Was Leonardo da Vinci gay?

The anonymous denunciation

In 1476, at the age of 24, Leonardo was accused of sodomy (in the context of his time, this meant homosexual acts). He and three other Florentine citizens were anonymously accused of having consorted with a certain Jacopo Saltarelli. The accusation was anonymously dropped by unknown persons into a public mailbox set up for such purposes, whereupon the accusation was made. Such an accusation was not without danger and a conviction at that time could have meant the execution of the accused. The content of the note read:

The anonymous biographer Anonimo Magliabechiano, who is often equated with Vasari because of the easily confused style, mentions in his biography of Michelangelo a meeting between Leonardo and Michelangelo: "He [Leonardo] wore a rose-colored robe, short to the knee, although long dresses were worn at that time."

This description by Anonimo Magliabechiano contributes much today to the notion that Leonardo, in a sense conforming to the stereotype of the eccentric, openly homosexual, modern gay man, preferred to portray himself in pink clothing. The fact that Leonardo, according to the fashion of the time, also wore skirt-like clothing as a man reinforces this association.

Pink was not always a gay color

Today's color coding of the sexes cannot be applied to the Renaissance. The assignment of pink as a girl's color and blue as a boy's color is a newfangled one that has only been in effect since about the 19th century (see Marco Del Giudice; Pink, Blue, and Gender). Before that, there was no assignment of colors to gender, which can be readily seen in older paintings before the 19th century.

So even if Leonardo always wore pink clothing, it would be insignificant in terms of his sexuality at the time. At the time of the Renaissance, pink was not a girl's color and would not have had a gay meaning if worn by a man.

The fact that Leonardo always surrounded himself with young men is also understood as an indication of Leonardo's homosexuality.

Women were not allowed to become painters

The painter's workshops were male dominated, as women were not allowed to start training as painters until modern times. The fact that Leonardo had exclusively male students can therefore not be explained by a sexual inclination.

Training as a painter began at a young age

There were no public schools at the time of the Renaissance. The children and young people who wanted to enjoy the privilege of education, and did not have rich parents, were therefore dependent on the training companies and the knowledge of their masters. The typical age for an apprenticeship was 10-15 years. Leonardo himself had begun his apprenticeship between the ages of 12 and 14. This explains why there were also underage students in Leonardo's workshop.

Why Leonardo took in pupils

The painter Leonardo da Vinci did not work alone, but like all famous artists of his time, he was the head of a large craft workshop. The painter's workshop included hired servants, maids and assistants. The fact that Leonardo took on pupils also brought him numerous advantages.

• Posthumous fame
  The master passed on his knowledge to his pupils, who then revered him. The painter thus increased his fame and had an influence on future developments
• Financial reasons
  The head of the painter's workshop usually received an apprenticeship fee and was thus financially secure. This could be a profitable business if the children of rich patrons were taken care of
• Political reasons
  The political network that was created by taking in students should not be underestimated. For example, Leonardo's pupil Francesco Melzi came from a very wealthy noble Milanese family. When Leonardo lost his employer Ludovico Sforza in the turmoil of the conquest of Milan by the French, he was able to live for a time on the Melzis' estate
• Practical reasons
  Students were able to do monotonous auxiliary work, such as priming canvases or running errands, etc.
• Human reasons
  Sympathy certainly played a role in the acceptance of students. It can be assumed that long-lasting friendships developed from this. At least two of his students, Salai and Francesco Melzi accompanied Leonardo until his death.

The majority of Leonardo's nude drawings show men. The few female nude drawings mostly bear male features.

The church and nudity

This can be explained by the fact that according to the ecclesiastical understanding of the time, the depiction of nudity was not virtuous. If a painter wanted to show naked people without arousing the suspicion of the church, this was only permitted for a few religious motifs, such as Adam and Eve in Paradise, Jesus as a baby in the arms of the Madonna, or Jesus on the cross.

Lack of nude models

In order to be able to paint people after nature for practice, nude drawings of models were secretly made in the artists' workshops. This only applied to the better workshops; the worse ones were content to use antique statues or other paintings as models. Leonardo criticized this because it meant that their mistakes would also be copied.

For understandable reasons, it was difficult to find nude models without falling into a certain reputation. If it did not succeed, the always male students of the workshops took each other as models. This was then due to necessity and not necessarily an erotic preference.

