THE MONA. LISA."• Ie. the contention of this book can
be established, a discovery of a very important nature has been made. Nothing less will have come to light than the original version of Leonardo's portrait of Mona Lisa. The outline of Mr. Eyre's argument is this. He is in possession of a picture which has been in his family for over a hundred years, and which was bought by his ancestor in Italy as a Leonardo. It remained in a manor house in Somerset, but recently was at Isleworth. When it was cleaned, and coats of darkened varnish were removed, a painting was disclosed which, we are told, a great authority, who remains clouded in mystery, pronounced to be an authentic work of Leonardo. The picture in question is now being taken care of by the Boston Museum of Fine Arts out of the way of the spread of civilization by German bombs.
The documents bearing on the "Mona Lisa" are not many.
• Monograph on Leonardo du Vinci's "Mona Lisa." By John B. Eyre, Loution: Gravel and Co. [5a. net.]
The account by Vasari was written fifty years after the event, and so is of course not very dependable. He could not have seen'tho picture he describes so minutely, as it was taken to France' by the painter when the historian was five years old. Yasari tolls us that Leonardo worked for four years on the
portrait, and then left it unfinished, selling it eventually to the.French King. Why Francesco del Giocondo never became
possessed of his wife's portrait Vasari does not explain. There are other pieces of contemporary evidence; one a letter from the General of the Order of the Carmelites in Milan, written to his friend Isabella d'Este. Describing the pictures in Leonardo's studio, he says : " Two of his pupils are painting portraits, and he touches them up from time to time." Much more important are the drafts and letters from Leonardo himself to the Marechal Chaumont, Governor of Milan, and to the Superintendent of Canals. In the draft of one of these letters the painter says that he has for Francis I. "two pictures of our lady " ; in the letter itself the words are " two pictures of two of our ladies " (" due quadri di due nostre donne"). Mr. Eyre, commenting on these documents, says :--
"Thew sentences have boon translated as meaning two pictures of the Madonna, or Blessed Virgin, which, I maintain, is wrong. Translated accurately, they signify two pictures of two of our ladies '; not—mind you—two pictures of our lady, but two pictures of two of our ladies, and who over heard of two pictures of our two Blessed Virgins '? Besides, when Leonardo did writo that ho was painting two pictures of the Virgin in 1478, ho wrote :
• jeomiciii to 2 vergini Mario."
Bat we have also to remember that Leonardo's literary style is said not to be very logical, nor even always grammatical.
The final document is the report of the secretary of the
Cardinal of Aragon, who notes that his master visited Leonardo in 1516 at Cloux, where he saw a picture of " a certain Florentine lady made (or painted) from life to the order of the late Magnifico Juliano de' Medici." Thus external evidence shows that Leonardo painted a portrait of the wife
of a Florentine gentleman, and that a tradition, given by Vasari, says it was left unfinished, but became the property of Francis I. The General of the Carmelites, writing to Isabella d'Este, speaks of two pupils painting portraits touched up by the master, and the Cardinal of Aragon's secretary saw in Leonardo's house in France a portrait of a Florentine lady painted for one of the Medici. The points that want explain- ing are : Why did not Francesco del "Giocondo retain the portrait, and what became of the Medici's lady P Mr. Eyre's theory is this. One of the two portraits seen by the Carmelite was the original " MOna Lisa," which passed to her husband, and became lost in Florence and has now reappeared in England ; the other was an idealized version of the portrait painted at the instance of Juliano de' Medici, but kept by Leonardo, and taken to France and there finished. This picture he left with others to his pupil Melzi, who sold them to Francis I.
There is one more piece of external evidence to be con- sidered. In the Louvre there is a drawing by Raphael, apparently a sketch for a portrait, possibly the one of Maddalena Doni, of which the pose very closely resembles the "Mona Lisa." It has always been supposed that Raphael in making this drawing was influenced by Leonardo's lady, but made differences. He has introduced two columns, which go up the sides of the picture, framing the background. This background, too, has trees in it, not rocks. Now the Isle- worth picture has these columns and also trees, though these aro differently placed. In the Louvre picture are to be seen email portions of the bases, but nothing of the columns them- selves. Mr. Eyre does not say whether there is any sign of the Louvre panel ever having been larger. We are told that the background of the Isleworth picture is unfinished, which would correspond with what Vasari says of the portrait, but which is certainly not the case with the "Mona Lisa" in the Louvre.
All these considerations are merely the dry bones of the question. What really matters is the quality of the newly discovered picture. Of course without seeing it no final opinion can be hazarded. The photograph in the book is all we have to go by, and of this it must be said at onoo that it is of an entirely different nature from the ordinary copies of the "Mona Lisa." The great portrait of the Louvre is uncopy- able ; no painting or engraving reproduces in the least its subtle expression. The Isleworth picture has no appearance of being a copy ; it does not aim at reproducing the Louvre smile ; the expression is different. It is more natural, not so mysterious, more like a portrait, and has less the air of an ideal work. Judging merely by the photograph, and reserving complete freedom for an opposite view after having seen the original, we cannot help feeling that the proposition is reasonable that this is the portrait painted for Francesco del Gi000ndo. Did Juliano do' Medici see it and suggest to Leonardo that with such an incomparable model he might create another and greater work P It is indeed to be hoped that when, by the extinction of German force, the world's treasures can again be freely enjoyed, it will be possible for the picture to be seen in this country, so that we may judge of its beauties.
Previous page
