There is no artist more legendary than Leonardo. In the whole History of Art, no other name has created more discussions, debates and studies than the genius born in Vinci in 1452. Painter, sculptor, architect, scientific and investigator, the figure of Leonardo has generated multiple legends, myths, and rumours about his possible homosexuality, about his membership to vast numbers of lodges and sects, strange stories about his stay in Verrocchio's workshop, or his allegedly weird relationship with many of his models, form a large list of Leonardesque Mythology in which the huge success of "The da Vinci Code" is only his most recent example

But beyond the fast mythology of the best-sellers, the artistic oeuvre of Leonardo offers a continuous debate spring to the Art critics: in fact, it is believed that two thirds of his pictorial oeuvre has been lost. That has generated that in the last 150 years multiple critics, promoters, or just Art fakers eager for attention have published countless paintings publicized as a new Leonardo, based on questionable texts and sketches that support its authenticity. An allegedly found of a new da Vinci's work is always accompanied by a huge repercussion in the Art press, and places the name of the founder in the spotlight of the no always cautious Art world.

As you can guess, the immense majority of this founds are only trash with a complete lack of any historical or artistic rigor. Nevertheless, there are some serious debates and investigations which are worthy of being commented, and I will give you some examples.

LA MADONNA DEI FUSI - ORIGINAL OR COPY?

One of the most interesting and serious debates about the authenticity of a Leonardo's workshop painting in recent years is the one that studies the two versions of the original -allegedly lost- of the Madonna dei fusi, that is, the Madonna of the reel or the Madonna of the yarnwinder. One of them was in the Drumlanrig Castle collection (recently stolen) and another -of an exceptional quality- in the Reford collection of Montreal, and recently acquired by an American private collector (there are rumours that talk about a price of over $150 million, which is really hard to believe.) Let's obviate the Ruprecht version in München, which is very different in its composition.

What do we know about this original? Basically we have the testimony of a letter send to Isabel d'Este by Pietro de Novellara in 1501, in which is mentioned ". a Virgin sitting as he wanted to hoist and desired the one and only cross, smiling and holding it, not wanting to surrender it to his mother who seems to want to take it" ( 1 ) This detailed testimony has long been used as an unquestionable evidence of the no authenticity of the two paintings we are talking about, guessing that the imitators might have abandoned the symbolism of the reel and the spindle, emphasizing the cross and the sacrifice.

Allright, but. why we must believe so firmly the testimony of Novellara? Is he really a reliable source? We know that even Vasari, the great Vasari, had commented artworks that he had never seen, causing historical confusions that last until our days. Then, why do we have to admit a priori the truth of that document? Why the written documents always have to prevail over the pictorial documents? Can we invert this reasoning and declare "not reliable" the testimony of Novellara with the evidenced not in one, but in three pictorial documents?

My goal is not to declare as not reliable Novellara's document, it's only to make an artistic analyse not conditioned by it. Also, it's even possible that this testimony was referred to a first version of this subject by Leonardo, and that Leonardo himself could have subsequently painted a second version (notice that Suida, who ignored Novellara's text, suggested 1506 as the date of execution (2) ) in which he disregarded the symbolism of the reel.

If we ignore this written testimony. what do we have? Two versions, almost identical in its composition but with notorious differences in the background landscape, and with an evident difference in quality in the New York version over the Scottish one. Let's make a detailed study of the first version.

It's not risky to say that this is the best of all the works declared to be by Leonardo's workshop. It's a small (50.2- 36.4 cm .) canvas, originally a panel. The drawing, especially in the face of the Madonna, is highly beautiful; the color is harmonious, with an evident mastery of the sfumatto , although it's possible that the work could have been repainted at several times. The face and the hand of the Madonna immediately remind us the "Saint Anne, the Virgin and the child" in the National Gallery, and even the second version of the " Virgin of the rocks" in the same museum. But is the background, so similar to the Gioconda one, the most striking of the painting. At this point, I would like to recommend a very interesting study made by Marco Versiero in occasion of the exhibition of the " Madonna dei fusi " in Arezzo, from July to November of year 2000 (3)

So, can we now demonstrate with certain the authenticity of the New York version? No, not at all, but it can be used as a gate to the investigation of a period in Leonardo's oeuvre -the first decade of the 16 th Century- in which only a pictorial document is known: the Gioconda. By the way, let's comment a few things about this work.

