Eye to eye, she dresses elegantly in the latest Madrid fashion, but in a simple and no-frills way: the woman with the most celebrated face in the world, “Mona Lisa”, already had some popularity in Europe even before it was completed in 1508. Idealized and executed by brilliant Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), the famous artist and designer from Anchiano – a village of Tuscany -, already closely related to the powerful Casa Borgia’s sphere. And one of the biggest mysteries surrounding the character’s mythology - or "Giocondolatria" - would hover over the lady’s real identity, at first a not so majestic one. The strongest candidate could be the little-known Lisa Maria of Noldo Gherardini, wife of Florentine silk merchant Francesco Bartolomeo Del Giocondo - even though their daughter's untimely death was not recent, the couple had opted for a bereaved Lisa. Or perhaps the face in the painting would also be Bianca Sforza, Holy Roman Empress (supported thesis by expert Carla Glori - as recently confirmed for me by herself), or one of Giuliano de Medici's many lovers, Costanza D'Avallos. “La Gioconda” could also be Isabella Guallanda - another lover from Giuliano's vast role - or even Cecilia Gallerani (the model from “Lady with an Ermine”), both figures of the Italian “jet set” at that time, as well as perhaps some Spanish courtesan. There are also those who bet on Pacifica Brandani (another affair of his), such as Carlo Pedretti and Roberto Zapperi. More recently, another lover of Giuliano emerges as a possible personality behind the myth: Fioretta Gorini, also Florentine and Pope Clement VII’s mother.
One of the most traditional sources about the Mona Lisa, the book by the Italian Renaissance artist and biographer Giorgio Vasari, could decisively put an end to this controversy – one of the greatest enigmas in Art History. However, Dr. Pulitzer questions the text’s validation when he argues that Vasari never came to see the Mona Lisa that is today in the Louvre, since he was only four years old when the portrait went to France - besides, the artist never visited the country.
Be that as it may, in those rare occasions when contemporary references to Leonardo's masterpiece are found, it comes out through the letter by marquise of Mantua’s attorney. She is Isabella d'Este Gonzaga, nicknamed “Primadona”. There, the notes state that Leonardo would be working on two portraits, but without connecting them with the marquise - and by its date we can conclude one of them to be Gioconda’s. Recently in 2005, in the University of Heidelberg (Germany), scholar Armin Schlechter had found some notes dating from 1503 by Nicolas Machiavelli's secretary Agostino Vespucci. Reportedly, he would have witnessed the artist starting a “Lisa Del Giocondo” portrait.
Strong argument in favor of Lisa, almost a definitive proof, is the comment of secretary Antonio de Beatis about their visit to Leonardo’s manor in France, where the artist resided at the invitation of François I. This meeting took place in 1517, which is when the secretary identified one of the canvases presented by the artist as a portrait of “a certain Florentine lady, done naturally at the request of the late Magnificent Giuliano Medici.” Given the date, we can only conclude that this is referring to the painting in the Louvre, since it would soon belong to the French royal collections with “The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne” and “Saint John the Baptist”, also cited by De Beatis. Since Costanza is Neapolitan, as Isabella Guallanda, they should therefore be excluded by any chance as a possible sitter, despite the reference to Giuliano - that could just be like an admirer of Lisa’s beauty.
What matters is that one of the most intriguing points about the possibility of Lisa being Gioconda comes from the fact that she was not from an important family or even a recognizable person. For a notion of how a Florentine woman used to be treated, I turned to Ivana Bonfantino, a respected manuscript expert from the Università LUMSA della Capitale (Rome). Ivana is the discoverer of Leonardo's first known painting, “Head of Gabriel Archangel”, unveiled in 2018. The feat - made with Art historian Ernesto Solari - could also reveal the genius' first self-portrait. In a recent statement Ivana gave me, she said: “Although the Renaissance was the time of an extraordinary cultural and especially artistic flourishing, and although it reshaped the family as a cultural product, along two centuries of its affirmation (XV and XVI) the figure of women has not been reevaluated at all, especially in the middle and lower classes in European society, and in Italy and Florence in particular. Some historians, such as the American Joan Kelly-Gadol, have shown that the conditions of women in the Renaissance was in many ways the same as in previous ages, and sometimes even worse than in the medieval period, with loss of power and freedom. Woman has always remained clearly subordinated to the male figure, invariably being defined as a “daughter”, “sister”, “wife”, or “mother”. She was considered just by her generative capacity - the purpose of marriage was only procreation.” So, would Leonardo rather immortalize an almost anonymous rather than a princess, or an iron-hand stateswoman?..
