The Real Landscape

(Work: Mona Lisa )

The landscape of the Mona Lisa is not a generic backdrop nor an imaginary construction lacking concrete references. It is an intentional construction that refers to a real territory, observed by Leonardo and pictorially recomposed according to a precise criterion of spatial organization.

As in The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne, also in the Mona Lisa the construction of the landscape can be understood through two complementary phases. The first concerns the direct observation of the territory, with the measurement of directions, angles, distances and differences in elevation between the various reference points, as well as the production of preparatory sketches and drawings useful for defining the main forms of the landscape. The second consists in the reorganization of these relationships within the work, according to a geometric criterion consistent with the level of construction adopted.

This results in a three-dimensional space, in which the territory appears as seen from an elevated position. Depth does not arise from a simple perspectival effect, but from the synthesis between real relationships and their pictorial translation in terms of masses, distances and relationships between planes.

As in Saint Anne, the Mona Lisa also presents a sophisticated geometric construction already fully conscious in its principles: here too the landscape is not a simple background, but the result of an intentional organization articulated into distinct levels of the construction of the landscape, whose coherence will be progressively verified.

In the present study, five levels of the construction of the landscape are assumed, differentiated by spatial arrangement and adopted geometric method. These levels should not be understood as rigidly separate compartments, nor as a subdivision declared by the artist, but as an interpretative tool useful for describing the structure of the landscape and for relating, at each level, the painted forms with the corresponding territorial evidence.

The key element that makes it possible to identify the landscape is the presence of a multi-arched bridge, depicted in the painting with morphological characteristics consistent with those of the Ponte Gobbo (also known as the Devil’s Bridge) in Bobbio. From this element, the surrounding landscape — hills, riverbed and development of the valley — finds a unified and verifiable territorial correspondence.

In the following sections, this identification will be examined through a systematic comparison between the painting and the real territory, proceeding through levels of construction and through morphological and spatial verification. It will also be possible to identify the precise position from which Leonardo observed the landscape and from which he constructed its representation.

The verification of this correspondence is not based on a simple visual similarity, but takes into account geometric relationships between the elements of the landscape. In the Mona Lisa it is possible to recognize alignments, proportions and spatial relationships that contribute to making coherent the overall organization of the represented territory.

The area of Bobbio and the Trebbia valley has been indicated as a possible territorial reference for the landscape of the Mona Lisa by Carla Glori, in studies published starting from 2011.

The first level of construction of the Mona Lisa coincides with the half-length figure placed in the foreground. This is the plane that immediately captures the gaze and constitutes the primary visual reference of the entire composition.

This level does not belong to the landscape, but coincides with the figurative space of the portrait. It constitutes the visual threshold from which the subsequent levels of the construction of the landscape develop.

The figure is represented seated, with the arms resting on an armrest, defining a near space clearly distinct from the background. Behind her is visible a parapet, which separates the figurative plane from the landscape behind. On the sides emerge two columns, recognized by scholars as architectural elements, which are set on the same parapet, regardless of their original extent.

The parapet assumes a fundamental structural role: it constitutes a clear line of separation between the space of the portrait and the territory behind, defining the upper limit of the first level of construction. From this visual threshold the subsequent levels develop, which no longer belong to the space of the figure, but to an autonomous territorial recomposition.

In the second level of construction, the analysis focuses on the hill located immediately behind the figure. It constitutes the first autonomous morphological unit of the landscape: a compact natural mass that stands between the foreground and the valley floor.

In the painting, the figure visually divides the hill into two parts; however, the analysis considers the relief in its structural continuity, independently of the figurative group. The landscape is examined in terms of the coherence of the masses and the relationships between the reliefs, not as a simple background, but as a real territorial configuration selected and recomposed.

It is not, in fact, a generic view nor a space observable from the same point where the figure is placed. The depicted territory is real and identifiable, but is organized according to an autonomous construction, which will be verified through morphological and geometric comparisons.

There exists a physically identifiable hill, located near the settlement of Bobbio, within which it is possible to locate a real observation point. The slope shows a descending trend towards the valley floor, allowing a wide view over the settlement and the course of the river. The construction by levels therefore originates from a concrete position on the territory, from which the relationships between reliefs, valley floor and vertical features are consistent with the painting.

In the second level, the hill appears as if it were observed from a slightly higher elevation and shifted to the left with respect to the initial point, with a viewpoint that allows the entire extent of the relief to be visible.