The parodies

The lack of female models then explains drawings of men with breasts, which parody the amusing process of creation. In addition, it was common, especially in Italy, to verbalize the work of colleagues by sexualizing it. A work that was not liked, for example, was painted over with an erect penis or the like.

This is the thesis: Leonardo is said to have taken in the handsome 10-year-old Salai out of a homoerotic need when he was 38 years old. When Salai then grew older, Leonardo, contrary to expectations, did not turn away from him, although Salai was grown-up, cocky and untalented and, moreover, also stole from him. Nevertheless, Leonardo loved Salai and lived with him in a marriage-like relationship. When Leonardo died, he left Salai the house they shared in Milan. Salai did not overcome Leonardo's death and died five years later in a violent confrontation.

Who was Salai?

Salai (Arabic/Italic 'little devil, imp') was the call name of Gian Giacomo Caprotti, given to him by Leonardo when he was about 14 years old. He was born around 1480 in Oreno near Monza. Little is known about Salai's family. He was the son of Pietro and a Caterina, who happened to have the same first name as Leonardo's mother. Leonardo biographer Charles Nicholl suggests, based on the designation of Salai's father in a legal document, as "Pietro, son of the late Lord John," that Salai's grandfather must have owned some land and status. In any case, Pietro was willing to pay Leonardo to take Salai in and therefore must have possessed some money. In addition, Salai had two sisters.

According to Vasari, Leonardo is said to have taken Salai as a pupil in 1490 while he was still a boy: "During his stay in Milan, Leonardo took a youth of that city, Salai, as his pupil". Leonardo himself notes: "Jacomo [Giacomo] came to my house on Magdalen's Day [July 22] 1490, 10 years old".

Exactly what tasks Salai took on in the workshop is not known. It is conceivable that he was initially employed as a servant, errand boy and model. Certainly, there was also an apprenticeship as a painter. There are documents that prove important errands of Salai, e.g. for Leonardo's correspondence with Isabelle d'Este. Salai's work as a painter, however, is considered insignificant. It is assumed that the "Monna Vanna" was his work (above), in general no painting can be proven beyond doubt.

Salai died a violent death in 1524, five years after Leonardo's death. The reason for the quarrel is unknown. Salai was married to a Bianca de Anono, as is known from the letter of the notary Crevenna dated 01.04.1525. The latter mediated in an inheritance dispute between Salai's wife and his two sisters and drew up a list of Salai's estate on that day. Salai lived only 44 years and left no descendants.

Salai, the thief

Salai's character was initially considered rebellious. In July 1491, about 1 1/2 years after Salai had joined his workshop, Leonardo made a famous note of the financial damage Salai had caused him. Presumably he intended to have Salai's father reimburse him for the amount. Some authors, including Charles Nicholl, incomprehensibly read a homoerotic-tender undertone out of Leonardo's accusation:

"The second day after, I had him cut two shirts, a pair of trousers, and a doublet, and when I put aside the money for these things, he stole this money out of my pocket, and I never succeeded in getting him to confess, though I was firmly convinced that he would. (4 lire)

The following day I went to a dinner at Giacomo Andrea's, and the said Giacomo meanwhile ate for two and did damage for four. For he broke three jugs, spilled the wine, and after that he went to dinner with me, where I [sentence unfinished].

Further: on September 7, he stole a stylus worth 22 soldi, which was made of silver, from Marco, who was staying with me, and stole it from his workshop. After searching for it for a long time, the said Marco found it hidden in the chest of the said Giacomo. (1 lira)

On the 26th of January of the following year, while staying in the house of Messer Galeazzo da Sanseverino to prepare his tournament feast, and when some pages were undressing to try on some dresses of savages who were performing at this feast, Giacomo approached the purse of one of them, which was lying on the bed with other dresses, and took out the money he found in it. (2 lire, 4 soldi)

Also: having received from Master Agostino of Pavia in the said house a gift of Turkish leather for a pair of boots, Giacomo stole it from me during the month and sold it to a cobbler for 20 soldi, whereupon, as he himself confessed to me, he bought anise cake with the money. (2 lire)

On April 2, when Gian Antonio left a silver stylus on one of his drawings, this Giacomo stole the stylus from him, which was worth 24 soldi. (1 lira, 4 soldi)"