THE 1001 GIOCONDAS

If there is something more shocking that release the authenticity of a new Leonardo is release the authenticity of a new version of The Leonardo, that is, the Gioconda or Monna Lisa. In the last 150 years, dozens of visionaries -often called critics- have suggested, in many cases with a huge publicity, the existence of other version of the Gioconda, or even denying the authenticity of the Louvre version and proclaiming that they know the whereabout of "the one and only" Monna Lisa, which is very ridiculous, because the Parisian maiden add to her unquestionable and unmistakable quality an extensive and undeniable historical documentation, since it was acquired by Napoleon I or even before.

For example, perhaps you know the case of the called Isleworth Monna Lisa , published as the authentic by H. Pulitzer in 1966 in his study Where is the Monna Lisa? noticing its high quality and the presence of two columns in the extremes of the canvas (hardly to see in the Louvre version) that allegedly confirmed it as the authentic Monna Lisa. The work, which have an unknown provenance until its found in an English private collection, was logically rejected by the critic. Having been copied in multiple occasions, the existence of a high-quality copy (for example the one in the Luchner collection, or another in the Tours Museum ) is not a guaranty of its attribution to Leonardo

This is not the only case. Even a very respected historian as Antonio Manuel Campoy, in his monograph about the Prado Museum of 1970, cannot avoid to suggest the authenticity of the Gioconda version (perhaps Italian, late 16 th century) of the Gioconda shown in that museum with a discourse so excited as lacking of any logic: " Those who declare the authenticity of the Louvre Gioconda over this in the Prado, have a solid basis? If this is historical notices, these fit to any argument you want to defend (??) If is in the technique, the truth is that the Louvre Gioconda shows very few of Leonardo's hand (????)." ( 4 ) This discourse, built with two blatant lies, can only be excused if we understand the love that Campoy feels to The Prado Museum, and his evident desire to "enrich" its collections with a work by the Italian master.

We can prolong to this chapter to the infinite, mentioning one thousand Giocondas that one thousand visionaries have tried to introduce in Leonardo's oeuvre, and we can suggest as a joke -or perhaps not as a joke- that the day in which someone will demonstrate Leonardo's authorship over the moustache Giocondas of Dali and Duchamp. But here is at least a certain case: there is only one Gioconda, and it's in the Paris , behind a thick glass that almost prevents its contemplation.

THE DISCUSSED CATALOGUE

Owing to the constant debates about the authenticity of Leonardo's works, the catalogue of works by the master remains in permanent fluctuation, adding new works that are rejected a few years later, and removing others that are readmitting by some sectors of the critic. Let's comment here the works universally admitted as authentic.

INDISPUTABLE WORKS BY THE MASTER

- "Portrait of a woman (Ginevra Benci)" (1474-76) Washington , National Gallery

Although that in the late 19 th century and the early 20 th century some discordant voices were heard ( 5 ) now nobody doubt of the authorship of this little jewel, appropriately called " cossa belissima (very beautiful thing)" by Vasari. First masterwork by Leonardo

- "Saint Jerome" (c.1480) Roma, Pinacoteca Vaticana

Nobody have ever doubted of this unfinished work

- "The adoration of the magi" (1481-82) Florencia, Uffizi

As the above, unquestionable

- "The Virgin of the rocks" (1483-86) Paris , Louvre

Unquestionable work by Leonardo, with abundant documentation

- "The Virgin of the rocks" (1483-86) London , National Gallery

The attribution of Leonardo, unquestionable in the 19 th and early 20 th century, was questioned in the late past century given the stylistic differences with the Louvre version. Nevertheless, recent in-depth studies of the work ( 6 ) have demonstrated the authorship of Leonardo. The work was probably unfortunately repainted, and is even possible that the two wings of the triptych were painted by a pupil, but the central panel is free of any doubts.

- "Head of a girl (unkempt woman)" (c.1490) Parma , Galeria Nacionale

Few discordant voices, among them Ricci and Suida (1929) However, the mastery of the drawing and the numerous historical documents make it an unquestionable work

- "The last supper" (1495-97) Milano, Convento de Santa Maria

Logically unquestionable

- "Saint Anne, the Virgin, the child and Saint John " (c.1498) London , National Gallery

Another unquestionable work

- "Portrait of Isabella d'Este" (c.1500) Paris , Louvre

Unfinished and in a mediocre state of preservation, however free of any doubts, with the only exception of Goldscheider (1952), who affirms that only the head is by the master

