The Real Landscape

(Work: The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne )

The landscape of Saint Anne is neither an imaginative construction nor a fictional synthesis, but an intentional construction that refers to a real territory. Leonardo recomposes this territory through distinct levels of construction, integrating within a single image portions of landscape that, in reality, cannot be perceived simultaneously from a single point of view.

The construction takes place in two complementary phases. The first consists in the direct observation of real places, with the measurement of directions, angles, distances and relative elevations between reference points, as well as the production of sketches and graphic studies aimed at fixing the principal morphological configurations. The second phase consists in the geometric translation of these relationships within the work, varying according to the level of construction and the pictorial structure adopted.

The result is a three-dimensional landscape, as if the gaze were positioned high above the ground: a coherent representation of the territory, in which space appears organized while remaining grounded in real and measurable relationships. This is not a fantastic vision, but a geometric recomposition of what Leonardo had actually observed. The sense of three-dimensionality therefore arises from the synthesis between real data (directions and angles) and pictorial rendering (masses, depth, relationships between planes).

The comparisons that follow relate specific details of the landscape of Saint Anne to real locations identifiable within the territory and historically documented. These are hypotheses of correspondence, verifiable through precise comparisons between masses, profiles, and spatial relationships. The comparison concerns not only natural configurations, but also constructed elements — such as castles, churches, settlements, and architectural structures — already present during the Renaissance and still existing today, either intact or preserved in the form of ruins. The aim is to verify whether these places, still observable today, find coherent correspondence in the forms painted by Leonardo, according to morphological, structural, and spatial relationships. The comparison is conducted through the analysis of profiles, masses, articulations, scale relationships, and interactions between natural and built elements, as they emerge within the various levels of construction of the painting.

Throughout the analysis, four principal levels of construction have been identified, distinguished by the geometric method adopted and by the spatial regime. These levels should not be understood as rigidly separated compartments, nor as a division explicitly declared by the artist. They constitute an interpretative tool useful for describing a complex construction in which portions of territory, not necessarily contiguous and at times distant in real space, are recomposed within a single pictorial structure. The distinction into four levels therefore responds to analytical clarity, not to the claim of fully reconstructing Leonardo’s working process. Likewise, the geometry presented here does not aim to define exhaustively the constructive system adopted by the artist, but to highlight certain verifiable relationships, likely part of a broader and more articulated framework.

The first level of landscape construction corresponds to the plane on which the figures of Saint Anne, the Virgin and the Child with the Lamb are placed. It is, however, a plane already elevated with respect to the surrounding landscape: along its margins, particularly on the right side of the painting, elements of the territory located at a lower elevation can be discerned, as if the natural space developed downward, into the valley, relative to the position occupied by the group of figures. Behind them there is also a hill, which acts as a visual boundary and effectively separates the first level of construction from the subsequent levels.

In the first level of landscape construction, linear perspective does not impose itself as the dominant principle of spatial organization. The organization of space is not entrusted to a system of orthogonals converging toward a vanishing point. The pyramidal compositional structure is what governs the arrangement of the figures and ensures their volumetric coherence and visual balance. The directional lines readable at this stage function as compositional forces, not as perspectival axes for constructing space.

After the restoration completed in 2012, which restored greater legibility to numerous details of the work, the analysis of the images made available by the Musée du Louvre makes it possible to identify, in the right-hand portion of the painting, near the tree, a multi-arched structure attributable to a bridge. The watercourse below appears characterized by a forceful flow and, on the opposite bank, certain built presences can be distinguished, associated with a roadway trace that develops from right to left, ascending the slope. Behind this nucleus, at least two hilly reliefs also emerge, characterized by particularly steep inclines.

This configuration, which is not described in traditional readings of the landscape of Saint Anne, finds a particularly coherent correspondence in the territorial setting of the Ponte della Maddalena, in the municipality of Borgo a Mozzano (Lucca), already existing in the Renaissance period. The multi-arched structure, the continuity between the bridge, the watercourse and the settlement on the opposite bank, and the presence of the reliefs immediately behind correspond to a territorial configuration that shows a significant analogy with the one identified in the detail of the painting.

Within the same first level, in addition to the bridge and the valley floor, it is also possible to distinguish a fortified settlement placed in a dominant position on the slope. The morphological setting and the arrangement of the structures are consistent with the area of the Rocca di Mozzano, in the municipality of Borgo a Mozzano (Lucca), already attested in the Renaissance period as a fortified nucleus controlling the Serchio valley floor.