The hill presents an articulated configuration and cannot be reduced to a simple form. On the left side, two closely spaced rocky reliefs can be distinguished, with pointed summits and triangular profiles, between which a curvilinear path is visible, clearly readable in the painting. On the right side, the slope descends continuously towards the valley floor, with surface texture and tonal variations compatible with a rocky morphology.

The graphic isolation of the hill also makes it possible to observe that the left profile follows a clear outline, traceable to the two main reliefs. Some portions, however, appear to be located outside this volumetric continuity, while still being visually integrated into the overall shape. The nature of these elements will be analyzed in the next level.

The morphological comparison makes it possible to recognize a correspondence with a specific portion of territory, locatable in the area between Bargo and Rocchetta Caldarola. The presence of the two nearby reliefs, the curvilinear path that crosses them, and the relationship with the valley floor constitute a structural confirmation consistent with what is constructed in the second level of the landscape.

In the painting, the hill does not reproduce the precise fragmentation of the real relief, but is rendered as a compact and organized mass. Its overall extension, approximately 300 meters in length, is pictorially recomposed as a unified morphological continuity.

The hill therefore constitutes the first structural element from which the transformation of the subsequent levels begins. It is from this morphological unit, and from the observation point identified within it, that the angular reorganizations characterizing the third, fourth and fifth levels will develop.

An analysis conducted on a digital basis, starting from the satellite visualization of the hill, makes it possible to clearly identify a first rocky relief, with a pointed summit and a triangular profile, on the left side of the hill system. However, the two-dimensional rendering does not fully convey the three-dimensional articulation of the site and may attenuate the presence of nearby secondary reliefs.

Verification carried out directly on site has made it possible to confirm the presence of a second relief, also characterized by an inclined summit and a converging profile, not immediately distinguishable in satellite images alone, but morphologically consistent with the volumetric continuity of the hill system.

This verification strengthens the correspondence between the painted landscape and the real territorial configuration, showing how the construction of the second level is not based on a graphic simplification, but on a careful selection of an actually articulated morphology.

The hill described in the second level assumes here a decisive structural role: it constitutes a clear morphological threshold between the foreground hill relief and the valley floor below. In the real territory, beyond this threshold, the town of Bobbio extends, with the Ponte Gobbo located on the right and the bend of the river stretching toward the left. In the painting, the hill conceals most of the town, allowing only certain vertical elements to emerge beyond the profile of the valley floor.

In the painting, in the left portion of the valley floor, some isolated vertical elements can be distinguished, interrupting the continuity of the landscape and not reducible to natural morphology alone. They occupy precise positions along the bend of the river, in direct relation with the bridge and with the development of the valley floor.

In the following image, the hill analyzed in the second level is rendered in black. What remains visible above its profile does not belong to the hill mass, but corresponds to the vertical elements of the settlement of Bobbio, recognizable in the real territory as bell towers and ecclesiastical structures.

Identification of the point of observation

In order to identify the correct point of observation — corresponding to the point from which the photograph previously shown was taken and from which the landscape appears coherent with that represented in the painting — it is necessary to begin from a precise visual datum: in the painting the bell tower aligned with the figure on the left side is therefore that of San Francesco. Proceeding toward the left in the painting, other vertical elements can also be distinguished, referable to San Colombano (under construction at the time), the bell tower of San Lorenzo and the primitive fifteenth-century church incorporated into the Sanctuary of the Madonna dell’Aiuto.

Observing the real territory, starting from the left and proceeding toward the centre, the bell towers do not appear oriented according to the same alignment visible in the painting. It follows that the initial point of observation, located too far to the left, cannot be the correct one. It is therefore necessary to move progressively toward the right.

The verification proceeds until reaching a precise point at which the bell towers are aligned exactly as in the vertical elements of the painting.

This configuration is also confirmed in relation to the mountain reliefs. In the painting, to the left of the figure, neither the Pietra Parcellara nor Monte Barberino appears, whereas in reality both are clearly visible from the hill.

At the point identified on the basis of the alignment of the bell towers, the left side of the Pietra Parcellara and that of Monte Barberino are aligned with the bell tower of San Francesco, so that the two reliefs come to be concealed to the left of the figure, as occurs in the painting. This point is therefore assumed as the reference and defined as point F: it constitutes the real point of observation, not a symbolic point, but the concrete origin of the construction of the landscape and the fulcrum of the entire framework. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

In some traditional readings of the landscape of the Mona Lisa, the portions located to the left and to the right of the figure are interpreted as distinct areas, not immediately referable to a single territorial arrangement. In the painting, in fact, the two parts of the landscape appear as different visual fields, not immediately reconcilable.

