Page:Desert News Mona Lisa article.png



The three pictures reproduced herewith are causing much discussion in Europe, anent the return of the stolen Mona Lisa to the Louvre. The newly discovered Isleworth Mona Lisa belongs to John Eyre, an Englishmen widely known as a novelist. Although he does not claim it as the original, it, nevertheless, has the two columns mentioned by early authorities as being in the original and not appearing in the Louvre version. The two columns referred to are to be seen in the reprints then as two dark streaks at the right and left margins. Though not clearly shown in the photograph of the painting, the columns are seen supported on bases and pedestals, as seen in the Raphael sketch. The sketch mentioned is reproduced in the center. It was drawn from memory and shows, among other interesting details, the trees to the left, which appear in the unfinished background of the Isleworth Mona Lisa. On the right is seen the new version of Leonardo da Vinci's world famous painting. The differences in the background will at once be noticed, while there is a striking difference in the face and draperies.

, Feb. 5.—A new version of the "Mona Lisa," Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting which has just been returned to the Louvre, has been discovered in the possession of John R. Eyre, a novelist living in Isleworth, near London. It is a picture of extraordinary interest varying considerably from the Louvre version, and showing the columns on either side, mentioned by Vasari, the early Italian art historian, as being in the original picture. It is a significant fact that these columns are also shown in the drawing by Raphael from memory of the "Mona Lisa," and which Muntz includes in his authoritative biography of da Vinci, and regarding which he says "One detail which has been overlooked is that the portrait is enframed by two beautiful painted columns; these are hidden by the frame." as a matter of fact, there are no columns in the Louvre painting. The old copy, belonging to Richardson, and which was compared with the Louvre picture in 1750, at Coypel's house, was identical with the Louvre version in every particular.

The Isleworth work is said to be contemporary with the Louvre picture and much larger, and already there are critics who say that it even has claims for serious consideration as the original masterpiece of Leonardo. The owner, however is content that the work should be judged on its own merits, but holds that it is intrinsically a more beautiful work of art than the famous Paris picture.

The painting has at some time or other been transferred from panel to canvas. The size is 3½ feet higher and 5 feet wider than the Paris picture, and on each side a column runs up as mentioned in contemporary descriptions of da Vinci's picture. The background is entirely different and unfinished–again substantiating the statement made by Vasari that the background of the original was never completed.

The head is tilted more forward and the parting of the hair is exactly in the center, while that forehead and runs towards the back of the head atof the Louvre picture starts in the middle of the [sic] forehead and runs towards the back of the head at an impossible and incorrect angle. The tonality of the picture is darker and the coloring in accordance with almost all the works attributed to Leonardo–that of a golden glow,–while the finish is of a most minute character.

The Louvre picture, whether from cleaning or some other cause, shows a bulge over the left eye, which is anatomically impossible–a blemish which is absent in the newly discovered version, while the line of the jaw is not cut in so suddenly against the chin. The hair which falls over the left shoulder is hardly indicated against the left breast, thus differing from the Louvre picture. The hands appear more rhythmic and perfect in drawing, and the whole picture is unbelievably beautiful.

This new discovery is of such interest that it is as well to quote certain authorities who refer to incidents in Leonardo's working life. Muntz states: "As early as 1501, Fra. Pietro de Nuvolaria reports in one of his letters to the Marchesa Isabella D'Este that two of Leonardo's pupils were painting portraits which he occasionally worked upon himself." Also "it is hardly probable that the portrait of 'Mona Lisa' was the female portrait ordered by Giuliano de Medici and seen in Leonardo's studio by Cardinal D'Aragon in 1516." Leonardo himself refers to two portraits in his letter to Marshal de Chaumont.

Mrs. Heaton states in "Leonardo and his Works" that "Francisco del Gioconda, the husband of 'Mona Lisa,' does not seem to have commissioned the portrait, at least it remained with the painter until he sold it to the French king for 4,000 crowns, an enormous sum for the time." As there were two portraits mentioned by Leonardo himself it may be very reasonably supposed that one or more replicas were produced, as was usual in artistic studios of the period, and that it was not necessarily the original which the French King purchased from the master.

This is what Vasari himself says of the effect of the picture:—"In this portrait of Leonardo's, on the contrary, there is so pleasing an expression and the smile that while looking at it one thinks it rather divine than human, and it has ever been esteemed a wonderful look since life itself could exhibit no other appearance."

This can hardly be said about the Louvre picture, in which the expression has been variously described as enigmatic and enchantingly diabolical and which Michelet, the French historian, said fascinated him as the serpent does the bird.

It has hitherto been generally stated that the pedigree of the Paris picture is known beyond question and that it never left the palaces of Fontainebleau and Versailles until it was placed in the Louvre. But against this we have the record of Richardson, the old English painter, in his "Account of Statues, Bas-reliefs and Drawings in Italy, France, Etc.," published in London in 1754. At page 16 he actually describes the French king's pictures as being in Coypel's house! Moreover, that all is not clear regarding the custody of the king's pictures is established on the authority of Lomazzo, who states that he saw da Vinci's "Leda and Swan" with the "Mona Lisa" at Fontainebleau: but the "Leda" has completely disappeared! Under the entry referring to Leonardo da Vinci, Richardson says, "The Joconda spoken of at large by Vasari in the life of this master. I consider it with the utmost attention, Landskip, and every part, and find it the same as my father's in every respect, the same particularly in the coloring of the hands as distinguished so that at that distance I could remember no difference, nor can I tell which I should chuse."

Furthermore it is authoritatively stated that the secretary of the king's gallery admitted to Richardson that many experts had doubted the authenticity of the "Mona Lisa" in their gallery. Any one familiar with Richardson's works will not question for an instant the high standard of connoisseurship to wish he had attained. They evidence an exceptional insight and knowledge of the works of the old masters.

The discovery of the Isleworth painting undoubtedly further intensifies the mystery surrounding the portrait of "Mona Lisa" mentioned by Browning in the following quotation from "The King and the Book."

"Oh! with a Lionard going cheap. If it should prove, as promised, that Jaconda, Whereof a copy contents the Louvre!"