Copies and versions of The Mona Lisa
Prado, Isleworth, Column Copies and Naked Mona Lisa: all look the same, but they don't tell the same story. One documents the work of the workshop, the other remains contested, the others show how a portrait became a world model.
A family of images, not a collection of originals
The Mona Lisa preserved at the Louvre is the only painting accepted by consensus as the autograph work of Leonardo da Vinci. Around it, however, revolves an exceptional family: contemporary studio copies, old replicas, controversial portraits, cardboard boxes and derived nudes. The word "version" is therefore convenient, but it can be misleading.
The copy of the Prado does not seek to become a second original. It is especially valid as a working document: its author, who remained unknown, followed the composition while Leonardo modified it. Isleworth's Mona Lisa is another matter. Its defenders see it as a first Mona Lisa; the majority of specialists do not recognize this attribution as established.
The main Mona Lisa, without confusion
Dates sometimes remain given in the form of ranges, because technical study and documentary history do not always allow a single year. The status must be clearly formulated.
| Work | Date/support | Dimensions | Location | Status | What she brings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mona Lisa of the Louvre | Around 1503 -1519 · oil on poplar panel | 77 × 53 cm | Louvre Museum, Paris | Original autograph | Material, historical and stylistic reference for any comparison. |
| Prado Mona Lisa | Around 1507/08 -1513/16 · oil on walnut | 76.3 × 57 cm | Museo del Prado, Madrid | Contemporary workshop | Hidden changes follow those of the original: exceptional witness to the process. |
| Isleworth Mona Lisa | Date debated · oil on canvas | 84.5 × 64.5 cm | Private collection | Contested attribution | Younger face, complete columns and unfinished landscape fuel the hypothesis of an earlier version. |
| Walters copy | Around 1635 -1660 · oil on canvas | 79.3 × 63.5 cm | Walters Art Museum, Baltimore | French copy | Shows how a late copyist "completed" the frame with two columns. |
| Hermitage copy | 16th century · oil on canvas | 71 × 53 cm | Hermitage Museum | Old copy | Testifies to the rapid diffusion of the portrait and its changes in tone. |
| Mona Vanna | Around 1514 -1516 · charcoal and highlights | 72.4 × 54 cm | Condé Museum, Chantilly | Workshop cardboard | Transposes the pose of the Mona Lisa into a naked ideal, intended to be transferred to other supports. |
Why the Louvre remains the reference
The Parisian panel combines ancient royal provenance, support consistent with Italian practice, slow glacis construction and a material history studied for decades. Leonardo would have won in France, then the work would have entered the collection of François I.
This status does not mean that Leonardo worked alone. His workshop prepared, copied and adapted compositions. It means that the execution of the Louvre panel, its modifications and its pictorial quality are attributed to the master.
To understand the likely order, model and recovery years, read also Why did Leonardo da Vinci paint The Mona Lisa?
Prado: painting next to Leonardo
For a long time, the Prado version seemed like a dark copy among others. Its restoration in 2011 -2012 changed its status. The black background, added after the mid-18th century, covered a landscape close to that of the Louvre. Once the repaint was removed, the colors, modeling and extreme freshness of the painting reappeared.
The panel is made of walnut, a frequent support in the Lombard environment. The author remains unknown: the names of Salaigh, Francesco Melzi or other students have been proposed, but the museum avoids definitive attribution. The materials are careful and the execution close enough to suggest work in Leonardo's immediate environment.
The real argument is under the painting
Infrared reflectography reveals underlying modifications identical to those observed in the original: displaced contours, adjusted details, decisions repeated at the same stage. A simple copyist working in front of a finished work would not have seen these hesitations. The Prado painter therefore followed the creation in progress.
Two proofs, two scales
The before/after shows what conservation can reveal to the naked eye. The detail of the face, however, reminds us that the identity of the copyist cannot be deduced from a simple resemblance.
The repaint darkened the silhouette and made it appear as if it was a diversion with little to do with the landscape of the Louvre.
The copyist does not mechanically reproduce each effect of sfumato. The skin tone, eyebrows and contours maintain their own writing.
Isleworth: first Mona Lisa or ambitious imitation?
The painting is associated with collector and artist Hugh Blaker, who acquired it in the early 20th century and installed it in Isleworth, west London. Henry Pulitzer bought it in 1962. Its defenders maintain that it would correspond to a first painted version for Francesco del Giocondo, before the panel today at the Louvre.
The image is spectacular: Lisa appears younger, two complete columns frame the loggia, the landscape appears interrupted and the support is a canvas. These differences nourish an attractive story. But an attribution hypothesis must also resist missing documents, the study of the support and the comparison of the hand.
- a seemingly younger model;
- a close composition, with entire columns;
- a landscape that remained less complete;
- some favorable geometric or numerical studies;
- the old mention of two portraits of Lisa, interpreted as a possible clue.
- the canvas differs from the poplar panel of the Louvre;
- provenance before Blaker is not solidly continuous;
- there is no consensus on the execution of the landscape and the modeling;
- no decisive documentary chain links the work to Leonardo;
- major catalogs and museums do not accept it as a second original autograph.
Two faces, two ways
Isleworth's apparent rejuvenation is not chronological evidence. The perceived age depends on the drawing, modeling, state of conservation and choices of the painter.
Sharper contour, more direct look, clear complexion and less enveloping transitions.