The hypothesis proposed here is that such discontinuity does not constitute an unresolved anomaly, but the result of an intentional construction. Leonardo organizes the territory according to different levels, each founded upon its own constructive regime.

In the third level, the vertical elements previously identified are situated along the bend of the river, beyond the profile of the hill. The rest of the centre of Bobbio remains concealed by the relief, which makes visible only those portions coherent with this level.

Alongside these vertical elements the valley floor becomes legible, with the course of the river, the river crossing and the development of the riverbed toward the left.

The entire body of water represented is referable to a single fluvial system, identifiable with the Trebbia. In the section to the right of the landscape, near the area of the bridge, the watercourse appears narrower; proceeding toward the left, the riverbed widens and the fluvial mass extends across the valley floor.

The multi-arched bridge, the Ponte Gobbo, constitutes a key element of this construction.

In the left portion of the valley floor, the body of water appears more extended than in the stretch immediately adjacent to the bridge. This configuration is coherent with an oblique view from above, in which the width of the riverbed becomes more legible than in a view close to the ground. The representation does not correspond to a close transverse section of the river, but to a perspectival recomposition that renders visible the entire development of the bend.

It must also be considered that the flow of the Trebbia varies significantly according to the seasons and to periods of heavier rainfall. Under flood conditions or during a rise in the water level, the riverbed widens and the water mass occupies a larger portion of the valley floor. The representation of a broad and continuous watercourse is therefore coherent both with an elevated viewing height and with a natural variability in flow, at a time when the riverbed was not regulated by modern infrastructures.

In the left portion of the painting, where the water mass appears wider, the breadth of the river bend, still recognizable today in the extension of the gravel riverbed, indicates a greater carrying capacity than the ordinary flow currently visible. The morphology of the valley floor, characterized by a wide alluvial bed, is compatible with historically more extensive flood regimes and with a fluvial dynamic less regulated than the contemporary arrangement. In this sense, the pictorial rendering of a broad and continuous water mass does not appear forced, but coherent with the geomorphological configuration of the site.

On the left side of the river, the absence of artificial embankments or road traces gives the bank a natural character, with an irregular course and morphological continuity between the slope and the riverbed. In the painting, that margin presents no elements of urbanization, but appears integrated into the rocky system of the valley floor, coherently with a historical configuration prior to later infrastructural interventions.

Having previously identified point F, we now proceed to the systematic measurement of the angles of the thing in the territory, in order to verify their correspondence with the representation in the painting.

These correspondences are not here assumed as simple visual suggestions, but are verified by means of a systematic angular measurement. The real directions of the individual landmarks, measured from point F in the territory, will be compared with their apparent rendering in the painting.

The comparison between the painting and the real map highlights a decisive step in the construction of the landscape. The angular directions, derived from observable real places — the river crossing on the right and the vertical elements on the left — measured according to coherent directional relationships, are reorganized in the painting according to a linear perspective. Point F assumes at this stage the function of a perspectival fulcrum, transforming the angles of the thing into angles of the eye.

This transformation does not alter the real directions, but modifies their angular rendering in the painting, placing them on a perspectival scale. The landscape is not assembled by analogy, but constructed according to a unified spatial framework, founded on a coherent geometric transformation. The relationships of the territory are preserved in their real directions; in the passage from the angles of the thing to the angles of the eye, the regime and the mode of representation change.

It is also plausible that, alongside the transformation of the real directions according to a projection centred on F, Leonardo adopted further geometric and proportional adjustments to make coherent with one another portions of territory referable to different elevations. What is described here is the principal mechanism legible in the structure of the painting; this does not exclude the use of other constructive criteria, not immediately reconstructable in an univocal manner, within the same pictorial structure.

The ordered convergence of the direction lines, despite the perspectival transformation, confirms the geometric coherence of the whole system and constitutes a structural verification of the third level of construction.

The extension of the real direction lines also shows that some territorial portions, although belonging to the same geographic system, are not visible in the third level of the painting. In particular, Monte Barberino and the Pietra Parcellara are situated to the right of the angular sector represented in this phase of the construction, and are therefore excluded from the visual field of the third level.

Their absence does not depend upon an omission, but upon the configuration adopted in the painting, in which the foreground occupied by the figure defines a visual limit that excludes those reliefs from the level currently under analysis.

The vertical elements that rise above the profile of the hill, already identified as real architectural structures, cannot be interpreted as simple rocky irregularities of the slope. Their directional arrangement, coherent with the angular measurements taken from point F, shows that they actively participate in the perspectival construction of the level, assuming a structural role within the landscape.