Leonardo summarizes Salai's character at the time in a marginal note to the inventory in four words, "thievish, mendacious, defiant, gluttonous." The damage done to Leonardo by the inclusion of Salai was therefore more than 10 lire and 8 soldi. In today's currency this corresponds to an amount of more than 4000,- Euro (The conversion is explained in the article "Leonardo's finances"). Salai's thieving behavior probably lasted for several years, because even six years later Leonardo noted in a renewed list of maintenance costs on 4.4.1497: "Salai steals money". But he seems to have finally forgiven him for his behavior, since Salai stayed with him until shortly before Leonardo's death.

Leonardo's generosity

In addition to the above costs, Leonardo claims another 32 lira in expenses (about 13,000 euros) spent on Salai's other clothing, including 24 pairs of shoes. This expense must be seen in context. Leonardo was a member of the court of Milan, and he could not send his messengers to the duke in poor threads. Moreover, Leonardo was known to dress only in fine fabrics, and to outfit the members of his workshop likewise. So he did not only dress Salai in the same way. It is unclear to what extent Salai's father was informed in advance of these additional costs, and whether he ever paid them.

Leonardo's life with Salai

There are no documents that suggest an intimate personal relationship between the two. The fact that Leonardo took the ten-year-old boy to himself can be explained by social responsibility, teaching zeal or compassion for the living conditions of the boy, who had presumably been living in poverty until then. It is not unusual that Salai remained Leonardo's pupil until his death, because Francesco Melzi also stayed with him until then. The noble Melzi from the most distinguished circles of Milan had also become Leonardo's pupil as a boy.

Salai was not an outstanding painter and it would certainly have been difficult for him to make a living in an environment of strong competition. Thus, Salai may have had no choice but to continue in Leonardo's service. But to understand this collaboration in Leonardo's workshop as a marriage-like community and to give it a sexual component seems arbitrary. At least this is not provable.

Leonardo's will - The generous gift to Salai

The allegedly amorous relationship of Leonardo and Salai is supposed to prove a generous gift that was determined in Leonardo's will. If the complete will is read, it becomes clearer that Leonardo did not grant Salai a generous inheritance. He gave him the same thing that he gave to his servant Vilanis. The main part of the fortune went to Melzi and Leonardo's siblings. From this it is probably easier to deduce the relationship between Leonardo and Salai.

"[Leonardo da Vinci] bequeaths [...] to his servant Battista de Vilanis for ever and ever half, viz. half of the garden which he owns outside the gates of Milan, and the other half of the same garden to his servant Salai; in which garden the said Salai has erected and built a house, which shall also belong and remain forever to the said Salai, his heirs and successors, as compensation for the good and welcome services rendered him by his servants, the said de Vilanis and Salai, henceforth and forever."

The "Garden at the Gates of Milan" was a gift from the Duke of Milan to Leonardo (1497), two years before his fall at the hands of the French. It is significant that both Vilanis and Salai inherit the Milanese property equally, and both are referred to as servants. The "good and welcome services" are interpreted by many authors as Salai's sexual favors. This often omits the context of the longstanding servant relationship, both to Salai and to Vilanis. The "good and welcome services" are then nothing more than a phrase of courtesy, addressed to both Vilanis and Salai, in the context of a generous gift and devoid of any sexual component.

Nonetheless, Salai's decades-long allegiance gave him a special position, as he owned several valuable paintings that are valued comparatively highly in the aforementioned lawsuit after his death. It is believed that some of Leonardo's originals were involved. Among others, the Mona Lisa is said to have been in his possession ("1 painting, woman moved backwards, called La Joconda, 100 scudo", notarial acts of Pietro Paolo Crevenna: Salai's estate).

The Mona Lisa as a portrait of Salai

It is often read that the man Salai could have been the model for the female portrait "Mona Lisa". An indication of this is said to be the name Mona Lisa, which is an anagram of "Mon Salai" (French for "My Salai"). However, Leonardo never named the painting in this way, the first to call the work Mona Lisa is Giorgio Vasari. In Leonardo's environment, the portrait was probably called Gioconda.

