57 pages • 1 hour read
Nicholas DayA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summary
Background
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Key Figures
Themes
Index of Terms
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
Immediately following the theft, everyone had a theory about who stole the painting and why: Rogue employees, two German painters, the German government, the French government, the Louvre itself. Newspapers questioned fortune tellers and clairvoyants, who provided endless contradictory answers. From their clues, ships and trains were searched, but no Mona Lisa emerged. No one could escape Mona Lisa theories, not even two swimmers, who found a message in a bottle claiming the painting had been cast into the sea.
Forensic science was a fairly new technology in 1911. Previously, the police were charged with maintaining order, not solving crimes. Now, thanks partly to Louis Lépine, the police were learning how to conduct police work. Lépine partnered with forensics science pioneer Alphonse Bertillon. Together, they made a “superhero duo of early criminology” (63), but they had flaws.
Now a crime scene, the Louvre remained closed and occupied by the police. The Mona Lisa’s theft “was a national embarrassment” (64). During the search, the theft itself became art. The investigation revealed that security was careless and unsystematic. Everything might be either suspicious or normal, but it was difficult to know which.
Paupardin told police that the Mona Lisa had a quiet but consistent German “suitor” (67). A man matching his description was questioned and released: He had not been anywhere near Paris on August 21. Another witness recalled seeing a man leaving the Louvre with a rectangular package, and he had thrown something in a ditch. The breakthrough ultimately led to nothing since the witness could provide no relevant clues about the man’s appearance.
Identifying criminals posed a challenge for early police forces because they lacked reliable systems for keeping track of people. Alphonse Bertillon changed that. He developed a laborious, highly specific system of measuring every part of a human body. The Bertillon system was inspired by anthropometry, though it had “a horrible history” (70). It was used to justify “racist claims about groups” (70). Bertillon used it to identify prison escapees.
Approximately 10 years before the Mona Lisa was stolen, Marie-François Goron was convinced a wealthy, respected Parisian, Charles Vernet, was actually convicted murderer Simon, who had escaped from prison. Goron devised an elaborate trick to publicly measure Vernet, then arrested him. Vernet later confessed. The “very public demonstration” (73) made Bertillon a legend.
However, by the time of the Mona Lisa’s theft, Bertillon and his scientific methods had become a laughingstock. Bertillon had testified against Alfred Dreyfus, who was wrongly accused of treason and convicted largely because he was Jewish. When the truth of Dreyfus’s innocence was later revealed, Bertillon’s reputation was damaged, and the danger of pseudo-science exposed.
Following the theft, a Paris-Journal headline asked if Arsène Lupin was alive, but Arsène Lupin was not real. He was a fictional character. Fiction and reality were blurring, and it started more than a century earlier with a story “too strange to be anything but true” (77).
Eugène François Vidocq was a master of disguise. When the police finally caught him, they appointed him head of their undercover unit, leveraging his vast network of criminal contacts. The deal worked, but the public was suspicious. After Vidocq was finally forced out, he founded “the first private detective agency in the world,” pioneering “scientific methods in policing” (78). His story inspired Edgar Allan Poe, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Victor Hugo.
His story also inspired real-life detectives to elevate their methods. The year before the Mona Lisa was stolen, Edmond Locard, a criminologist in Lyon, used his newly developed fingerprint identification methods to find the thief stealing jewelry from wealthy homes one piece at a time. His main clue was the strange fingerprints discovered at the scene. He ordered organ-grinders and their monkeys to the police station, then fingerprinted the monkeys until he found his culprit. Louise Lépine and Alphonse Bertillon thus had a lot to live up to.
Bertillon’s measuring identification system was laborious and difficult to implement effectively. It generated a vast number of police files. By contrast, England had implemented a fingerprint system that enabled efficient comparison of existing samples. Scottish doctor Henry Faulds had first proposed that each person has a unique and unalterable fingerprint. He had been ignored for years. Charles Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, eventually stole his ideas.
Though Bertillon preferred his own system, he agreed to add fingerprints to his cards. However, lacking an efficient system for comparing prints meant police needed a suspect to test against any fingerprints found at the scene.
