opere d’arte italiane riemerse dopo restauri discutibili. Il fatto che una persona a New York abbia confermata la sua passata detenzione del disegno, costituisce una traccia di provenienza materiale, il che è un valore enorme in termini di ricostruzione filologica del percorso dell’opera.

4. Riflessione interpretativa

L’annotazione "forse ritratto" sembra rivelare una percezione antica dello stesso dubbio che oggi anima lo studio del Cristo di Lecco: si tratta di Leonardo che si autoritrae? o è il volto idealizzato di Cristo? oppure un archetipo umano-divino?

Questa ambiguità, lungi dall’essere un punto debole, è il cuore semiotico di questa tesi.

 

CONCLUSIONE

Lo studio condotto sul Cristo di Lecco offre una plausibile e articolata storicizzazione di un disegno di straordinaria qualità e suggestione, inserendolo in un contesto culturale, artistico e collezionistico di grande rilievo. Le convergenze stilistiche, tecniche e simboliche con la figura del Cristo leonardesco e con la tradizione degli studi preparatori per l’Ultima Cena costituiscono una solida base per attribuirgli un’origine vicina al maestro di Vinci così come viene ritenuta da molteplici studiosi.

L’analisi delle fonti documentarie - dalle lettere di Giulio Scaglia a quelle di Paolo del Sera, fino agli inventari medicei del XVIII secolo - suggerisce un percorso storico verosimile che vede il disegno transitare attraverso importanti collezioni e protagonisti del collezionismo italiano, prima di una probabile dispersione sette-ottocentesca, in parte riconducibile alle grandi spoliazioni napoleoniche e alle successive movimentazioni internazionali di opere d’arte.

L’assenza di riscontri diretti negli inventari più recenti degli Uffizi non indebolisce, ma anzi stimola ulteriori ricerche, lasciando aperta l’ipotesi che il Cristo di Lecco rappresenti quel disegno descritto come “busto, forse ritratto, con folta e lunga chioma”, così come indicato nel fondamentale inventario di Giuseppe Pelli Bencivenni. La «forse» dell’antico catalogatore esprime quella stessa ambiguità che tuttora caratterizza il disegno: non solo un volto, ma un simbolo enigmatico e sfuggente, oscillante tra ritratto, immagine sacra e archetipo universale.

L’importante rinvenimento di pieghe compatibili con una lunga conservazione sotto vetro, testimoniata dalle lettere e confermata dalle analisi scientifiche, aggiunge un ulteriore e prezioso elemento di conferma materiale all’ipotesi di continuità storica e di autenticità del percorso ricostruito.

Infine, la testimonianza del restauro americano del XX secolo, seppur discutibile, contribuisce a tracciare la complessa vicenda materiale del disegno, facendone emergere la storia recente e il suo valore non solo artistico, ma anche documentario.

In definitiva, il “Cristo di Lecco” si pone come un nodo cruciale nel panorama degli studi leonardeschi, un’opera “non finita” ma mai abbandonata, un’immagine carica di tensione spirituale e simbolica che continua a interrogare storici, critici e studiosi, invitandoli a indagare oltre le pieghe del tempo e della memoria.

​                                                                                ***

GENERAL REMARKS

on the thesis presented in the study published on the following link https://www.academia.edu/129874487/Cristo_di_Lecco_storicizzazione_plausibile_su_antiche_fonti_documentarie

ttps://www.academia.edu/129897351/CHRIST_OF_LECCO_PLAUSIBLE_HISTORICIZATION_BASED_ON_ANCIENT_DOCUMENTARY_SOURCES

The proposed historicization hypothesis is dense, well structured and is based on an accurate study of archival and historical sources, in particular in relation to the provenance and possible identification of the so-called Christ of Lecco with a lost drawing, or today no longer inventoried, originally attributed to Leonardo da Vinci.

1. The strength of the hypothesis: documentary and stylistic convergences

The connection between the drawing indicated by Giuseppe Pelli Bencivenni in his General Inventory of Drawings (1775–1784) and the Christ of Lecco is suggestive, especially for some convergences:

Technique: "red pencil" (sanguine) => exactly like the Christ of Lecco.

Subject: "bust, perhaps portrait, with thick and long hair" => description consistent with the drawing the Christ of Lecco.

Interpretative ambiguity ("perhaps portrait") => a doubt that anticipates the current indecision between self-portrait, portrait of Christ or symbolic/universal face.