Besides "Mon Salai" also "Nom Alias" (French 'alias name') and "Mon Alias" (French 'My Alias') are meaningful anagrams to Mona Lisa. Then Leonardo would have meant himself. And that's only if it is assumed that Mona Lisa does not show Mon(n)a Lisa del Giocondo.

Other portraits and drawings by Salai

It is also claimed that Salai was the model for "John the Baptist". Anyone who recognizes a similarity in the face of the Mona Lisa and John the Baptist may believe that Salai modeled for both paintings. What complicates the matter is the fact that to this day it is unclear what Salai looked like at all.

Giorgio Vasari - The first art historian

Vasari's biographies of artists are today considered the birth of art history. For the Renaissance era, his work was the standard work for a long time and is still the most cited today. So is Vasari's biography of Leonardo. It appeared in two editions, a first one from 1550 and a second one with expanded content from 1568, several decades after Leonardo's death (1519). Vasari himself was only eight years old when Leonardo died.

Vasari belonged to the direct circle of friends of the well-known Italian noble family Medici. He had grown up with some descendants of the family and later became an important painter and architect in Florence. Thus, from 1555, he was responsible for the reconstruction of the city parliament of Florence (Palazzo Vecchio), during which he painted over or bricked up the unfinished mural "Battle of Anghiari" begun by Leonardo. The painting has since been considered lost. Vasari was also the chief architect of the Florentine Uffizi. Due to his, as well as Leonardo's close connection to the Medici, it can be assumed that his statements regarding Leonardo da Vinci must be particularly credible. Nevertheless, some of his statements are now considered refuted.

A piquant formulation in Leonardo's biography

Giorgio Vasari reports in his Leonardo biography of 1550 about the boy Salai (* around 1480), whom Leonardo took in around 1490 and in whom he found a "strange pleasure". In a second later version of 1568, Vasari rephrased the passage:

"During his stay in Milan, Leonardo took as his pupil a youth of that city, Salai. Leonardo took great delight in the latter's grace and beauty, especially in his curly hair. He taught him many things in art, and some paintings attributed to Salai in Milan are reworked by Leonardo."

It takes some daring to conclude Leonardo's homosexual tendencies based on this statement. Vasari mentions Salai only briefly with these sentences. In this respect, they are not suitable as proof of Leonardo's homosexuality. Nevertheless, the formulation can be found in this context again and again "... as already Vasari stated ..." or similar. Vasari's centuries-long influence on the art-historical image of Leonardo da Vinci cannot be overestimated.

Like Vasari, Lomazzo is also frequently cited when discussing Leonardo's assumed homosexuality. Lomazzo's book "Scritti sulle arti" contains, with the fragmentarily preserved "Gli Sogni e Raggionamenti," various dialogues that were presumably conceived as plays. In one of these fictional dialogues, he has Leonardo and the ancient sculptor Phidias talk about male love ('L'Amore Masculino'). In it, Phidias asked the fictional Leonardo if he had made love to his pupil Salai and has him reply, "all too often." Although this is a fictional work, Lomazzo is cited as a historical source when proving Leonardo's homosexuality.

Who was Lomazzo?

Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo (1538-1600) was an extremely talented painter in the style of Caravaggio. He came into contact with Franceso Melzi, and probably had him tell him about Leonardo. Melzi was Leonardo's last pupil, his executor and in possession of all Leonardo's notebooks. The painter Lomazzo could no longer benefit from the knowledge thus acquired, for he went blind at the age of about 30, around the time Melzi died (1570). He gave up painting and has since emerged as an art theorist.

Excerpt of the fictitious dialogue between Leonardo and Phidias

"Leonardo: [...] Salai, whom I loved more than anyone else all my life, and there were quite a few of them.
Phidias: Are you making love to him perhaps? What the Florentines like so much, playing from behind?
Leonardo: All too often! Remember, he was a beautiful boy, especially at fifteen.
Phidias: Aren't you ashamed to say that?
Leonardo: Why ashamed? Nothing is more worthy of praise among the virtuous than this. And that this is true I will prove to you with good reasons".

That it was in Lomazzo's intention to defame Leonardo is well seen in the last line of the quotation. Leonardo often used phrases of the type 'as I have proved with good reasons' or similar in his scientific notes. That Lomazzo adopts this choice of words to have Leonardo 'prove with good reasons' that in terms of virtue nothing is more to be praised than pederasty greatly increases the mock value of the work. But at the same time it makes clear the clearly defamatory character of this persiflage.