Bertillon did not have any suspects, but he did have the antique frame and glass box, which the thief had discarded in the stairwell. Bertillon meticulously tested it and found a single thumbprint on the glass pane. He then staged two recreations of the crime, one by thieves with no knowledge of the Louvre and a second with thieves employed at the museum. The former removed the painting in five minutes, the latter in five seconds. The conclusion: It must have been “an inside job” (86).
After 15 years in Florence, a monastery commissioned Leonardo to create an altarpiece. He painted a vivid Adoration of the Magi but never finished it. It is now housed in Florence’s Uffizi Museum.
Leonardo abandoned Florence for Milan, writing an audacious letter of introduction to the city’s duke, who was striving to cultivate a Milanese Renaissance. The letter contained many promises and one truth: That he could sculpt and paint as well as any other. Once there, he was introduced as a musician, a skilled lyre player who sang and improvised his own poetry. Leonardo was the first Renaissance man, someone who is good at many unrelated skills.
Milan had the kind of people Leonardo most longed to meet: mathematicians, philosophers, doctors. His notebooks exploded with questions and ideas. His mind worked the opposite way than others’. Others began with theories that might have nothing to do with reality. Leonardo began with observations, then developed and tested theories to explain those observations. He conducted experiments, created a record of the human body, and staged extravagant spectacles for the carnivals and festivals of his time. He was happy in Milan and planned to stay.
Leonardo was commissioned to sculpt a horse and planned a 25-foot-high bronze statue to be cast in one piece, contrary to the methods of the time. To prepare, he observed and dissected horses and wrote a book on horse anatomy. The clay model he created became “the wonder of Milan” (97). The French then invaded Italy. The duke needed bronze for cannons and appropriated the bronze reserved for Leonardo’s statue. He was heartbroken.
Leonardo’s next artistic innovation was a mural, The Last Supper. Unwilling to follow the time-tested methods for painting a fresco with water-based paints on wet plaster, Leonardo figured out how to use his favored oil paints. The result was a wonder, but within 50 years, the paint flaked off and became barely visible. The existing Last Supper is a heavily restored “glimpse of what Leonardo actually painted” (100).
Leonardo remained in Milan for six weeks following the arrival of the French army, playing both sides. Now 50 years old, he was forced to flee from the city. The invader King Charles VIII was “foolish and reckless” (102), but because of him, Leonardo returned to Florence, enabling the creation of the Mona Lisa.
Before the theft, the Louvre welcomed scarcely a few hundred daily visitors. After the police reopened it, thousands of Parisians came every day. People who had never seen the Mona Lisa now came to stare at the empty space where she used to hang, leaving bouquets and notes. Future writer Franz Kafka visited with his friend Max Brod, and they made a comic silent film about the theft, depicting the Louvre administrators and police as incompetent and the museum so chaotic that no one notices when the thief returns the painting.
The Louvre’s ineptitude became the subject of national mockery, while the Mona Lisa decorated chocolate boxes, was used to sell cigarettes, and had songs “written in her honor” (107). The story reached other countries, and was covered in the US, Canada, Australia, and England. With newspapers now able to reproduce illustrations effectively and economically, illustrated supplements made Mona Lisa “the most prominent face in the world” (107). She could be seen everywhere, except the Louvre.
Bertillon had a thumbprint but no suspects. Almost 300 people worked at the Louvre; many others were former employees or familiar with its display methods. Art theft by individuals was a relatively new phenomenon in 1911. Previously, nations had plundered art, including much of the Louvre’s Italian art, which Napoleon brought back after invading Italy.
Lépine and Bertillon did not operate as Leonardo had: They began with assumptions, then built theories. They imagined the type of person who would steal art: A “Secret Admirer,” “Lone Madman,” or “Consummate Professional” (110). The latter was preferred because it suggested a higher class of criminal, the type of adversary that Lépine and Bertillon’s thought worthy of them.
This led to a suspect, American Adam Worth. The police knew he was the perpetrator of bank heists and forgeries but could never catch him because he never made errors. After moving to England, he assumed the life of an English gentleman in London. In 1876, he stole Thomas Gainsborough’s Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, “[t]he Mona Lisa of its day” (113). Parallels between the two heists suggested he must be the criminal responsible, even though he had died the previous decade.
Worth had created the mold, and the police would find someone to fit that model.