Also from a formal point of view, the vertical silhouettes present proportions, continuities and separations with respect to the slope compatible with built structures, rather than with natural fractures of the relief. Their placement along the bend of the river and in direct relation with the river crossing further reinforces this coherence.

The vertical elements, taken as a whole, show a configuration not compatible with simple rocky formations. Their volumetric articulation, with a more compact base and a lighter vertical development in the upper part, presents characteristics analogous to those of the bell towers actually existing in the town of Bobbio. The correspondence concerns not only the directional position, already verified through angular measurements, but also the formal configuration of the structures, recognizable in the bell towers of San Francesco, San Colombano and San Lorenzo. Different is the case of the primitive church incorporated into the Sanctuary of the Madonna dell’Aiuto, for which we do not possess direct testimony of the original structure.

The coherence between real directions and apparent directions excludes a random arrangement of the emerging vertical elements. They appear integrated into the perspectival construction of the landscape, according to an intentional criterion.

In Leonardo’s lexicon, such insertions fall within the category of compositions of landscapes, mentioned in the Treatise on Painting among the possible mirabilissime inventions. Their presence is not the result of a visual coincidence, but of a conscious integration within the territorial structure of the painting.

In the fourth level of construction, certain elements of the landscape become visible which in the previous levels were not readable, as they were concealed by the head of the figure in the foreground. These are the mountainous reliefs located on the right side of the painting, in particular the Pietra Parcellara and Monte Barberino. These reliefs, which in the previous regime remained hidden, now appear in a new spatial configuration, made possible by a geometric transformation that characterizes the construction of this level, as shown in the following image.

In the fourth level of construction the point F maintains its function as graphic origin. The construction introduces first of all a rotation of about 18° clockwise of the represented mountainous masses. This rotation already modifies the perception of the angles of the landscape, since the real territorial directions (angles of the thing) are reoriented within the visual system of the painting.

To this first operation is added a further opening of the angular fan, which progressively shifts to the right the position of the reliefs in the painting. Subsequently the mountainous masses are placed higher within the composition, resulting in an increase of their apparent size. The result is a coherent recomposition of the landscape, in which the reliefs of Monte Barberino and Pietra Parcellara become readable in the painting while deriving from real territorial configurations.

To verify the coherence of this transformation it is useful to compare the painting with the real configuration of the territory. The following image shows a photograph taken from the real point assumed as F. From this position Pietra Parcellara and Monte Barberino are visible, which in the painting do not appear in that same position because they are concealed by the figure in the foreground. In the real territory the left side of both reliefs is perfectly aligned with the direction passing through the bell tower of San Francesco, corresponding to the projection of the central axis traced from point F.

The real configuration was then subjected to the same sequence of transformations described for the fourth level: first a rotation of about 18° clockwise, then an opening of the perspective fan, and finally the construction of the masses along the new perspective directions. Before the rotation, a red line was also drawn, corresponding to the natural slope of Monte Barberino, and a series of short segments, also highlighted in red, indicating the orientation of the faults of Pietra Parcellara.

After applying the transformation the line of Monte Barberino appears stabilized and consistent with the orientation visible in the painting, while the fractures of Pietra Parcellara take on an upward-right direction, in agreement with the pictorial configuration. The result obtained shows a significant correspondence with the arrangement of the reliefs in the fourth level of the Mona Lisa.

This reconstruction does not of course claim to reproduce the exact procedure adopted by Leonardo, but constitutes a verification tool that allows one to observe how a coherent angular transformation can lead the real territorial configuration to the arrangement visible in the painting.

To complete the fourth level of construction, there still remains the element which in the painting appears as a mass of water located between Monte Barberino and Pietra Parcellara. This space does not represent a simple interval between two reliefs, but corresponds to the river valley which in the real territory is occupied by the Trebbia River.

In the real territory, the course of the Trebbia forms in this sector a broad bend. Today the flow of the river does not appear particularly extensive, but the width of the riverbed and of the gravel bed indicates a much broader fluvial valley than the present-day watercourse. This configuration is consistent with the mass of water visible in the painting, which separates the two mountains within the construction of the fourth level.

It is important to observe that the visibility of this bend depends on the point of view implicit in the construction. In the real territory, when the valley is observed from the elevation of point F, the bend of the Trebbia is for the most part concealed by Monte Barberino. In the painting, by contrast, the perspective system of the fourth level presupposes a point of observation as if it were placed higher than the real ground. From this elevated height, the river valley becomes fully legible between the two reliefs, making visible the bend of the Trebbia which in the real territory remains partly hidden.

