A documentary reveals that the Louvre did not consider the Salvator Mundi autograph. But does the thesis hold up?

Why has the Salvator Mundi never been exhibited at the Louvre? Perhaps, because it is not by Leonardo da Vinci: the new thesis to explain why the French museum apparently did not know where the work ended up emerges from a documentary that will premiere on Tuesday, April 13, at 8:50 p.m. on French channel France 5. Titled Salvator Mundi, la stupéfiante affaire du dernier Vinci, the 90-minute film is the work of French journalist Antoine Vitkine, who conducted an investigation through the corridors of the French Ministry of Culture to understand what happened to the painting.

As is now well known, the Salvator Mundi, a painting attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, was bought as his work in 2017 by Mohammed bin Salman, crown prince of Saudi Arabia, for the monstrous sum of $450 million, making it the most expensive work of art in history. The work was thus to be exhibited at the Louvre in 2019, for the 500th anniversary of Leonardo da Vinci’s death, as part of a deal between France and Saudi Arabia. Vitkine’s thesis, which in the documentary shows some covered-face witnesses (a senior official of the Ministry of Culture, codenamed “Pierre,” and a government official, “Jacques”), is that the Louvre did not exhibit the work because, after laboratory analysis, it would have realized that the painting would be referable to Leonardo da Vinci’s circle, and that the master would have made a minimal contribution. A similar conclusion, moreover, had been reached by scholar Carmen Bambach (a great Leonardo expert) in the summer of 2019: in her opinion, the Salvator Mundi is a work that is almost entirely due to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, with Leonardo making only a few retouches.

Salvator Mundi attributed to Leonardo da Vinci (c. 1499; oil on panel; 65.6 x 45.4 cm; Private collection)

Also according to the documentary’s thesis, the Louvre reportedly communicated the outcome of the studies to the Saudis, who, however, asked the French to present the work at the Louvre’s 2019 Leonardo exhibition as an autograph and also promised funds (and again according to the two witnesses, Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and then Culture Minister Franck Riester lobbied to have the Saudis’ request accepted). In the end, however, President Emmanuel Macron allegedly decided to reject Saudi Arabia’s requests: for all these reasons, the picture would not be exhibited.

Does the documentary’s thesis hold up? In fact, this version contrasts with some certain elements, noted journalist Didier Rykner, volcanic editor of La Tribune de l’Art magazine: namely, the fact that the Louvre, in 2019, had published a catalog of the major exhibition on Leonardo in which the Salvator Mundi was attributed to the Da Vinci painter, precisely as a result of the studies conducted at C2RMF (Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France), from which, instead, according to the documentary, evidence would have emerged that should have denied the autograph. The book, published in December 2019 by Hazan and Éditions du Louvre, however, “does not officially exist,” Rykner says. “If you ask the Louvre, the book never existed. But we were able to read it because it was published, and it was put on sale for a day in the Louvre bookstore before being hastily withdrawn when it became certain that the painting would not be exhibited.” In his article, Rykner reports the passages in the book in which the attribution to Leonardo da Vinci is confirmed. How, then, is it possible that the two officials could claim that in fact the Louvre had not corroborated the attribution? That is the question Rykner put to Vitkine.

“The Saudis,” Vitkine replied to La Tribune de l’Art, "really wanted to exhibit the painting and were very embarrassed that there could be any doubt about the attribution. [...] Obviously I was very interested in the famous catalog, which was to be published in December but which the Louvre never wanted to confirm. My hypothesis is that the existence of this catalog can be explained by the fact that the Louvre had, in all cases, to prepare to exhibit the Salvator Mundi on Saudi terms if Emmanuel Macron did not refuse to accept their demands (to exhibit the painting with certain attribution to Leonardo da Vinci). In such a context, I would understand the existence of the catalog and the conclusions to which it lends itself. What I do know is that discussions with the Saudis continued even after the exhibition opened. This might explain the late date of publication, December [the exhibition opened in September, ed.] But these are still hypotheses: the Louvre has never agreed to comment on this catalog, about which it explained only that it was put on sale by mistake, before being immediately withdrawn. It is a mystery, which I am not surprised about, given the affair and its implications, given that we are dealing with Franco-Saudi relations."

Really, then, were the Louvre and C2RMF willing to publish a deliberately phony study just so as not to put a dent in French-Saudi relations, in case Macron accepted the demands coming from the Saudis? Rykner does not think this is possible: “the hypothesis of mystification does not hold,” the French art historian argues. In December, the Louvre was still hoping to show the painting, and the catalog would be withdrawn when it was now certain that the Salvator Mundi would not be exhibited, but without lapsing the confidentiality obligation around the painting that the Louvre entered into with Saudi Arabia (an agreement under which the Louvre was not allowed to publish even the results of studies). The “omertà” (Rykner moreover uses the term in Italian in the article) around the book is explained on the basis of the confidentiality agreement: the Salvator Mundi was not exhibited, the agreement around the work remained in place, and the catalog was therefore withdrawn.

There are still questions, however, according to Rykner: why would these two officials talk about a Louvre that would refuse to endorse attribution to Leonardo? It could be, Rykner speculates, an incoming operation from the United Arab Emirates, which frowns upon the collaboration agreements France has made with Saudi Arabia for the enhancement of Al Ula, an archaeological site on which the Saudis are betting heavily and which, in their intentions, is to compete with the Louvre Abu Dhabi in the regional tourism arena. “There is only one chance to put an end to this story,” Rykner points out: “for Saudi Arabia to release the Louvre from its confidentiality obligation and authorize it to publish the study showing that the painting is, according to the museum and the C2RMF, the work of Leonardo da Vinci.”

A documentary reveals that the Louvre did not consider the Salvator Mundi autograph. But does the thesis hold up?

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.