It is related that Leonardo da Vinci once searched for a model of Judas, and that he found a man whose physiognomy he considered perfect for this purpose. As he was working on his painting, he asked the man whether they had met ever before, because he had gradually discovered many a familiar feature. The man replied that they indeed had, and that he had modeled for the painter while he was working on his Jesus.

Addendum I (September 5, 1983)

I heard this story in the summer of 1978 from a young woman of Hungarian origin, who studied opera singing in Ljubljana. Her name escapes me now. She had read the story in a Hungarian textbook on the history of art, and she promised to find it for me, for my excitement upon hearing it apparently amused her. She failed to keep her promise, though, and I am not sure any more on the actual sequence of events, that is, whether Jesus preceded Judas, or vice versa. This uncertainty tends to spoil my fascination, but not entirely.

Addendum II (October 13, 1984)

I met the young singer in the home of Ejti Štih, with whom I was infatuated at the time. If I remember correctly, that was the second time I went to see Ejti at her place. The first time she was alone. Those were blissful moments… It appeared that I had a chance at winning her heart. I am sure that she indeed wavered for a week or two, but in the end nothing came of it. All my attempts at bewildering her with my protean character proved to be insufficient, or plainly ridiculous, vis-à-vis her girlish cunning. She was twenty-one: fully aware of her feminine powers, and yet playful enough to enjoy exercising them for the sake of exercise. After it became obvious that I had failed completely, it took me a couple of months to start functioning normally again, and a couple of years to stop thinking of her every single day… At any rate, it is likely that I had not been able to get the Hungarian book because of the collapse of my courtship. What a terrible and unexpected loss!

Addendum III (November 28, 1985)

The significance of this tale should not be difficult to fathom. I once stumbled upon a theological argument that it was in fact Judas who sacrificed himself pro bono humani generis, and not Jesus—the son of God. Judas’ sacrifice was to remain unlimited in time, while Jesus was to be resurrected in glory sooner or later. The sacrifice was necessary, and thus hardly despicable. Leonardo’s error testifies to the difficulty associated with the distinction between Judas and Jesus. And why has this interpretation not been accepted as obvious and not worth theological arguments of any length and complexity? Error, procul dubio!

Addendum IV (August 15, 1986)

One should not conceal and corrupt the facts of how our thoughts have come to us. The profoundest and least exhausted books will probably always have something of the aphoristic and unexpected character of Pascal’s Pensées.

From Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Will to Power, New York: Vintage Books, 1968, p. 229.