Table of Contents
Theories on the Identity of the Mona Lisa
The Mona Lisa, painted by Leonardo da Vinci between 1503 and 1519, is arguably the most famous portrait in the world. Housed in the Louvre Museum, it attracts millions of visitors each year, all captivated by the subject’s enigmatic smile and the painting’s mysterious aura. Despite its fame, the true identity of the woman depicted remains one of art history’s greatest unsolved puzzles.
Image: By Leonardo da Vinci – Cropped and relevelled from File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF.jpg. Originally C2RMF: Galerie de tableaux en très haute définition: image page, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15442524
Over the centuries, numerous theories have emerged regarding who the Mona Lisa really was. Some scholars argue that she was a Florentine merchant’s wife, while others suggest she may have been a noblewoman, a courtesan, or even a disguised self-portrait of Leonardo himself. The lack of definitive historical records from Leonardo’s time has allowed these theories to flourish, each supported by varying degrees of evidence.
This essay explores the leading theories about the identity of the Mona Lisa, analyzing historical documents, artistic techniques, and modern scientific investigations to assess their validity. By examining each hypothesis in depth, we can better understand why this painting continues to fascinate scholars and the public alike.
1. Lisa Gherardini (Lisa del Giocondo) – The Traditional Theory
Historical Evidence
The most widely accepted theory is that the Mona Lisa depicts Lisa Gherardini (1479–1542), the wife of Florentine silk merchant Francesco del Giocondo. This identification comes primarily from Giorgio Vasari, Leonardo’s early biographer, who wrote in The Lives of the Artists (1550):
“Leonardo undertook to paint, for Francesco del Giocondo, the portrait of Mona Lisa, his wife.”
The name Mona Lisa (or Monna Lisa) simply means “Madam Lisa” in Italian, while La Gioconda (the painting’s Italian name) is a pun on her married name (Giocondo) and means “the joyful woman.”
In 2005, a discovery at Heidelberg University provided further support for this theory. A note by Agostino Vespucci (a Florentine official and acquaintance of Leonardo) from 1503 confirmed that Leonardo was working on a portrait of Lisa del Giocondo at that time.
Artistic and Social Context
During the Renaissance, wealthy merchants like Francesco del Giocondo often commissioned portraits of their wives to celebrate marriages or childbirth. Lisa would have been around 24 years old when Leonardo began the painting, fitting the age of the woman depicted.
Additionally, the lack of jewelry in the portrait suggests she was a middle-class woman rather than a noble, aligning with Lisa Gherardini’s social status.
Counterarguments
Despite the strong evidence, some scholars question this theory:
- Vasari never saw the painting himself and relied on secondhand accounts.
- The Mona Lisa does not match typical Florentine wedding portraits, which were usually more formal and included symbolic elements like rings or brooches.
- Some argue that Leonardo never delivered the painting to the Giocondo family, raising doubts about its original purpose.
Nevertheless, the Lisa Gherardini theory remains the most plausible due to the historical documentation.
2. Isabella of Aragon – The Noblewoman Theory
Historical Connection
An alternative theory suggests that the Mona Lisa depicts Isabella of Aragon (1470–1524), the Duchess of Milan. Leonardo worked in Milan under Ludovico Sforza, Isabella’s father-in-law, from 1482 to 1499, making it possible that he painted her during this time.
Supporting Evidence
- Leonardo made preliminary sketches of noblewomen in Milan, some resembling the Mona Lisa.
- The melancholic expression could reflect Isabella’s tragic life—her husband was imprisoned, and she struggled to maintain power.
- The landscape behind her might symbolize her lost kingdom of Naples.
Challenges to the Theory
- No direct records link Isabella to the painting.
- The Mona Lisa’s soft features contrast with known portraits of Isabella, which depict a more austere woman.
- Leonardo likely started the painting after leaving Milan, weakening the connection.
While intriguing, this theory lacks concrete proof.
3. Pacifica Brandano or Another Medici Mistress
The Medici Connection
A less common theory proposes that the Mona Lisa was a mistress of Giuliano de’ Medici, a patron of Leonardo. One candidate is Pacifica Brandano, a noblewoman with whom Giuliano had a relationship.
Evidence from Historical Accounts
In 1517, Cardinal Luigi d’Aragon visited Leonardo in France and recorded in his diary that the artist showed him a painting of:
“a certain Florentine lady done from life at the request of the late Magnificent Giuliano de’ Medici.”
Since Giuliano died in 1516, some believe he commissioned the portrait of a lover.
Problems with the Theory
- No direct link between Pacifica and the painting exists.
- The timeline is inconsistent—Leonardo likely began the Mona Lisa before Giuliano’s involvement.
- The portrait’s style aligns more with Florentine women than courtly figures.
This theory remains speculative.
4. Leonardo da Vinci as the Model (Self-Portrait Theory)
The Androgyny Hypothesis
One of the most controversial theories, proposed by Lillian Schwartz (1980s), suggests that the Mona Lisa is a feminized self-portrait of Leonardo. Using digital comparisons, Schwartz claimed the face matches Leonardo’s self-portrait drawings.
Arguments in Favor
- Leonardo was known for blurring gender lines in his art (e.g., John the Baptist).
- The smile and facial structure resemble his later self-portraits.
- Some believe the painting represents an idealized, universal figure rather than a specific woman.
Why Most Scholars Reject It
- Renaissance artists rarely painted themselves as women.
- Historical records indicate the painting was commissioned as a portrait of a real woman.
- The theory relies on subjective facial mapping, not hard evidence.
While fascinating, this idea is considered fringe by most art historians.
5. A Symbolic or Composite Figure
The Allegorical Interpretation
Some experts argue that the Mona Lisa does not depict a real person but is instead an allegorical representation of concepts like beauty, wisdom, or nature.
Evidence for Symbolism
- The dreamlike landscape does not correspond to a real location, suggesting fantasy.
- Leonardo often embedded hidden meanings in his works (e.g., The Virgin of the Rocks).
- The smile’s ambiguity may represent the duality of human emotion.
Counterpoints
- Most Renaissance portraits were of actual individuals, not abstract concepts.
- The Vasari and Vespucci records strongly suggest a real-life model.
This theory is more philosophical than historical.
Other Speculative Theories
A. Caterina Sforza
Some suggest the Mona Lisa is Caterina Sforza, a fierce noblewoman Leonardo met. However, her strong, warrior-like persona does not match the painting’s serene demeanor.
B. Salaì (Leonardo’s Apprentice)
A fringe theory claims the model was Gian Giacomo Caprotti (Salaì), Leonardo’s male apprentice, dressed as a woman. However, no evidence supports this.
C. A Chinese Slave?
A 2014 book (Mona Lisa: The People and the Painting) proposed that Leonardo’s mother was a Chinese slave, influencing the Mona Lisa’s features. Most historians dismiss this due to lack of proof.
Conclusion: Why the Mystery Persists
The Mona Lisa’s identity remains unresolved because:
- Leonardo left no definitive notes on the subject.
- The painting was never delivered to its commissioner, leaving its origins unclear.
- Over 500 years of myths and theories have clouded historical truth.
While Lisa Gherardini is the most likely candidate, the lack of absolute proof keeps the debate alive. Whether she was a merchant’s wife, a noblewoman, or an allegory, the Mona Lisa’s allure lies in her mystery—an eternal question mark in art history.
Ultimately, the Mona Lisa transcends her identity, becoming a symbol of Renaissance art, human expression, and timeless intrigue. Her smile continues to captivate, ensuring that the debate over who she really was will endure for centuries to come.
No responses yet