Perhaps if we could take a look at why the painting is what it really represents, we’d have an answer in a much simpler way. For this, I can point three revolutionary elements: two of a visual, technical type; another, a sociological-philosophical one. For a better understanding of the following considerations, I recall an extract from my study about Mona Lisa released in 2013. It’s quite important an idea about these techniques in the end of the XVth century and how decisive they were to the painting’s constitution:
One of the most traditional sources about the Mona Lisa, the book by the Italian Renaissance artist and biographer Giorgio Vasari, could decisively put an end to this controversy – one of the greatest enigmas in Art History. However, Dr. Pulitzer questions the text’s validation when he argues that Vasari never came to see the Mona Lisa that is today in the Louvre, since he was only four years old when the portrait went to France - besides, the artist never visited the country.
Be that as it may, in those rare occasions when contemporary references to Leonardo's masterpiece are found, it comes out through the letter by marquise of Mantua’s attorney. She is Isabella d'Este Gonzaga, nicknamed “Primadona”. There, the notes state that Leonardo would be working on two portraits, but without connecting them with the marquise - and by its date we can conclude one of them to be Gioconda’s. Recently in 2005, in the University of Heidelberg (Germany), scholar Armin Schlechter had found some notes dating from 1503 by Nicolas Machiavelli's secretary Agostino Vespucci. Reportedly, he would have witnessed the artist starting a “Lisa Del Giocondo” portrait.
Strong argument in favor of Lisa, almost a definitive proof, is the comment of secretary Antonio de Beatis about their visit to Leonardo’s manor in France, where the artist resided at the invitation of François I. This meeting took place in 1517, which is when the secretary identified one of the canvases presented by the artist as a portrait of “a certain Florentine lady, done naturally at the request of the late Magnificent Giuliano Medici.” Given the date, we can only conclude that this is referring to the painting in the Louvre, since it would soon belong to the French royal collections with “The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne” and “Saint John the Baptist”, also cited by De Beatis. Since Costanza is Neapolitan, as Isabella Guallanda, they should therefore be excluded by any chance as a possible sitter, despite the reference to Giuliano - that could just be like an admirer of Lisa’s beauty.
What matters is that one of the most intriguing points about the possibility of Lisa being Gioconda comes from the fact that she was not from an important family or even a recognizable person. For a notion of how a Florentine woman used to be treated, I turned to Ivana Bonfantino, a respected manuscript expert from the Università LUMSA della Capitale (Rome). Ivana is the discoverer of Leonardo's first known painting, “Head of Gabriel Archangel”, unveiled in 2018. The feat - made with Art historian Ernesto Solari - could also reveal the genius' first self-portrait. In a recent statement Ivana gave me, she said: “Although the Renaissance was the time of an extraordinary cultural and especially artistic flourishing, and although it reshaped the family as a cultural product, along two centuries of its affirmation (XV and XVI) the figure of women has not been reevaluated at all, especially in the middle and lower classes in European society, and in Italy and Florence in particular. Some historians, such as the American Joan Kelly-Gadol, have shown that the conditions of women in the Renaissance was in many ways the same as in previous ages, and sometimes even worse than in the medieval period, with loss of power and freedom. Woman has always remained clearly subordinated to the male figure, invariably being defined as a “daughter”, “sister”, “wife”, or “mother”. She was considered just by her generative capacity - the purpose of marriage was only procreation.” So, would Leonardo rather immortalize an almost anonymous rather than a princess, or an iron-hand stateswoman?..