That this fictional literary mockery cannot be sufficient as evidence of Leonardo's homosexuality goes without saying. Since Leonardo already died in 1519, Lomazzo, who was born in 1538, can only have passed on hearsay. Advocates of Leonardo's homosexuality argue that he learned this from Melzi.

Whether Melzi, who revered Leonardo and wanted to preserve his memory, would have actually given Lomazzo such information is doubtful. Homosexuality was considered a serious offense at the time, could even be punished by death, and would have led to Leonardo's ostracism even beyond death.

A populist success

Many art historians subsequently adopted the narrative of a homosexual Leonardo. Even one of the best-known current Leonardo experts, Frank Zöllner, with reference to Lomazzo, insinuates Leonardo's homosexual tendencies "as an almost self-evident part of his genius". Directly in the 4th sentence of his widely distributed book from the Taschen publishing house. The matter-of-factness with which here a world-renowned art historian justifies the thesis of Leonardo's homosexuality with a fictional narrative is surprising.

Overall, this process is a good example of how fictitious narratives can assert themselves as truth, if they are only

• they are repeated often enough by supposed experts
• the audience has no prior knowledge and has to rely or wants to rely on narratives of others

Lomazzo's contemporaries could not look at Leonardo's paintings in the museum, nor did they have access to his writings. These were all privately owned by a few. For lack of reliable statements, they therefore had to believe what they were told about Leonardo by third parties, here by Lomazzo. What intention the blind painter Lomazzo pursued with his popular literary work is unclear today.

In 1910, Sigmund Freud dealt with Leonardo's sexuality in particular and that of geniuses in general as part of the psychoanalysis he developed. However, his work "A Childhood Memory of Leonardo da Vinci" does not satisfy any scientific claim, since he cannot cite any sources for his assertion that Leonardo was a passive homosexual. Surprisingly, he also states this at the beginning. And so the derivation of his theory is then based merely on mutually dependent assumptions.

Symbolically, he then also commits a momentous translation error by mistakenly translating the Italian "nibio" as "vulture" instead of "Milan". The following argumentation of a motherly love, which leads back to the mythology of Aegypt, where the vulture was a symbol of motherliness, consequently leads to nothing.

Freud's work on Leonardo is in itself little more than an attempt to popularize psychoanalysis in a popular scientific way. A scientific proof of Leonardo da Vinci's homosexuality necessarily does not succeed for lack of reliable sources.

How Leonardo da Vinci really felt in his deepest heart can probably not be determined more than 500 years after his death. However, the question can be approached by examining all the points raised by the proponents of Leonardo's homosexuality. And as has been shown, there is no compelling evidence that Leonardo da Vinci was homosexual.

In fact, the opposite can be established: All claims that are supposed to support Leonardo's homosexuality are, upon closer examination, misinterpretations (pink dresses) or intentionally scattered misinformation (Lomazzo). Regarding Leonardo's homosexuality, the impression of a disinformation campaign remains. About its reasons can only be speculated.

Independently of the search for evidence of Leonardo's alleged homosexuality, the question of Leonardo's sexuality in general can be raised. Even though this is rarely addressed apart from Leonardo's assumed homosexuality, he did comment on it in his writings.

Four quotations will now be mentioned, which firstly show Leonardo as someone who was disgusted by sex, and from this must have been an asexual person. Second, another of Leonardo's quotes can be understood to mean that he had incestuous feelings for his mother and sisters. A third may show Leonardo as the victim of homosexual child abuse, which may have been the cause of later homosexual tendencies. And finally, a brief note in the Codex Atlanticus may be interpreted to show that Leonardo had a clandestine affair with Cecilia Gallerani, the "lady with the ermine" and brief mistress of his longtime employer Ludovico Sforza.

Now everything cannot be right at the same time. Leonardo could not have loved asexually, heterosexually, incestuously or homosexually at the same moment. These four quotations are meant to demonstrate that Leonardo's thoughts were marked by contradictions and that he thought in so many different ways that it seems presumptuous today to make reliable statements about his sexual life. At least as long as Leonardo's own statements, as well as the few secured biographical facts, leave too much room for interpretation.