Widely accepted

Generally thought to be the earliest extant work by Leonardo. Traditionally attributed to Verrocchio until 1869. It is now almost universally attributed to Leonardo. Attribution proposed by Liphart; accepted by Bode, Lubke, Muller-Walde, Berenson, Clark, Goldscheider and others.^[2]

Widely accepted

Generally accepted as a Leonardo, but has some overpainting possibly by a Flemish artist.^[2]

Widely accepted as by Verrocchio and Leonardo

Painted mainly by Andrea del Verrocchio; Leonardo's contributions include angel on the left-hand side, some of the background landscape and the torso of Christ.^[3]

Widely accepted

While controversial in the past, modern scholarship widely attributes the work to Leonardo. The attribution of Lady with an Ermine supports the attribution of this painting.^[4]

Widely accepted

Universally accepted^[5]

Forensic and scientific analysis by Maurizio Seracini now proves that at least two layers of varnish, mainly in the lower half of the painting, were applied in the 18th–19th centuries.^[6]

Universally accepted^[7]

Widely accepted

Martin Kemp claims that the National Gallery, London, exhibited the Madonna Litta on loan from the Hermitage as an autograph work, even though the gallery's own curators believed it to be by a pupil, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio.^[8]

Universally accepted^[9]

Widely accepted

Widely accepted that Leonardo painted the figure's face. Some scholars suggest the body to be the work of his pupils, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio and Giovanni Ambrogio de Predis^[10]

Widely accepted

While controversial in the past, modern scholarship widely attributes the work to Leonardo. The attribution of Ginevra de' Benci supports the attribution of this painting.^[11]

Widely accepted

Modern scholars still debate the attribution and it is not as widely accepted as other portraits like Ginevra de' Benci, Portrait of a Musician, and Lady with an Ermine.^[12][13]

Generally accepted

Generally accepted as postdating the version in the Louvre, and produced in collaboration with Ambrogio de Predis and perhaps others.^[2] Some consider it the work of Leonardo's workshop under his direction. The date is not universally agreed.

Universally accepted^[14]

Universally accepted^[15]

Universally accepted^[16]

Widely accepted

Letters document at least two portrait drawings of Isabella d'Este and, in 1501–1506, her requests to execute the promised portrait in colour.^[17]

Generally accepted as by Leonardo and another artist^{[lower-alpha 3]}

Leonardo was documented as working on a painting of this subject in Florence in 1501; it appears to have been delivered to its patron in 1507. This and the Lansdowne Madonna are the most likely candidates for being that work, but neither is considered to be wholly autograph. Scientific examination has revealed "strikingly complex and similar" underdrawings in both versions, suggesting that Leonardo was involved in the making of both.^[19] The use of walnut wood suggests the earlier terminus post quem of 1499, as Leonardo's Milanese paintings are on this support.^[20]

Generally accepted^{[citation needed]}

Previously presumed to be a later copy of the lost original painting. Purchased in 2005 and restored, it has gained only few acceptance as Leonardo's original. Pentimenti (changes to the composition) were found in the thumb of Christ's right hand and elsewhere which are indicators of the painting's status as an "original".^[21] The painting set a new record for sale price (US$450 million) when auctioned by Christie's in 2017.^[22][23] Matthew Landrus considers it to be primarily the work of Bernardino Luini.^[24] In the 2021 documentary The Lost Leonardo, Frank Zöllner said: "You have the old parts of the painting which are original—these are by pupils—and the new parts of the painting, which look like Leonardo, but they are by the restorer. In some part, it's a masterpiece by Dianne Modestini".^[25] In 2021, the Spanish Prado downgraded the painting to a partial attribution.^[26][27] In 2022, the Encyclopædia Britannica noted: "no official record of the painting's attribution officially exists".^[28]

Generally accepted as having an underdrawing by Leonardo^{[lower-alpha 4]}

Universally accepted^[29]

Universally accepted^[30]

A drawing by Giovanni Ambrogio Figino depicting an elderly Leonardo with his right arm assuaged by cloth^{[31][lower-alpha 5]} and a record of an October 1517 visit by Louis d'Aragon,^{[lower-alpha 6]} confirm an account of Leonardo's right hand being paralytic at the age of 65,^[34] which may indicate why he left works such as the Mona Lisa unfinished.^[32][35][36]

Generally accepted^{[lower-alpha 7]}

Widely accepted

While controversial in the past, modern scholarship widely attributes the work to Leonardo. Scientific evidence in the second half of the 20th century has furthered this attribution.^[37]

Giant crossbow (C.A.149b-r/53v-b)

12 volumes, collated by the sculptor Pompeo Leoni.