Perhaps if we could take a look at why the painting is what it really represents, we’d have an answer in a much simpler way. For this, I can point three revolutionary elements: two of a visual, technical type; another, a sociological-philosophical one. For a better understanding of the following considerations, I recall an extract from my study about Mona Lisa released in 2013. It’s quite important an idea about these techniques in the end of the XVth century and how decisive they were to the painting’s constitution:
Da Vinci's “The Annunciation” (Uffizi, Florence): Sacred geometry on the Mankind's redemption drama (Photo: Wikimedia Commons).
The “golden section”. Widely used during the Renaissance, the golden section is a structural resource for creating mathematical compositions in art, first discovered in antiquity, which resists the principle of intersecting axes. Thus, the artist can, through subdivision of the image into several rectangles, produce a series of major and minor forms that would flow to infinity. This effect guides our vision spiral, resulting in a transcendent order in space, as it would in nature. Indeed, the observations and studies of nature (scientific logos) were pillars of important Renaissance achievements.
The “Sfumato”. Even though the technique known as sfumato was raised to a new level once it was combined with oil painting, Leonardo Da Vinci is not its creator, as is commonly thought. The Italian term means “gone up in smoke”, “smoky”, or “evaporated”, since that is what used to happen with brush marks on a painting: they virtually disappeared. Actually, the procedure has a distant origin, whose systematic application has been demonstrated for millennia, above all, in drawing and other dry techniques. Da Vinci, however, applied sfumato with a new “glacis”, a technique that consisted of the application of an oil layer mixed with a minimum amount of colored pigment over a white primer. From this, a thin layer was developed by reproducing ethereal colored tones. Such a procedure allows light, when passing through this “veil”, to penetrate into the bottom of the painting and then reflect back to the viewer. The multiple shade tones in the later works of the artist are actually due to successive applications of those layers. Showing each a specific pigmentation, one on top of the other, thus results in an effect of vibrant constancy.
This peculiar process appears only in his later works; quite possibly, “Gioconda” was the first instance it was used. Some evidence was confirmed by recent findings by Mady Elias (French National Center for Scientific Research) and by Pascal Cotte (multispectral digitization tests, Lumière Technology). Undoubtedly, it was a task that depended on the artist's extra burden of patience and thoroughness. On the other hand, through his hands, a magical sphere could be reached beyond all human visual production so far.
The “Sfumato”. Even though the technique known as sfumato was raised to a new level once it was combined with oil painting, Leonardo Da Vinci is not its creator, as is commonly thought. The Italian term means “gone up in smoke”, “smoky”, or “evaporated”, since that is what used to happen with brush marks on a painting: they virtually disappeared. Actually, the procedure has a distant origin, whose systematic application has been demonstrated for millennia, above all, in drawing and other dry techniques. Da Vinci, however, applied sfumato with a new “glacis”, a technique that consisted of the application of an oil layer mixed with a minimum amount of colored pigment over a white primer. From this, a thin layer was developed by reproducing ethereal colored tones. Such a procedure allows light, when passing through this “veil”, to penetrate into the bottom of the painting and then reflect back to the viewer. The multiple shade tones in the later works of the artist are actually due to successive applications of those layers. Showing each a specific pigmentation, one on top of the other, thus results in an effect of vibrant constancy.
This peculiar process appears only in his later works; quite possibly, “Gioconda” was the first instance it was used. Some evidence was confirmed by recent findings by Mady Elias (French National Center for Scientific Research) and by Pascal Cotte (multispectral digitization tests, Lumière Technology). Undoubtedly, it was a task that depended on the artist's extra burden of patience and thoroughness. On the other hand, through his hands, a magical sphere could be reached beyond all human visual production so far.
Michelangelo's “Libyan Sibyl” (Sistine Chapel - Vatican, Rome): Muscles and muscles (Photo: Wikimedia Commons).