This section begins with the aftermath of the theft. Day explores the way it transformed the Mona Lisa into a spectacle of performance art, which was aided by technology and the ineptitude of the investigation. He then turns his attention to Leonardo, contrasting his methods for exploring the world around him with the methods the investigators used to try to find a suspect.
Day suggests the Mona Lisa could not have become the global phenomenon that it did without technology, invoking Technology and the Commodification of Art. The endless news stories created a public conversation around the painting. Everyone had a theory about who stole it and where it was. That the theories contradicted each other and that none reflected reality did not make it less interesting to propose them. As Day will later reveal, the reality was much more mundane than the spectacle, so mundane that it was resisted even years later.
These public discussions transformed the portrait into a spectacle for consumption and a commodity to generate the sale of goods and performances. Here again, technology was a crucial element because the painting could be effectively reproduced, allowing not only newspapers to print it but also companies that wanted to leverage the popularity of the image. In the process, the theft and coverage of the theft became art pieces, making it something “worthy of our attention” (65). Furthermore, the theft generated new art pieces, such as songs in the portrait’s honor and the satiric film by Franz Kafka and Max Brod, who again used a new technology, that of film. In the process, the definition of art was evolving, and with time, this would change the kind of art that was created.
Policing and detective work were also evolving during this period, alongside technologies. Edmond Locard had developed a fingerprinting system, and Bertillon incorporated it into his elaborate and complex system for measuring people, using principles of anthropometry. Day shows how assumptions and overconfidence hampered these allegedly scientific methods. Without The Importance of Wonder and Curiosity, science devolved into pseudoscience. The appearance of a scientific method concealed the assumptions that predetermined the conclusions.
Day offers the tragic example of Alfred Dreyfus to show not only the consequences of such pseudoscience but also how Bertillon’s overconfidence destroyed his own reputation. At Dreyfus’s trial, Bertillon testified that an incriminating letter was written in his handwriting, but Bertillon was not a handwriting expert. His own measuring system had no place in the trial, but he believed so much in his own knowledge that he offered himself as an expert witness without basis. His refusal to value fingerprinting, a system he did not himself invent, as highly as his own eponymous system meant that even though he was able to lift a thumbprint from the Mona Lisa’s discarded glass case, he was not able to use it to find the culprit. As Day later shows, if the investigation had been more systematic and driven by questions rather than assumptions, Bertillon might have found the thief and the painting much more quickly, since Perugia’s fingerprints were already on file in connection with his previous robberies.
After delving into the chaos around the investigation and public response, Day returns to Leonardo, describing his departure from Florence for Milan. Day especially highlights Leonardo’s insatiable curiosity, which led him to abandon his commissions in favor of exploring new ground. In Milan, Leonardo was anxious to meet with scientists of the period. Day characterizes Leonardo as the prototypical “Renaissance Man,” refusing to limit himself to practicing a single art form. Rather, he sought to understand his subject deeply, using every technology of his time to do so. Hence, he did not simply cast a horse in bronze, he studied and dissected horses and wrote a book about horse anatomy. Significantly, his unfinished paintings and the cast for the bronze horse that was never created are valued as works of art despite never being completed.
Day notes that Leonardo might never have returned to Florence, had not the French King Charles VIII invaded Italy, which in turn invokes The Impact of Historical Events. The decision was beneficial for history since it put Leonardo in Florence to paint Lisa. Day underscores this episode as a critical example of how historical events can create improbable and unexpected outcomes. Leonardo and Lisa were unlikely ever to come into contact, but external pressures created the conditions for their meeting.
Day concludes this section with a return to Paris and the investigation, showing how The Power of Narrative also drove, and botched, the investigation. Both past events and popular fiction played roles in shaping the stories newspapers printed and the assumptions investigators made about the identity of the criminal. Newspapers seized on the popularity of Arsène Lupin, a wildly popular fictional “gentleman burglar” (76), proposing him as the model for the thief of the Mona Lisa. Adam Worthy provided a historical example of a thief so skilled that he was never caught and was proposed as the Mona Lisa thief, even though he had died. Through these two examples, Day shows how the “confusion between what was real and what was imaginary shadowed the Mona Lisa investigation” (77). The investigators seemed to view themselves as characters in a grand adventure, on the hunt for a brilliant and prominent criminal. As Day will show, this was very far from the truth.