Sfumato blurs the boundaries of the mouth and eyelids; expression varies with the point of gaze fixation.
Old copies and their inventions
Copying is never neutral. Each painter simplifies, completes or adapts the model to his time. The differences tell as much about the reception of The Mona Lisa as its appearance.
Painted on canvas and augmented by two columns, it responds to the desire to complete the space. The museum specifies that the Louvre's technical examinations do not show an original amputated of large side bands.
Walters Art Museum notice
Its format and range reflect a translation rather than a facsimile. Entering the museum in 1931, it is currently not presented in the permanent rooms.
Hermitage Collection
This replica from the 16th - 17th centuries, today of unknown location, accentuates the lateral architecture. It reminds us how the incomplete framework of the original stimulated the imagination of copyists.
Historical sheet and image
The naked Mona Lisa uses the formula
La Mona Vanna retains the frontal position, crossed arms, gaze and much of the body architecture of The Mona Lisa. But she transforms Lisa into an ideal naked figure. Small perforation points show that this large drawing served as cardboard: its contours could be transferred to another support by cliché.
This function places drawing at the heart of the workshop. It does not document a "secret portrait" of Lisa; rather, it reveals the fruitfulness of a pose that has become a matrix. Several paintings of naked Mona Lisa derive from it, with varying degrees of proximity to Leonardo's circle.
So the correct term is derived variant. It shares a structure with The Mona Lisa but changes the subject, meaning and destination.
See the Condé museum instructionsSix checks before talking about original
A credible attribution is constructed by convergence. No isolated test - neither facial recognition, nor geometry, nor dating of a canvas thread - can sign a Leonardo.
Support
Wood species, preparation or structure of the canvas must be compatible with the place, time and workshop habits.
Pigments
A posterior pigment refutes an ancient date; ancient materials alone do not prove the author.
Underlying image
Reflectography and radiography seek preparatory drawing, changes, repeats and construction logic.
Pentimenti
Authentic correction reveals creation. A completed copy normally reproduces the result, not invisible hesitations.
Provenance
Inventories, sales, seals, frames and archives must form a verifiable chain, without filling silences with a narrative.
Connoisseurship
The hand, the quality of the modeling and the stylistic coherence remain essential, but must dialogue with science and documents.
The Mona Lisa in the store
A hand-painted reproduction must respect the general balance before seeking the only smile: transparency of the glazes, hands placed, veil, facial modeling and atmospheric continuity with the landscape.
The format can be adapted, but the vertical ratio and the margins of the table remain decisive so as not to transform the portrait into a simple close-up.
See the reproduction of The Mona Lisa
What copies really teach us
The copy of the Prado is the most important not because it would be "a better Mona Lisa", but because it opens a window onto the workshop. It demonstrates that the composition circulated during its manufacture and that the copyist followed the successive decisions of the master.
Isleworth occupies the other extreme: a work surrounded by a powerful hypothesis, but lacking the consensus necessary to become a second original. Walters, de l'Ermitage and Vernon copies finally show how the painting was completed, lightened and reinterpreted.
The lesson goes beyond The Mona Lisa: a copy is not just an inferior image. Well dated and well studied, it can preserve a state, document a method or tell the story of the birth of an icon.
Notices and studies to consult
The statutes are formulated according to the institutions retaining the works and technical studies available, distinguishing between documented facts and attribution hypotheses.
Notice, dimensions, dating, restoration and importance of the copy.
Consult the instructionsReflectography, underlying changes and relationship to the original.
Read StudyDating, support, dimensions and focus on the format of the Louvre.
Open the fileCardboard, cliché, workshop function and relationship with painted variants.
Open the fileBibliographic reference on attribution and authentication challenges.
See referenceExample of a favorable study to review without confusing it with attribution consensus.
View the summaryFAQs
Are there several original Mona Lisa?
Only one painting is recognized by consensus as an autograph: that of the Louvre. The copy of the Prado is contemporary and comes from the workshop, but it is not a second original by Leonardo.
Who painted the Prado Mona Lisa?
The author is not identified. The Prado links it to Leonardo's workshop and emphasizes that it was painted under his control or in his immediate environment. The names of several students were proposed without definitive conclusion.
Why was the bottom of the Prado black?
A repaint added after about 1750 had obscured the landscape. Its removal during the 2011-2012 restoration revealed the clear composition preserved underneath.
Is Isleworth's Mona Lisa by Leonardo?
Its owners and several authors defend this attribution, but it is not accepted as established by the consensus of specialists and major catalogs. It must be presented as contested.
Do the columns prove that the Mona Lisa of the Louvre was cut?
No. Column bases are visible on the Louvre panel, but the large columns added in some copies may be a copyist's invention. The Walters Art Museum says technical reviews don't show a panel with wide side stripes amputated.
What's repentance?
This is a modification made by the artist during execution: displaced outline, corrected hand, veil or adjusted accessory. The identical repentances of the Louvre and the Prado are crucial, because they indicate parallel work.
Does the Mona Vanna represent Lisa Gherardini naked?
Nothing establishes it. The drawing takes a pose formula associated with The Mona Lisa and transforms it into a naked feminine ideal. We must speak of a derived variant, not of a documented portrait of Lisa.
Which copy is most important to historians?
The Prado copy, because its technical analyzes retain information about the process of creating the original, well beyond a simple surface resemblance.
0 comments