The “Homo Universalis”. It is here that the two-dimensional plane goes into crisis, since, together with the use of the golden section, the figure of Lisa Gherardini in the pictorial composition dominates the scene – with that “electrical alchemy” of the atmosphere that would become a hallmark of Leonardo, the re-creation of an “unreal” universe (a “new reality”) outside our time-space. No doubt, this iconographic schematic model emerged from the desire of this “Homo Universalis”, Renaissance person, who sees in this form an integration of Nature and the Divine. It is well known that Da Vinci defended the concept that the Creator is manifest in every creation, inside or outside our senses, in things that we are capable of understanding. It is also where we realize the open path through the artist mind: we are inserted into this same Nature from where we are fruit. Therein lies the poly dimensionality of the 'reality', something that the medieval conception about the acting - and often limiting - power of God totally made unfeasible.
An observation is needed now: at his old age, and with not too much to expect, the artist allows himself to be a kind of “philosophically incorrect” and starts to meditate over his homosexuality, understanding it more as an overcoming of the ego (as the gnosis used to teach). The idea would be to assume, in a sincere and spontaneous way, the phenomenon of love and sex as manifestations of a more spiritual and vibrational nature than as tools of procreation... and, about that, it’s not necessary to speech exclusively on heterosexuality. He wants to see in this conduct just one more possibility inside the complex order of things: something that should be natural, free from any conventions - those human artificiality generated by interests and conveniences. So, Leonardo would be more comfortable himself by applying another element to the Mona Lisa for synthesizing the dimension of complex and multifaceted human nature: the androgyny.
When, for example, Michelangelo executed his David in 1504, the figure of the defiant, virile young man was actually the representation of the Florence Republic’s power. In this case, the sculpture used the elementary (the naked man) to speech about politics, the so artificial human conventions. With the Mona Lisa it was different. Art historian Stanley Feldman quotes Charles Nicholl and tells me that Leonardo ultimately opposed Michelangelo for being a fickle questioner of human nature, while the latter embodied an arrogant confidence in his own ideal about that. This even helps to clarify Da Vinci's reinterpretation of Woman’s figure, while Michelangelo's attention focused on male muscles (due his homosexuality), which Leonardo himself pejoratively referred to as a "nut bag" or a “bundle of radishes”. More than a century later, the Spanish Baroque genius Diego Velazquez (1599-1660), would consecrate himself in Art History precisely by masterfully manipulating this psychological game over his dwarves and maids.
After all, in addition to the straight geometry of harmony and beauty, this painting had all the aesthetic and social innovation reasons (in matters involving the role of Women, and of the average citizen in Western World) which well explains why so much attention and curiosity to it. The ordinary woman’s simplicity being converted into sovereignty in a technically innovative representation is the ancestry to the model for feminist canons in the Modern World. Lisa Gherardini is Renaissance’s Lara Croft by Leonardo’s ideals.
Thinking about how the profile of Isabella d'Este - one of the most powerful and influential female figures in Renaissance - could be associated with Gioconda's mien, I had the idea to consult myself with Dutch actress Alexandra Oppo. Coming from the Conservatoire Royal in Brussels, she recently embarked on research for building Isabella's character in "Borgia - Faith and Fear" series (2011-2014, produced by Tom Fontana). Including this feature in my research on the marquise could help me to understand the character of a woman several centuries ahead of her time, as only someone with the mission of "reincarnating" could glimpse:
“My approach to the task of portraying Isabella d’Este Gonzaga for the Borgia series was, before anything, one of humanity. Each character, however strict or rigid, needs to be shown as a human in a fiction. Though d’Este Gonzaga was renowned for her strong character, the script of the series also exposed some of the character’s intimate life situations - such as the loss of a father and charged relationships with brothers in which the tension between the safeguarding of family bonds and the urgency of certain political situations ran high. The costume department and screenwriters took care of the rest, i.e. the iron fist Isabella d’Este Gonzaga was known for ruling with.”
With this I added to my conclusions what Leonardo had certainly suspected from the beginning: the simple and primitive humanity in each one of us will always speak louder. The difference is that associating great actions with a “Primadona” has always been easier - there is the differential of “La Gioconda”.