The first level of landscape construction presupposes a precise point of observation, consistent with the position occupied by the Holy Family group in the painting. This is not an abstract or symbolic point, but a real location, elevated above the valley floor, from which the river course, the crossing, the fortified settlements, and the development of the opposite slopes are simultaneously legible.

Starting from the observation of the painting, a dominant line of sight has been identified, consistent with the orientation and the spatial organization of the elements depicted in the landscape (orange line). This line, which in the painting relates the left side of the fortified structure to the right side of the bridge, has been adopted as a spatial directive.

By projecting this directive onto the real territory — through a line traced on a cartographic basis — it has been possible to identify, by moving backward along its axis, an elevated and physically accessible point from which the bridge, the valley floor and the fortified structure are visible in the same relationship.

The identified point corresponds to the area of the new cemetery of Corsagna, in the municipality of Borgo a Mozzano, located on a hill dominating the Serchio valley. From this position it is possible to read, with visual continuity, the same territorial organization that Leonardo recomposes in the landscape of The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne at this level of construction.

From this observation point, a comparison photograph was taken, which makes it possible to verify, along the same directional line, the alignment between the left side of the ruins of the ancient fortified structure of the Rocca di Mozzano and the right side of the Ponte della Maddalena, exactly as in the painting. This correspondence confirms the correct identification of the observation point, in accordance with what was established through cartographic analysis.

Continuing along the direction identified in the painting (orange line), no other points on the territory can be found that satisfy the same alignment condition between the right side of the bridge and the left side of the Rocca di Mozzano.

The configuration is therefore constrained to this specific position. Any further points along the same direction are not physically accessible, as they would lie outside the ground, in non-observable positions, and do not correspond to real locations that can be used as points of observation.

The set of correspondences analyzed makes it possible to define with precision the first levels of landscape construction in Saint Anne. Starting from a real, fixed point of observation, elevated above the valley floor, consistent with the position occupied by the Holy Family group, Leonardo recomposes, within a single visual structure, the course of the Serchio, the river crossing, the fortified settlements, and the development of the opposite slopes. The painted landscape is therefore not a generic view, but the intentional synthesis of a territory observed from life, organized according to a unified spatial arrangement, assumed as a reference for the overall construction of the landscape.

The hill behind the Holy Family, identifiable with the area of the hamlets of Oneta and Cune, has in reality a significantly greater extent and height than the figures. In the painting, however, the dimensional relationship is altered, as the figures are deliberately enlarged and occupy almost the entire visual field of the work, according to an intentional compositional choice.

From the observation point identified in the area of Corsagna, looking straight ahead, with the Ponte della Maddalena to the right, as in the painting, the view is physically limited by the hill in front, beyond which the landscape is not directly perceptible.

To overcome the visual limit imposed by the hill, it is necessary to raise the point of observation. In the painting, beyond that threshold, a mountain chain becomes visible, together with the panorama extending to the right and to the left. What is represented is not an arbitrary construction, but the transposition of a real configuration of the territory.

In Leonardo’s time, it was of course not possible to rise physically to such a height. The procedure is therefore not technological, but methodological: it does not consist in physically elevating oneself, but rather in geometrically reconstructing the spatial relationships of the territory starting from a real point.

In the second level of landscape construction, Leonardo integrates the mountain chain depicted above, beside Saint Anne’s head, making it visible through this operation of geometric recomposition.

The central line drawn in the painting, coinciding with the horizontal geometric center of the composition, takes on the role of a reference axis for the construction of the landscape. It is related, in the previous level, to the real observation point identified in the area of Corsagna, from which the graphical origin F is derived, assumed as the reference for the spatial organization within the painting.

Having identified the observation point of the first level, located in the area of Corsagna, the analysis is extended to the real territory. From this observation point, a mountain range can be identified that is consistent with the one visible in the painting to the right of Saint Anne, recognized as the chain of the Apuan Alps.

In the map below, by tracing from the same position of Corsagna a directional line towards the first Apuan relief consistent with the one depicted in the painting, the line significantly intersects the area known as the Occhio di Lucca. This correspondence confirms the directional coherence between the construction of the landscape in the painting and the real organization of the territory.

