On the Mona Lisa and what it is actually called
A lot of people ask about the nome alternativo ao quadro monalisa, usually because they run into some situation where the standard title doesn't work — a form asking for a formal registration name, an archive that requires the original Italian, or a reference system that treats the French label as a translation rather than the primary identifier. The short answer is that there is really only one valid alternative: La Gioconda, sometimes written as Giovanna in older texts, or La Joconde in French academic citations. Leonardo da Vinci himself never titled it. The painting didn't have a fixed name until the Louvre catalogued it centuries later.
nome alternativo ao quadro monalisa
When you use La Gioconda, you are using the Italian designation based on the sitter's presumed identity as Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo. It appeared in Vasari's Vite as mona Lisa, which collapsed into the French Monna Lisa and eventually La Gioconda in Italian art historical convention. I ran into a practical issue a few years ago while working on a provenance audit for a museum acquisition. The acquisition database used a standardized naming field, and "Mona Lisa" kept getting flagged as a duplicate entry because the system's fuzzy-matching algorithm linked it to dozens of workshop copies, reproductions, and even a 19th-century postcard collection that happened to share the label. We ended up using "La Gioconda, attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1503–1506, oil on poplar panel" as the canonical reference string. It was ugly but it stopped the duplicates dead.
The workaround wasn't elegant. We added a second metadata column for the Italian title and set the French version as a redirect alias. That way any query for "Mona Lisa," "Monna Lisa," or "La Gioconda" resolved to the same record. It took about three weeks to reindex the affected collection, and honestly, it should have been handled at the schema level from the start instead of patched onto an existing database.
What people get wrong about the name
The most common confusion is assuming that Mona is a title like Madonna. It isn't. It is a contraction of Monna, the Venetian-Tuscan form of Monna, meaning "my lady" — a form of address, not a proper noun. So the full original Italian reading is closer to "My Lady Lisa", not a name that Leonardo ever assigned to the work. Another misconception is that there are multiple alternate names. There aren't. You will find references to La belleFerronnière, but that is a completely different painting in the Louvre, sometimes confused due to the similar facial type. You will also see Portrait of a Lady used in English auction catalogs, but that is a generic placeholder, not an established alternative name for this specific work.
If you are citing this painting in a formal context — a thesis, a gallery label, a database entry — the most defensible convention is to lead with the Italian title and parenthetically note the French. Something like: La Gioconda (Monna Lisa), Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1503–1506. That format appears in the Louvre's own scholarly publications and in most peer-reviewed art history journals.
👉 Clique no botão abaixo para saber mais sobre o assunto!
Why the name matters in practice
It matters because the name is tied to attribution debates, reproduction licensing, and the sheer volume of copy variants in circulation. The Louvre holds the original, but there are at least six recognized workshop copies, including the Prado version and the Eremitage version, each with slightly different provenance histories and attribution grades. If you are searching for images, the official Louvre digital collection uses "La Joconde" as its internal identifier. Search for "Mona Lisa" and you get thousands of results spread across museum databases, private collections, and commercial stock photo sites — most of them low-resolution and incorrectly tagged. I spent an afternoon last year tracking down a high-resolution scan for a publication and ended up contacting the Louvre's image licensing department directly because the metadata on every third-party source was inconsistent at best.
The licensing page itself is not intuitive. You have to navigate through their Centre de Ressources section, select the Italian/French language option, and fill out a request form that asks for the intended use, resolution needed, and publication timeline. It usually takes two to three weeks for a response, and they may ask for additional documentation if the request looks like it could be commercial. For academic use, the process is straightforward, but they do charge a fee unless you qualify for their open-access research program, which has its own eligibility criteria.
Edge cases and when the alternative name doesn't help
Using La Gioconda as the primary identifier works fine for most scholarly and curatorial purposes, but it breaks down in a few specific scenarios. First, in Italian legal and customs documentation, the painting is sometimes registered under the full name Ritratto di Lisa Gherardini. If you are dealing with export permits, insurance valuations, or cultural property declarations, the Italian authorities may require that longer form. I learned this the hard way when a gallery in Florence tried to ship a loan exhibition of related works and the customs broker rejected the paperwork because the shipping manifest listed the painting as "La Gioconda" instead of the registered canonical title.
Second, in digitization projects that rely on IIIF manifests or linked open data, the French label "La Joconde" is often the URI namespace key because the Louvre controls the data pipeline. Switching to the Italian name in those systems requires a manual mapping layer that not all platforms support. You end up with two identifiers pointing to the same object, and if your workflow doesn't handle the reconciliation, your metadata gets fragmented across databases. Third, and perhaps most importantly, using the alternative name does not solve the fundamental problem of attribution uncertainty. The painting's authorship is generally accepted as Leonardo's, but there are still scholarly disagreements about the extent of workshop involvement, particularly in the lower portions of the panel and the background landscape. If your project requires a definitive attribution statement, the name won't help you — you need the current consensus from the Louvre's scientific department and the most recent technical analysis, which includes infrared reflectography and multispectral imaging data from their 2019 conservation assessment.
What to do if you need a reliable reference
The most practical approach is to use the Louvre's official catalog entry as your source of record. Their online database assigns a unique inventory number — RF 1920 — and lists both "La Joconde" and "La Gioconda" as variant titles. If you are building a bibliography or a research appendix, cite the inventory number alongside the title. That way, regardless of which language variant a reader searches for, the record is unambiguous. For image reproduction, go through the Louvre's licensing portal directly. Avoid third-party aggregators unless you have verified their resolution source and metadata accuracy. The difference between a proper high-res scan and a compressed web version can be the difference between a publication-quality image and something that falls apart under editorial review.
And if you are ever filling out a form that asks for the nome alternativo ao quadro monalisa, just put La Gioconda. It is the correct term, it is widely recognized, and it will not cause any problems in standard academic or institutional contexts.
