Evening Star Newspaper, October 11, 1931, Page 77

THE SUNDAY STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C, OCTOBER 11, Vincenzo Perugia, & tramp Italian artist, calmly removed the famous painting from its frame and carried it, rolled up in an umbrella, from the Louvre, BY R. S. FENDRICK. PARIS. AS the enigmatic Mona Lisa lost her smile? To put it bluntly, is Leonardo da Vinei’'s immortal mosterriece, the jewel of the Louvre collection, really authentic, or was thers some myste~ trious manipulation between the time it was stolen in 1911 and its reccvery in Itz2ly in 1913? Did some one replace the real Mona Lisa with @ clever copy during this exciting escapade? Was the painting badly damaged and then re- touched by a heavy hand? Or did the thief, # painter himself, try to improve on Da Vinci's work ? : .A remark of Forain, the great French artist and cartoopist who died a few weeks agoe, has revived this terrible doubt that caused so much heart-burning in France for many years. .“The smile of La Joconde no longer exists,” Forain said, using her French title. “If you don't believe it, compare photcgraphs taken at different epochs.” This sensationcl opinion is quoted by Leandre Vaillat, a clos: friend of the noted painter-cartoonist, in a book cf reminis- cences called “In Listening to Forain,” to be published soen. And that is about all he said, but Forain was such a superb draftsman, a mas- ter ‘with such a vast knowledge of art and a man who weighed his judgments so carefully that he could not have caused more emotion if he had come out with a broadside. Like many ‘other artists, he apparently held the private sonviction that there was something queer about the picture that was returned to the Lcuvre in 1913. Any number of Frenchmen are convinced to this day that the lady has rever looked the same since her adventure, though they don't know exactly what h2ppened to her. POOR TItalian Vincenzo Perugia, caused zll this mystification by strolling out of the Louvre cne hot, drowsy Afternoon 20 years ago—it was Monday, August 21, 1911—with the priceless Mona Lisa tucked into his ragged umbrella. Although the museum is closed to visitors on M-ndays, he had strig- gled in with some artists who were copying the works there for prac , All the guards, exc'pt one at the main en- trance, who happened to be nam>d Personne, were off duty. Perugia czlmly lifted the heavy frame from the wall, carried it intc a little pri- vate stairway nearby, pried op n the boards and took out the masterpiece without having to cut it in any way. Being painted on canvas, he managed to roll it inside the old umbrella and then sauntered out about 1 o’clcck without any one paying any attention. Perugia rambled about the Paris streets for several hours with France's greatest artistic treasure under his arm, too penniless even to celcbrate with a bot- tle of “red ink.” He hid it in his room in a miserable lcdging house that night and a few months later wand<red into Italy with it. What a hue and cry the next morning when the empty frame was found in the staircase! The museum authorities were dazed. The po- lice announced that they would not make any formal chargs for 24 hours, thereby to give the practical joker an oppcrtunity to realize his mistake and bring the painting back. All the artists present that day were vainly given the third degree, but naturally there was no one named Perugia on the list. Finzally th> police realized that it was not a joke. The finest sleuths of the department were put cn the trail. In every corner of France tramps and other suspects were stripped and scarched. The fron- tiers were sealed. Any one carrving a package had to open it. The police of all the neighboring countries k similar measures, but wecks and months passed without the finest detective force in the world discovering the least indication of the identity of the thief or hcw he had got the masterpiece out of the Louvre. It was assumed that he had climbed out of a window, or per- haps even flown away. The whole universe was on the alert. Meanwhile, the poor Bohemian painter wandered abcut France and Italy with his treasure worth-millions but with which he could not even buy bread. He slipped through the police net like sand through their fingers. The motive for the theft was also incomprehen- sible, for no onec could sell it. tramp artist, 1931. All Paris Aghast at Revival, in Posthumous Publication of I'amous Artist’s Memoirs, of Old Story That Original of La Joconde Was Not Returned to Louvre Following Infamous Theft of Masterpiece fust 1zventy Years Ago. Mona Lisa, the famous Da Vinci masterpiece, over which a furor is raging in Paris. ONTHS passed into years. The Mona Lisa was given up as h-pelessly lost. And then suddenly, on December 11, 1913, the naive Perugia walked into an art shop in Florence and tried to sell the missing masterpiece for $100,000! He was arrested. French police w:re incred- ulous when he confessed that he had walked out of the Louvre under the very nose of the guardian with the painting tucked in his cld umbrella. Since that day it has been forbidden to carry umbrellss into the Louvre. They must be checked outside or otherwise some enterpris- ing person might even get away with the Venus de Milo in that way. After being shown before Victor Emmanuel and the Italian court and Parliament, the Mcna Lisa was brought back to Paris in triumph, but many artists shook their heads when they came to examine her. “This painting is darker and more somber than the one that was stolen,” said some. “The original had a transparcnt rose lacquer on the lips, which is not on this cne,” others pointed out. “In this painting there is a fault of perspec- tive at the right of the figure, making the lake appear to stand out in front of the face, that Da Vinci would never have perpetrated,” de- clared another faction. A distinguished artist, the late Gustave Geoffroy, director of the Gobelin tapestry works, declared earnestly that the picture returned from Italy was only a copy. Other noted experts felt that the Mona Lisa was not the same they had known, but it is almost treason in France to doubt the authen- ticity of this masterpicce and so many said nothing, at leiast publicly. The new revelaticn that Forain also believed that the Mona Lisa “had lost her smile” does not astonish the in- siders. It is only fair to say that most of the skeptics do not believe in the substituticn theory; they are more inclined to believe that the masterpiece was damaged while Perugia was carrying it about and then badly retouched. Perugia had it hidden in a hole in the parti- tion of his bed room in a cheap hotel in Flor- ence for many months, and it may have besn affected by humidity. It is also possible that some paint was knocked off during the 29 months’ adventure. As to who may have re- touched it there is complete mystery. On