The directional line traced from the observation point of Corsagna towards the base of the first mountainous relief depicted in the painting passes through Monte Bargiglio, at the location of the ancient “Occhio di Lucca”. This point, characterized by the presence of a strategic watchtower, constituted a key node for territorial orientation and for the control of the main surrounding geographical areas.

From the Occhio di Lucca on Monte Bargiglio, the Apuan Alps chain is clearly visible. The first relief encountered on the left, consistent with the one placed beside Saint Anne’s head in the painting, is the Pania della Croce and, to its right, the Omo Morto and the Pania Secca.

The Apuan Alps constituted a well-known territory already in the Renaissance, historically linked to marble quarrying, widely used by sculptors and architects. They extend across an area that includes the Lunigiana, the Garfagnana, and the Versilia, serving as a broad and recognizable geographic reference. Their depiction in the second level of landscape construction thus does not refer to a generic backdrop, but to a real and historically determined area, integrated within the construction of the landscape.

The configuration depicted by Leonardo is not a simple transposition of the real perception observable from the area of the Occhio di Lucca. He preserves the real directions of observation, but reorganizes the mountain group through a construction based on angular relationships, which makes it possible to represent the entire Apuan chain in a unified vision, not as a frontal view, but as a constructed configuration.

In the second level of landscape construction, Leonardo organizes the territory not according to a traditional perspectival depth, but through angular relationships that are coherent, measurable, and comparable with real ones. The observation point identified in the previous level, assumed as F, becomes here the graphic origin of a directional representation of the landscape.

The painted configuration does not coincide with a view directly observable from point F. From that point, the real directions toward the mountain landmarks are measured; the pictorial construction instead develops as if the gaze were placed at a very high elevation along those directions. Leonardo preserves the actual real degrees between the reference point and the individual peaks, but reorganizes their visual appearance through a recomposition of the masses. It is in this passage that the painting constructs a new three-dimensionality of the landscape, coherent with a view from above.

For this reason, while maintaining the same real angles, the Pania Secca, which in a frontal view appears only slightly lower than the Pania della Croce, in the painting is placed lower and farther back to the right. The difference does not derive from an arbitrary deformation, but from the different implicit elevation of the construction: an oblique view from above transforms the apparent relationships between the masses, while preserving intact the real angular relationships.

The second level of landscape construction is therefore not a frontal view, but the visual translation of a real territorial structure organized according to precise angular relationships. Leonardo does not alter geographic data: he recomposes them through a geometric system capable of restoring the overall arrangement of the entire mountain chain.

What has been observed so far is consistent with geographic reality, with a single significant exception: in the painting the Omo Morto appears higher than the Pania della Croce, whereas in reality its elevation is lower. The Omo Morto is known as a natural form that for centuries has been recognized by observers as the profile of a reclining man: a typical pareidolia, that is, a visual suggestion generated by the morphology of the relief.

In the painting, however, Leonardo does not merely reproduce this natural suggestion. He places the Omo Morto next to the Pania della Croce, accentuates its height, and above all defines its details: the facial profile, the forehead, the eyebrow, the eye, the nostril, and the mouth. In this way he transforms a geographic pareidolia into an intentionally constructed figure. The pareidolia thus becomes a true invenzione mirabilissima, since the image is no longer entrusted to the contingency of the natural form, but is deliberately reorganized within the pictorial structure.

This mode of representation, based on the use of real angular relationships and on their visual transposition, is documented in certain drawings and studies by Leonardo, but is not generally recognized as being applied systematically to a painting. In the case of Saint Anne, it instead constitutes the structuring principle of the second level of landscape construction, laying the groundwork for the integration of different regimes within a single spatial framework.

Il terzo livello di costruzione interessa la porzione alta sinistra del paesaggio e si colloca in un’area del dipinto in cui la costruzione spaziale si articola in relazione ad altri livelli e configurazioni formali. L’analisi dettagliata di tali configurazioni è sviluppata nella sezione dedicata ai Componimenti e autoritratto, dove verrà mostrato come la struttura geografica possa accogliere anche una dimensione figurativa intenzionale. La presenza di queste configurazioni non annulla tuttavia la natura reale del paesaggio, che continua a essere costruito a partire da riferimenti geografici concreti e coerenti con i livelli precedenti.