An observation is needed now: at his old age, and with not too much to expect, the artist allows himself to be a kind of “philosophically incorrect” and starts to meditate over his homosexuality, understanding it more as an overcoming of the ego (as the gnosis used to teach). The idea would be to assume, in a sincere and spontaneous way, the phenomenon of love and sex as manifestations of a more spiritual and vibrational nature than as tools of procreation... and, about that, it’s not necessary to speech exclusively on heterosexuality. He wants to see in this conduct just one more possibility inside the complex order of things: something that should be natural, free from any conventions - those human artificiality generated by interests and conveniences. So, Leonardo would be more comfortable himself by applying another element to the Mona Lisa for synthesizing the dimension of complex and multifaceted human nature: the androgyny.
When, for example, Michelangelo executed his David in 1504, the figure of the defiant, virile young man was actually the representation of the Florence Republic’s power. In this case, the sculpture used the elementary (the naked man) to speech about politics, the so artificial human conventions. With the Mona Lisa it was different. Art historian Stanley Feldman quotes Charles Nicholl and tells me that Leonardo ultimately opposed Michelangelo for being a fickle questioner of human nature, while the latter embodied an arrogant confidence in his own ideal about that. This even helps to clarify Da Vinci's reinterpretation of Woman’s figure, while Michelangelo's attention focused on male muscles (due his homosexuality), which Leonardo himself pejoratively referred to as a "nut bag" or a “bundle of radishes”. More than a century later, the Spanish Baroque genius Diego Velazquez (1599-1660), would consecrate himself in Art History precisely by masterfully manipulating this psychological game over his dwarves and maids.
After all, in addition to the straight geometry of harmony and beauty, this painting had all the aesthetic and social innovation reasons (in matters involving the role of Women, and of the average citizen in Western World) which well explains why so much attention and curiosity to it. The ordinary woman’s simplicity being converted into sovereignty in a technically innovative representation is the ancestry to the model for feminist canons in the Modern World. Lisa Gherardini is Renaissance’s Lara Croft by Leonardo’s ideals.
Thinking about how the profile of Isabella d'Este - one of the most powerful and influential female figures in Renaissance - could be associated with Gioconda's mien, I had the idea to consult myself with Dutch actress Alexandra Oppo. Coming from the Conservatoire Royal in Brussels, she recently embarked on research for building Isabella's character in "Borgia - Faith and Fear" series (2011-2014, produced by Tom Fontana). Including this feature in my research on the marquise could help me to understand the character of a woman several centuries ahead of her time, as only someone with the mission of "reincarnating" could glimpse:
“My approach to the task of portraying Isabella d’Este Gonzaga for the Borgia series was, before anything, one of humanity. Each character, however strict or rigid, needs to be shown as a human in a fiction. Though d’Este Gonzaga was renowned for her strong character, the script of the series also exposed some of the character’s intimate life situations - such as the loss of a father and charged relationships with brothers in which the tension between the safeguarding of family bonds and the urgency of certain political situations ran high. The costume department and screenwriters took care of the rest, i.e. the iron fist Isabella d’Este Gonzaga was known for ruling with.”
With this I added to my conclusions what Leonardo had certainly suspected from the beginning: the simple and primitive humanity in each one of us will always speak louder. The difference is that associating great actions with a “Primadona” has always been easier - there is the differential of “La Gioconda”.
Infamous Countess Elizabeth Báthory (copy of lost original from 1585): Yesterday (and today) female celebrity, the portrait of the infamous Hungarian stands in stark contrast to Leonardo's naturalism (Photo: Wikimedia Commons).
I wanted to get one more approach on this subject, and decided to find out better with Canadian-Slovak author Alessandra Nadudvari. As a researcher on medieval mysteries, she had previously participated in History Channel's “The Curse of Oak Island” series, and I considered her expertise to be a valuable source. Alessandra confirms to me that it was not impossible for ordinary people, at the end of the Middle Ages, to pose for aristocracy as stuntmen – here I remembered the usual “cartone” in the old masters' studios - as long as the painting was done with the noblemen’s face and personality. After all, she said, royalty could not avaiable themselves so long posing due to the artist's (sometimes) boring work. But with the Mona Lisa, Leonardo turns it all upside down: over there, turned into majesty, the model's simple face is the most important piece of the set.