These elements do not constitute proof, but support a plausible hypothesis with solid circumstantial bases.

2. Inventory discontinuity and dispersion

The verification of the apparent disappearance of drawing no. 1 (inventoryed by Pelli Bencivenni) from subsequent inventories (Gotti 1873, Ferri 1890) is extremely relevant:

The fact that already in 1873 4 drawings are missing compared to the 31 original ones by Pelli Bencivenni indicates dispersions or thefts that occurred before the great Napoleonic sack, or in the period immediately following.

The known history of artistic and collection plundering from the late 18th century onwards (especially towards France and England) reinforces the context of silent disappearance, very frequent in the graphic collections of the time.

This point is crucial to support the idea that a Leonardo drawing could have left the Uffizi between the late 18th and mid-19th century and then reappeared, albeit in altered conditions, in the 20th century.

3. Restoration and traces of American provenance

The reference to restoration (described as invasive and unprofessional, which took place in the USA in the 20th century) corresponds to many similar stories of Italian works of art that have resurfaced after questionable restorations. The fact that a person in New York confirmed his past possession of the drawing constitutes a trace of material provenance, which is of enormous value in terms of philological reconstruction of the work's path.

4. Interpretative reflection

The annotation "perhaps portrait" seems to reveal an ancient perception of the same doubt that today animates the study of the Christ of Lecco: is it Leonardo who portrays himself? or is it the idealized face of Christ? or a human-divine archetype?

This ambiguity, far from being a weak point, is the semiotic heart of this thesis.

 

CONCLUSION

The study conducted on the Christ of Lecco offers a plausible and articulated historicization of a drawing of extraordinary quality and suggestion, placing it in a cultural, artistic and collecting context of great importance. The stylistic, technical and symbolic convergences with the figure of Leonardo's Christ and with the tradition of preparatory studies for the Last Supper constitute a solid basis for attributing to it an origin close to the master of Vinci as is believed by many scholars.

The analysis of the documentary sources - from the letters of Giulio Scaglia to those of Paolo del Sera, up to the Medici inventories of the eighteenth century - suggests a plausible historical path that sees the drawing transit through important collections and protagonists of Italian collecting, before a probable dispersion in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, partly attributable to the great Napoleonic spoliations and the subsequent international movements of works of art.

The lack of direct evidence in the most recent inventories of the Uffizi does not weaken, but rather stimulates further research, leaving open the hypothesis that the Christ of Lecco represents the drawing described as a “bust, perhaps a portrait, with thick and long hair”, as indicated in the fundamental inventory of Giuseppe Pelli Bencivenni. The “perhaps” of the ancient cataloguer expresses the same ambiguity that still characterizes the drawing: not only a face, but an enigmatic and elusive symbol, oscillating between portrait, sacred image and universal archetype.

The important discovery of folds compatible with a long conservation under glass, testified by the letters and confirmed by scientific analyses, adds a further and precious element of material confirmation to the hypothesis of historical continuity and authenticity of the reconstructed path.

Finally, the testimony of the American restoration of the 20th century, although questionable, helps to trace the complex material history of the drawing, bringing out its recent history and its value not only artistic, but also documentary.

Ultimately, the “Christ of Lecco” stands as a crucial point in the panorama of Leonardo studies, an “unfinished” but never abandoned work, an image charged with spiritual and symbolic tension that continues to question historians, critics and scholars, inviting them to investigate beyond the folds of time and memory.

​​

                                              ***

ملاحظات عامة

حول الأطروحة المعروضة

https://www.academia.edu/129874487/Cristo_di_Lecco_storicizzazione_plausibile_su_antiche_fonti_documentarie

ttps://www.academia.edu/129897351/CHRIST_OF_LECCO_PLAUSIBLE_HISTORICIZATION_BASED_ON_ANCIENT_DOCUM

الفرضية التاريخية المقترحة كثيفة المحتوى، محكمة البناء، وتستند إلى دراسة دقيقة للمصادر الأرشيفية والتاريخية، ولا سيّما فيما يتعلق بأصل العمل وإمكانية تحديد ما يُعرف بـ مسيح ليكو على أنه رسم مفقود، أو لم يعد مُدرجًا في الجردات الحالية، وكان منسوبًا في الأصل إلى ليوناردو دا فينشي.