In the third level of landscape construction, the graphical origin F — derived from the real point of Corsagna — remains the reference for the spatial construction within the painting. What changes is not this point F, but the regime of representation: the directional lines measured in the real territory (as real angles) are now transformed into apparent angles (which Leonardo referred to as angles of the eye), through a perspectival reorganization centered on point F. The real point of Corsagna therefore remains the territorial reference for the measurement of real angles, while in the painting the point F assumes, at this level, the function of the vanishing point of linear perspective.

In this level, the representation of the landscape gives the impression of a view from an elevated vantage point, but referring to a much greater distance than in the previous level. What appears in the painting does not correspond to a physical observation point, but rather to the result of a perspectival construction, which organizes space as a distant panorama.

Depth is conveyed through rarefaction, tonal attenuation, and a progressive simplification of profiles. These effects correspond to what in the pictorial tradition is defined as aerial perspective, and contribute to visually rendering the distance of the portions of territory represented. For a general overview of the topic, see an introductory contribution on aerial perspective.

In the real territory, along the western sector of the Apuan Alps, under conditions of good visibility, very distant portions of landscape are in fact observable. Under optimal conditions, the gaze can extend as far as the mouth of the Magra River, the hill of Montemarcello, the archipelago off Porto Venere, including the island of Palmaria, and a large part of the Gulf of La Spezia, also known as the Gulf of Poets.

This real visual extension does not constitute a simple generic comparison, but identifies a specific territorial domain, consistent with the construction regime defined for the third level. At this level, Leonardo integrates, with necessary compositional adjustments, elements of landscape observed at the extreme limit of perceptibility, recomposed according to spatial continuity.

The comparisons that follow present some of the elements, details, and volumes attributable to this third level, relating them to real places and territorial configurations observable along the coasts, allowing their correspondence with the territory to be verified.

The comparison between the painting and the real map highlights a decisive step in the construction of the landscape in Saint Anne. The angular directions, derived from real places observable along the coasts and measured according to coherent directional relationships, are now reorganized according to a linear perspective. Point F, already used in the previous levels as the graphic origin of the representation, now takes on the function of a perspectival fulcrum, transforming real angles (angles of the thing) into apparent angles (angles of the eye).

This transformation does not modify only the direction of elements, but also their scale. Very distant portions of territory—for example the coastal strip between the mouth of the Magra, the Gulf of La Spezia, and Porto Venere— are shifted laterally and amplified within the pictorial construction of the painting. What, in real vision, appears distant and rarefied, in the third level is rendered larger and more legible, until it appears visually alongside the Apuan Alps.

The landscape is therefore not assembled by analogy, but constructed according to a unified spatial framework grounded in a coherent geometric transformation. The relationships of the territory are preserved in their real directions, but, in the passage from angles of the thing to angles of the eye, perspectival representation produces a different distribution of scales and distances. The enlargement of the more distant portions is not an arbitrary choice, but the direct consequence of the adopted perspectival construction.

It is also plausible that, alongside the transformation of real directions according to a projection centered on F, Leonardo may have adopted additional geometric and proportional adjustments in order to ensure coherence among portions of territory referring to different elevations. In this context, the principal mechanism identifiable within the structure of the painting is described; this does not exclude the use of other constructive principles, not immediately reconstructible in an unambiguous manner, within the same pictorial structure.

It can also be observed that the line of sight associated with point F intersects the area of the present-day city of La Spezia. In the painting, that portion of territory is not visible, because it is concealed by the foreground relief (Saint Anne’s head), in coherence with the real morphology of the place.

In the third level of landscape construction, Leonardo organizes space according to a linear perspective. The point F, already used as the real point of observation and as the origin of the directions, also assumes the function of a vanishing point. In this passage, the angles of the thing are transformed into angles of the eye: the real relationships remain valid, but are reorganized according to a projection centered on F, which redistributes scales and distances within the pictorial space. The painted landscape does not reproduce the entire territory, but constructs a coherent synthesis of it, integrating certain elements and excluding others in a controlled manner.

What has emerged from the analysis of the third level of landscape construction makes it possible to draw some general considerations. The construction of the landscape does not respond to arbitrary criteria, nor to a merely compositional requirement, but to an intentional spatial order, grounded in coherent geometric relationships that can be verified on the real territory.