the other hand, the Louvre officlals have always laughed at these skeptics. “The Mcna Lisa here is undoubtedly au- thentic,” M. Guiffrey, curator of paintings at the Louvre, s2id. . “Shortly before the painting was stolen we had it photographed. The photos showed in th2 most precise way the place and the dimension cf every crack, making these doc- uments absolutely irrefutable. The cracks in an old painting are like the fingerprints on a man's hand. There are no two alike, that is, no two paintings ever have the same network of cracks. When the Mona Lisa was returned here we found that the cracks were identical with the ones shcwn in our photographs, and 50 we know positively that it was the same work that had been stolen.” Th: skeptics retort that the Louvre officials have been fooled so often—they recently bcught two Watteaus that turned out not to be Wat- eaus at all—that it is quite within the realm of possibility for them to be deceived again. As to wheth:r the Mona Lisa which Perugia stole in 1911 is the authentic original that Francois I of France bought from Da Vinci for 12,000 livres about the year 1518 is another question. The French experts have always been convinced that #¢ was, and there is nothing to indicate ctherwise, but they frankly admit that there is no documentary proof except the paint- ing itself. The work in the Louvre appears to be superior to about 30 others scattered around Eurcpe, although many of these are ancient and well done. A curious fact in connection with the Mona Lisa is that it is one of the few masterpieces in the Louvre that was bought for a big price. The records of the museum reveal that most of the fine works have been bought for modest prices, whereas many that have turned out to be duds were very expensive. Perugia, who died in 1925, always declared Dositively that the painting seized by the Italian authcrities in Florence was the one he had stolen from the Louvre and that it had never been out of his hands. “If La Joconde has lost her smile,” another Louvre expert told me, “it was not because of her little trip to Italy or any substitution. The truth is that the pink lacquer on the visage has become fadcd and discolored, due to evapora- Perugia wandered about France and Italy jor several years, secreting his prize in musty attics, too poor to buy bread. The picture was finally recov- ered when he tried to sell it, ticn, although this process has probably been going on for one or twoe hundred years, at least. I don’'t think that this change was intensified in any way during her absence in 1911-1913. On the contrary, the h:nds have remalned pink. “The photographic records, of course, do not Indicate very”accurately the color changes tak- ing place. “There is very little we can do to preserve the colors, which are really remarkable for a painting 400 years old. We would not think of retcuching it.” Shortly after the recovery of the famous painting art critics of the world entered into s conircversy as to the genuineness of the can- vas. There were many who insisted that the painting rehung in the Louvre was a reproduc- tion; still others maint2ined that Da Vinel had painted the subject twice, using identical colorings and size. The present controversy is a revival of the smcldering doubts that arose five years ago and now bid fair again to engulf European art circles. THE Guestion of the Mona Lisa's authenticity has been raised so often that Henri Verne, director cf the French state museums, recently took the dering decision to have all the 9,000 paintings in the Lcuvre examined by X-rays, ultra-violet rays ard other new processes im or- der to have a complete photographic record of each one. It was an extremely brave thing to do, for every gallery in the world contains fakes, not to mention the alterations, restora- tions, suppressions and additions that are re- veeled by these ruthless scientific methods. Im poking into the history of 9,000 works there are bound to be many sensati'ns, many valuable masterpieces literally relegated to the scrapheap, or, as happens in this case, to the cellar. All the ggat museums have their cellars packed full of sensational fakes, for which they have “bit” at one time or another, but they keep these carefully hidden. Unfortunately for the public interest, the Louvre has decided to keep the results of this investigation secret. If any glaring frauds are revealed they will be discreetly moved down- stairs. The Mona Lisa was one of the first works to be examined. Prof. Fernand Cellerier of the Arts and Crafts Laboratory, who is in charge, photographed it by six different processes, in- cluding X-ray and ultra-violet. The plates were entirely satisfactory, as they failed to reveal anything that would throw any doubt om the work's authenticity. Although this is only nega- tive evidence, it was all that was expected. Kees van Dongen, the fashionable soclety painter of Paris, also thinks that La Joconde is losing her smile, but in a sense entirely dif- ferent from the skeptics. “I don't think there is any mystery about it at all,” he told me half seriously, half smil- ingly. “The change is a phenomenon of human illusion. When these skeptical painters were younger their hearts were more deeply stirred by her impenetrable expression; they responded more violently to her beauty. Every year thcy become older and colder, and so she doesn't smile at them so temptingly. That is, they don’t look at her through the same pink spec- tacles of flaming youth. You know that a man in love sees everything lovely. It isn't the Lisa who is changing. It is the old birds who don't understand that they are changing . I think that young painters, all young men, will find the Lisa just as tantalizing as ever. It will be the same for generation after generation, but as each one grows older he will feel less thrill. There are exceptions, of course. Some lovers never grow old.” AN DONGEN has a very original idea of just why Mona Lisa wears the famous enigmatic expression, “I know that every one else attributes it to Da Vinci's genius,” he laughed. “They think he wanted her to be the eternal feminine rid- dle, and went to great pains to catch the look he was after. I believe the-explanation is much more simple. She probably had bad teeth, like all the other adults of her time, and kept her lips close together to hide them. I think that explains the famous enigma.” The true skeptics, who really believe that La Joconde met with some unfortunate adventure in Italy, are not satisfied by any of these fancy explanations. They are still sincerely convinced that her smile has changed. One can go to the Louvre almost any day and watch them. They study her, shake their heads gloomily and then move on muttering to themselves. But, as Van Dongen says, they are all gray- ; beards, and they look at her ’wmwut a sparkle in their eyes. (Copyright. 1 €1.) & {