1. قوة الفرضية: التقاطعات الوثائقية والأسلوبية

إن الربط بين الرسم الذي أشار إليه جوزيبي بيلي بنشيفينّي في «الجرد العام للرسوم» (1775–1784) وبين مسيح ليكو هو ربط لافت، خاصةً لما يتضمنه من نقاط تقاطع واضحة، من بينها:

• التقنية: «قلم أحمر» (السَّنغوين) — وهي التقنية نفسها المستخدمة في مسيح ليكو.

• الموضوع: «نصف تمثال، ربما صورة شخصية، بشعر كثيف وطويل» — وصف يتوافق تمامًا مع رسم مسيح ليكو.

• الغموض التفسيري («ربما صورة شخصية») — شكٌّ يسبق التردّد المعاصر بين كونه صورة ذاتية، أو صورة للمسيح، أو وجهًا رمزيًا/كونيًا.

هذه العناصر لا تشكّل دليلاً قاطعًا، لكنها تدعم فرضية معقولة تقوم على أسس قرائنية متينة.

2. الانقطاع في السجلات والجردات والتشتّت

إن التحقق من الاختفاء الظاهري للرسم رقم 1 (المُسجّل لدى بيلي بنشيفينّي) من الجردات اللاحقة (غوتّي 1873، فيرّي 1890) يُعدّ ذا أهمية قصوى:

• إن غياب أربعة رسومات بالفعل بحلول عام 1873، مقارنة بالواحد والثلاثين الأصلية التي أحصاها بيلي بنشيفينّي، يشير إلى حالات تشتّت أو تهريب حدثت قبل النهب النابليوني الكبير، أو في الفترة التي تلته مباشرة.

• كما أن التاريخ المعروف لعمليات نهب وتفكيك المجموعات الفنية منذ أواخر القرن الثامن عشر فصاعدًا — ولا سيّما باتجاه فرنسا وإنجلترا — يعزّز سياق هذا الاختفاء الصامت، وهو أمر شائع في مجموعات الرسوم في تلك الحقبة.

وتُعدّ هذه النقطة محورية في دعم الفرضية القائلة إن رسمًا ليونارديًا قد يكون غادر الأوفيتسي بين أواخر القرن الثامن عشر ومنتصف القرن التاسع عشر، ليظهر مجددًا — وإن في حالة مادية متغيّرة — خلال القرن العشرين.

3. الترميم وآثار المنشأ الأمريكي

إن الإشارة إلى ترميم وُصف بأنه تدخلي وغير مهني، أُجري في الولايات المتحدة خلال القرن العشرين، تتوافق مع العديد من الحالات المشابهة لأعمال فنية إيطالية أعيد اكتشافها بعد ترميمات إشكالية. كما أن تأكيد شخص في نيويورك امتلاكه السابق للرسم يشكّل أثرًا ماديًا لمسار الملكية، وهو عنصر بالغ القيمة من حيث إعادة بناء السيرة التاريخية للعمل.

4. تأمل تفسيري

إن عبارة «ربما صورة شخصية» تكشف على ما يبدو إدراكًا قديمًا للشك ذاته الذي يحرّك اليوم دراسة مسيح ليكو:
هل هو ليوناردو يرسم نفسه؟
أم هو الوجه المثالي للمسيح؟
أم هو نموذج إنساني–إلهي كوني؟

هذه الازدواجية، بعيدًا عن كونها نقطة ضعف، تمثّل الجوهر السيميائي لهذه الأطروحة.

​

                                            ***

总体观察

——关于发表于以下链接之研究论文所提出论点的评述
https://www.academia.edu/129874487/Cristo_di_Lecco_storicizzazione_plausibile_su_antiche_fonti_documentarie
https://www.academia.edu/129897351/CHRIST_OF_LECCO_PLAUSIBLE_HISTORICIZATION_BASED_ON_ANCIENT_DOCUMENTARY_SOURCES

所提出的历史化假设内容充实、结构严谨，建立在对档案与历史文献的细致研究之上，尤其聚焦于作品的来源，以及将所谓“莱科的基督”与一件失佚或现已不再编目、最初归属于列奥纳多·达·芬奇的素描进行可能性辨识。