Monna Lisa di VeraCruz, the version by an anonymous Leonardo's imitator: Smile and posture features as hallmarks of Modernity. Left: an experiment by Professor Soares in order to bring the model's real face back. It could be possible just by discarding all Leonardesque "stylistic vices" there / Right: the original sketch (IMAGES: Átila Soares / GM Private collection).
Conclusion. The famous smile of the Mona Lisa in Paris has gained an almost sacred character, witness the endless “pilgrimages” to the Louvre. Her figure has become synonymous with the greatness that the human race is capable of, as John F. Kennedy said during the portrait’s tour of the United States in 1963. As such, this feature would appear to supplant all its other achievements, enchanting the viewer with its solid pose in the face of eternity: she is sensitivity and solidity personified. That sovereign pose and enchanting smile are evident, exemplifying the ideal portrait of humankind at the dawn of Modernity. The countenance of this woman captures the essence of humanity with all her majesty, challenging whoever looks at her. It shows how art can serve as a great ally of nature, since our species is also the work of God's art, unique, His masterpiece. It marks the moment that humankind acquires that unique restlessness and speculation of the modern age - or what the theologian Paul Tillich calls its “last unquietness”, testifying to its transforming vocation.
Professor Átila Soares da Costa Filho
English version: Gilza Martins Saldanha da Gama, PhD in Literature - Catholic Pontifical University, Rio de Janeiro
(Opening photo: Ritratto di Donna by Leonardo da Vinci / Wikimedia Commons)
English version: Gilza Martins Saldanha da Gama, PhD in Literature - Catholic Pontifical University, Rio de Janeiro
(Opening photo: Ritratto di Donna by Leonardo da Vinci / Wikimedia Commons)
Bibliographical References
Giorgio De Santillana: “Leonardo da Vinci: an Artabras Book”. New York: Reynal & Co. e William Morrow & Co., 1965.
Giorgio Vasari. "Vidas de pintores, escultores y arquitectos ilustres". Buenos Aires: El Ateneo, 1945.
Jean Delumeau. "A história do medo no Ocidente (1300-1800): uma cidade sitiada". São Paulo: Cia.das Letras, 1989.
Jean-Pierre Vernant: “As origens do pensamento grego”. São Paulo: Difel, 2002.
Mario Pomilio, Angela Ottino della Chiesa: “L’opera completa di Leonardo pittore” – Classici dell’arte, vol.12. Milano: Rizzoli, 1978.
Peter Burke (Ed.). "A escrita da história: novas perspectivas". São Paulo: UNESP, 1992.
Umberto Eco: “Arte e beleza na estética medieval”. Rio de Janeiro: Globo, 1989.
Umberto Eco: “Storia della brutezza”. Milano: Bompiani, 2007.
Giorgio De Santillana: “Leonardo da Vinci: an Artabras Book”. New York: Reynal & Co. e William Morrow & Co., 1965.
Giorgio Vasari. "Vidas de pintores, escultores y arquitectos ilustres". Buenos Aires: El Ateneo, 1945.
Jean Delumeau. "A história do medo no Ocidente (1300-1800): uma cidade sitiada". São Paulo: Cia.das Letras, 1989.
Jean-Pierre Vernant: “As origens do pensamento grego”. São Paulo: Difel, 2002.
Mario Pomilio, Angela Ottino della Chiesa: “L’opera completa di Leonardo pittore” – Classici dell’arte, vol.12. Milano: Rizzoli, 1978.
Peter Burke (Ed.). "A escrita da história: novas perspectivas". São Paulo: UNESP, 1992.
Umberto Eco: “Arte e beleza na estética medieval”. Rio de Janeiro: Globo, 1989.
Umberto Eco: “Storia della brutezza”. Milano: Bompiani, 2007.