The whole of the correspondences analyzed — rotation of the angular system, transformation of real angles into apparent angles (angles of the thing / angles of the eye), recomposition of the reliefs, and correspondence with the valley of the Trebbia — shows how the arrangement of the mountains and of the mass of water in the fourth level is not arbitrary, but consistent with a geometric construction capable of relating the painted landscape to the structure of the observed territory.

The fifth level of construction concerns the portion of the landscape located at the upper left of the painting, above the right shoulder of the figure. This sector constitutes the last portion of the territory considered in the analysis and concludes the overall construction of the landscape.

In this area one can recognize Monte Pradegna and the system of hills descending toward the valley of the Trebbia. In the real territory, Monte Pradegna is located significantly farther to the left than the sector analyzed in the third level and is in fact even outside the immediate visual field of the landscape observed from the hill.

In the painting, however, this portion of territory is brought back within the construction of the landscape, being placed at the far left of the composition. As with the reliefs of Monte Barberino and Pietra Parcellara, the mountainous mass is reorganized within the pictorial structure, while maintaining directional coherence with the real territory.

Point F continues to operate as the origin of the perspective construction of the landscape. In the case of Monte Pradegna, the mountainous mass is first rotated clockwise, with a rotation estimated at about 7°, and relocated within the painting. Subsequently, starting from point F, the real territorial directions (angles of the thing) are transformed in the painting into apparent angles (angles of the eye), thus determining a closing of the angular fan and a consequent apparent reduction of the mass.

In this level as well, the result of the transformation produces a visual configuration in which Monte Pradegna appears as if observed from a higher elevation than the real point of view of the hill. The construction of the landscape therefore does not reproduce a simple ground-level view, but recomposes the territory according to a system that enlarges the visual field with respect to the observer’s real position.

The hills below the mountain show a recurring morphological element: curvilinear lines of vegetation that follow the natural inclination of the slope and descend toward the valley floor. These vegetational patterns are consistent with the real articulation of the terrain, in particular with the watercourses that flow toward the course of the Trebbia.

Let us now examine the portion of territory in the previous image, within the oval, which constitutes the sector intended to be rotated by about 7° clockwise, and proceed to highlight certain morphological elements. Through the use of the burn tool, a curvilinear line of vegetation descending downward is emphasized, while with the dodge tool a flat surface that, proceeding to the right, tends progressively to rise is brought out, already present in the real territory. The result is shown in the following image, where it is possible to compare the real photograph, above, with the same reworked image, below.

At this point, the lower portion of the image is taken into consideration, delimited by the oval, which is rotated and resized according to what has been illustrated above, and placed in direct relation with the corresponding portion of Monte Pradegna present in the painting. The comparison is facilitated by means of the interactive rollover support, which makes it possible to alternate the reading of the original image with that of the reworked one, thus making more evident the morphological continuities and the relationships among the forms.

The real portion of the territory, once placed in relation with the configuration of the painting, shows a strong coherence between the lines of the landscape and the forms resulting from the transformation. The directions of the vegetation and the courses of the terrain are not introduced artificially, but are already present within the masses of the landscape and become readable through rotation and relocation. The comparison therefore makes it possible to verify that the identified formal structure is not an arbitrary construction, but derives from a real correspondence between territory and painted image.

In the comparison carried out, the following elements are particularly significant:

In some readings, this plain is interpreted as a high-altitude lake; however, as shown, it corresponds to a precise portion of the real landscape and assumes a determining role within the structure of the painting. Its constructive function will be further examined on the following page.

In order to clarify further the configuration of this portion of the territory, a visualization from a higher elevation is proposed, derived from Google Earth, which makes it possible to perceive with greater clarity the flat surface identified above.

Within the oval, the same area is highlighted, whose morphology is consistent with the plain which, in the painting, is located beneath Monte Pradegna.

This portion of the painting is closely connected with a different type of analysis, concerning the presence of Leonardo’s self-portrait and of a composition of man, integrated into the landscape according to the principle of the mirabilissime inventions. At this stage, the structures of the landscape no longer perform an exclusively descriptive function, but assume a figurative role. The subject is further examined in the page “Leonardo’s self-portrait in the Mona Lisa” .

With the fifth level, the entire territorial arrangement referable to point F is recomposed. The perspective transformations analyzed in the preceding levels converge here in a unified reading, which restores the overall structure of the landscape of the Mona Lisa.