- "Portrait of a woman (Gioconda, the Monna Lisa)" (1503-05) Paris , Louvre

Obviously unquestionable

- "Saint Anne, the Virgin and the child with the lamb" (c.1510) Paris , Louvre

A never questioned masterwork, although that numerous copies are known

- "Saint John the Baptist" (1513-16) Paris , Louvre

A supreme masterwork, with an astonishing technical perfection, and never discussed in a serious way, although Müller-Walde and Berenson (who later change his opinion) considered it a work by the workshop

The total is a dozen of works, and we can add two special cases:

- "The baptism of Christ" (c.1472-75) Florencia, Uffizi

Work by Verrocchio, Leonardo's master, but it is firmly believed by most of the critics that one of the angels and the landscape behind it were painted by Leonardo

- "Bacchus" (c.1511-15) Paris , Louvre

A high quality work that shows unbelievable differences in the style between the main figure (also very repainted) and the landscape of the background. The most probable hypothesis, accepted by most critics, is that we are in front of a Leonardo's work in collaboration with his workshop. There are, of course, dissident voices that exclude the master from any intervention (Frizzioni, Suida)

ACCEPTED BUT DISCUSSED WORKS

- "The Annunciation" (c.1472-75) Florencia, Uffizi

For a long time it had been considered as the first pictorial work by da Vinci. However, during the last century the critics were divided. Some of them accepted the authority by Leonardo, but others considered the collaboration of Lorenzo di Credi, and some critics even rejected any intervention by Leonardo da Vinci, attributing the work to Ridolfo Ghirlandaio or even Verrocchio. Personally I reject this last option, and I consider that the hypothesis Leonardo - di Credi is not absurd.

- "Virgin of the pomegranate (Dreyfuss Madonna)" (1472-76) Washington , National Gallery

The attribution is doubtful. Perhaps by Lorenzo di Credi

- "Virgin that gives a flower to the child (Madonna Benois)" (1475-78) Saint Petersburg , Ermitage

It is a work of a quite mediocre quality, that have been always discussed, but that now is surprisingly accepted by many critics (Clark, Berenson, Castelfranco.) Personally, I will not bet for its authenticity

- "The Annunciation" (c.1478) Paris , Louvre

Doubtful, especially when compared with the panel in the Uffizi. Some critics consider it a work in collaboration with the workshop

- " Virgin that gives a carnation to the child (Madonna of the carnation)" (c.1478-80) Munich , Alte Pinakothek

A very discussed work, its attribution have fluctuated since Verrocchio (impossible) to Leonardo himself, which seems not absurd given its quality and the existence of many copies of inferior quality

- "Virgin milking the child (Madonna Litta)" (c.1490) Saint Petersburg , Ermitage

A terribly repainted work, weird style, especially when compared with the a bove. Very discussed. Perhaps a work by the workshop.

- "Portrait of a musician (Franchino Gaffurio?)" (c.1490) Milano, Pinacoteca Ambrosiana

Some critics have noticed some similarities between this man and the Angel of the "Virgen of the rocks", but now is very discussed.

- "Portrait of a woman (Beatrice d'Este?) (c.1490) Milano, Pinacoteca Ambrosiana

Same as above in style and considerations. Very doubtful

- "Portrait of a woman (Cecilia Gallerani, The Lady with an Ermine)" (1485-90) Cracow , Czartoryski Museum

An extremely beautiful work, mysterious and dark, similar in style to " La Belle Ferronnière ", but even better than it. It have been largely and unfortunately repainted, mostly in the left side, which have changed its original aspect and have created numerous discordant voices that consider it as a work by the workshop, among them Rosenberg (1898) who consider it "unworthy of the master of his workshop" (?) The doubts around the authorship of " La Belle Ferronnière " have also affected to this little jewel. Personally, I have no doubt about its authenticity.

- "Portrait of a lady ( La Belle Ferronnière )" (c.1490-95) Paris , Louvre

The attribution of this panel has been always united to the work above, reflecting its stylistic similarities. Nevertheless, the discordant voices are here more numerous. Probably work by Leonardo.

And that's all folks. The total is just 24 works, and only half of them of unquestionable authenticity. That means that are still new attributions to appear. In theArtWolf we will keep watching

1. Letter dated April 4th 1501

2 . Suida, "Studi in onore del Verga" , 1931

3 . You can read more at this web.

4 . A .M. Campoy: "El Museo del Prado" Ediciones Giner, 1970

5. Especially Waagen (Die Kunstdenkmaler in Wien, 1866), Suida (1903) and Liphart (1912)

6. Including the recent found by X-rays of an unknown drawing behind the paint