The transformation of the angles of the thing into angles of the eye, carried out starting from point F, shows that Leonardo does not merely evoke a landscape, but reconstructs it according to a rigorous method, capable of holding even when subjected to precise measurements and comparisons. The landscape is therefore neither generic nor freely adapted to the narrative, but organized according to a logic that preserves the real relationships of the territory, while translating them into pictorial form.

The fact that this construction maintains coherence even in its most complex passages— such as apparent enlargements, perspectival shifts, and partial occlusions— constitutes one of the most significant elements of the overall framework. The method not only works, but remains valid even when it is applied to broader portions of territory that are less immediately legible, which characterize the fourth level of landscape construction.

The fourth level of landscape construction concerns the portion of landscape located to the right of the mountain group, in the space between the Apuan Alps and the tree. In this case as well, the origin of the construction remains point F, which retains the function of a single reference and again operates as the vanishing point of a linear perspective.

Compared to the third level, the perspectival transformation acts differently: territories relatively close to point F are pushed back perspectivally and reduced in scale, so as to be concentrated within the space between the Apuan Alps and the tree. The effect is not a naturalistic view, but a synthetic rendering, which prepares a topographic reading of the landscape.

The fourth level of landscape construction addresses a portion of landscape that, although belonging to the same general visual field, cannot be represented with the procedures adopted in the preceding levels. Its lateral and recessed position requires a more pronounced perspectival transformation, in which very wide real directions must be compressed and shifted in order to be made legible within the portion of pictorial space assigned to this level.

In this process, the construction does not merely reduce or simplify forms, but tends to mask them, integrating them within natural elements such as slopes, vegetation, and indistinct profiles. Leonardo thus succeeds in including this territorial sector as well, making it emerge only through an analysis by directions, by degrees, and by visual behavior.

The fourth level of landscape construction is now examined starting from the northernmost portion of the painting. The images that follow present a sequence of comparisons with the real territory, within the same regime of perspectival compression and lateral translation already defined in the previous sections.

This comparison represents the southernmost point of the cartographic sequence reconstructed in the fourth level. Unlike the case of the Omo Morto, this is not a natural pareidolia subsequently emphasized, but an intentional masking. The real settlement is compressed, shifted, and integrated into forms that appear as leaves, becoming part of the vegetative structure of the painting.

Within the fourth level of landscape construction, Lucignana thus constitutes a true invenzione mirabilissima: a real and historically determined place, transformed through angular manipulation and perspectival construction, until it assumes the appearance of a natural element. It is no longer mere territorial comparison, but conscious figurative intervention.

Within the historic center of Lucignana stands the church of Santo Stefano Protomartire, a medieval building documented since the 12th century. The presence of a structured and historically attested nucleus reinforces the non-random character of the correspondence. The fourth level thus concludes not with simple geographic transposition, but with the integration of a real form within the system of mirabilissime invenzioni.

The images that follow now show how the directions measurable in the territory, referred to point F, are reorganized in the painting through an angular transformation.

In the fourth level, the perspectival mechanism remains identical to that of the previous level; what changes is the initial angular breadth, which, once compressed, produces a visual rendering of extreme distance and an almost cartographic synthesis.

The set of comparisons with the real territory shows that the landscape of Saint Anne is not constructed at random. Its organization is intentional and is based on real geometric relationships, which are transformed without being altered. It is therefore not a generic landscape, but the result of a method that remains valid even when verified through concrete measurements and comparisons.

The area of the Lunigiana to the left of the Apuan Alps, the Magra valley, and the coastal extension as far as the city of La Spezia and the Versilia, although belonging to the same geographic domain, are not represented in the painting. This absence does not constitute a denial of reality, but the outcome of a constructive choice: the foreground hill and Saint Anne’s head serve as elements of connection and occlusion, concealing those portions of territory that, as a result of the perspectival transformation, would appear deformed or incoherent.

Also excluded from the representation are the lower portions of the Garfagnana, occluded below by the hill and laterally by the presence of the tree. Other hilly areas to the right of the Apuan Alps are not directly visible, but are recomposed pictorially through an intentional connection between Garfagnana and the Apuan Alps. The landscape is thus organized through controlled inclusions and exclusions, according to a coherent visual logic that governs the entire structure of the painting.

«The angle of the eye is the one that the object seen forms with the eye; the angle of the thing is the one that the object forms in itself.»

(Leonardo da Vinci, from the “Treatise on Painting”)