1. 假设的力量：文献与风格的汇合

将朱塞佩·佩利·本奇韦尼（Giuseppe Pelli Bencivenni）在其《素描总清单》（1775–1784）中所记载的素描，与《莱科的基督》相联系，颇具启发性，尤其体现在以下若干汇合点上：

• 技法：“红色铅笔”（即红粉笔）——与《莱科的基督》完全一致。

• 题材：“半身像，或为肖像，拥有浓密而修长的发丝”——这一描述与《莱科的基督》的形象高度契合。

• 解释上的模糊性（“或为肖像”）——这一疑问预示了当下关于其是否为自画像、基督肖像或象征性／普遍性面容的争论。

这些要素虽不足以构成直接证据，但为一项具有坚实旁证基础的合理假设提供了支持。

2. 清单断裂与作品散佚

对佩利·本奇韦尼所编目之第 1 号素描在后续清单（Gotti，1873；Ferri，1890）中明显消失的核查，具有极其重要的意义：

• 早在 1873 年，相较于佩利·本奇韦尼原先记载的 31 件作品，已有 4 件缺失，这表明散佚或失窃事件发生在拿破仑大规模劫掠之前，或紧随其后的时期。

• 自 18 世纪末以来（尤其流向法国与英国）的艺术品与收藏品掠夺史，强化了这种“无声消失”的历史语境——此类现象在当时的素描收藏中并不罕见。

这一点对于支持如下观点至关重要：一件列奥纳多风格的素描，可能在 18 世纪末至 19 世纪中叶间离开乌菲齐美术馆，并于 20 世纪在（虽经改变的）状态下重新出现。

3. 修复与美国来源的痕迹

关于一次发生于 20 世纪美国、被描述为侵入性且不够专业的修复干预，与多起意大利艺术品在经历争议性修复后重新现身的案例高度相似。一位纽约人士确认其曾持有该素描，这构成了一条实物来源线索，在作品路径的文献学重建中具有极高价值。

4. 解释层面的思考

“或为肖像”的标注，似乎揭示了一种古老的感知——正是当下《莱科的基督》研究所面临的同一疑问：
这是列奥纳多的自画像？
还是理想化的基督面容？
抑或一种人—神合一的原型？

这种模糊性并非弱点，而恰恰构成了该论题的符号学核心。

结论

围绕《莱科的基督》所展开的研究，为一件品质卓越、意涵深邃的素描提供了一种合理而层次分明的历史化重建，并将其置于一个极具分量的文化、艺术与收藏史语境之中。其在风格、技法与象征层面与列奥纳多式基督形象，以及与《最后的晚餐》相关的准备性研究之间所呈现的汇合点，为将其源头接近于芬奇大师的观点，提供了坚实基础——这一点亦为多位学者所认同。

对文献来源的分析——从朱利奥·斯卡利亚（Giulio Scaglia）的书信，到保罗·德尔·塞拉（Paolo del Sera）的通信，再到 18 世纪的美第奇清单——勾勒出一条可信的历史路径：该素描曾流转于意大利重要收藏与关键人物之间，随后在 18–19 世纪间发生散佚，其原因部分可归因于拿破仑时期的大规模掠夺以及其后的国际艺术品流通。

在乌菲齐美术馆较近代清单中缺乏直接对应，并未削弱该假设，反而激发了进一步研究的动力，使人得以继续探讨《莱科的基督》是否正是朱塞佩·佩利·本奇韦尼在其重要清单中所描述的那件“半身像，或为肖像，拥有浓密而修长的发丝”的素描。古代编目者所用的“或许”，正表达了这件作品至今仍然保持的那种暧昧性：它不仅是一个面容，更是一个游移于肖像、圣像与普遍原型之间的神秘象征。

此外，作品上发现的、与长期玻璃装裱保存相符的折痕——这一点既见诸书信记载，又经科学分析证实——为所重建的历史连续性与路径真实性，提供了又一项重要且珍贵的物证。

最后，尽管 20 世纪美国修复的经历本身颇具争议，但它仍为该素描复杂的物质史提供了关键线索，使其近代历史及其不仅是艺术层面、亦是文献层面的价值得以凸显。

综上所述，《莱科的基督》可被视为列奥纳多研究领域中的一个关键节点：一件“未完成”却从未被放弃的作品，一幅充满精神张力与象征意味的图像，持续向历史学家、评论家与研究者发出追问，邀请他们越过时间与记忆的褶皱，继续深入探究。

​​​​​