Fetus in the womb (W.19102r)

These drawings were pasted into an album by Pompeo Leoni, probably entered the English royal collection in the reign of Charles II, and were removed from their binding in the 19th century.^[39]

Diving apparatus (B.L.24v)

List with a profile portrait (Triv.30r)

Determining the volume of regular and irregular solids (Forster I.7r)

Five pocket notebooks bound into three volumes, here listed in chronological order:

Aerial screw (detail of B.83v)

Vertically standing bird's-winged flying machine (B.80r)

12 volumes, here listed in chronological order:

Drawing of the ironwork casting mould for the head of the Sforza Horse (Madrid II.156v–157r)

Two volumes, rediscovered in 1966:

Studies for a building on a centralized plan (Ash.I.5v)

Two volumes, taken out of Paris Manuscripts A and B and sold to the Earl of Ashburnham, who returned them to Paris in 1890.

Notes on the position of a bird in flight in relationship to the wind (Turin.8r)

Originally part of Paris Manuscript B; probably stolen by Count Guglielmo Libri in around 1840–1847.^[55]

Studies of the illumination of the moon (Leic.1A (1r))

An anthology of writings by Leonardo compiled after his death by his pupil Francesco Melzi. An abridged version was published in 1651 as a treatise on painting (Trattato della Pittura).^[56]

Drawing by Francesco di Giorgio Martini, possibly based on Leonardo's cartoon

Described in great detail by Giorgio Vasari and the Anonimo Gaddiano. Painted for the King of Portugal, it was in the collection of Ottaviano de' Medici in Vasari's lifetime. The composition might have inspired a drawing by Francesco di Giorgio Martini in the Christ Church Picture Gallery, Oxford.^[58]

A juvenile work known only from accounts by Giorgio Vasari and the Anonimo Gaddiano. Vasari stated that it was sold by Leonardo's father Ser Piero da Vinci to merchants, who then sold it on to the Duke of Milan.^[58]

A juvenile work only known from an account by Giorgio Vasari. A Flemish painting of this subject of c. 1600 in the Uffizi, Florence, was once mistakenly thought to be this work.

A commission for the chapel in the Palazzo della Signoria, Florence, allocated to Leonardo on 10 January 1478 but never completed.^[58] The commission had originally been given to Piero del Pollaiuolo on 24 December 1477; its reallocation might have been arranged by Leonardo's father, who was a notary to the Signoria. After Leonardo's failure to fulfill the commission it was given to Domenico Ghirlandaio on 20 May 1483, but he did not complete the work either. It is sometimes mistakenly said that a Virgin and Child with Saints in the Uffizi by Filippino Lippi was the work finally delivered to the chapel, but this was painted for the Sala dei Dugento (council hall) of the palace.^[59]

Copy by Peter Paul Rubens

Covered up by frescoes by Vasari, beginning in 1563. The remains of Leonardo's fresco may have been discovered in the Salone dei Cinquecento.^[60]

Copy by Cesare da Sesto

There are nine known copies of the painting, including:

• Cesare da Sesto, Leda and the Swan (pictured). Oil on wood, 69.5 cm × 73.7 cm (27.4 in × 29.0 in). Wilton House, Wiltshire
• Anonymous, possibly Il Sodoma, Leda and the Swan. Tempera on wood, 115 cm × 86 cm (45 in × 34 in). Galleria Borghese, Rome
• Francesco Melzi, Leda and the Swan. Uffizi, Florence
• Anonymous, possibly Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina, Leda and the Swan. Oil on panel, 131.1 cm × 76.2 cm (51.6 in × 30.0 in). Philadelphia Museum of Art (previously at John G. Johnson Collection, 1917)
• Giampietrino, Leda and the Swan, from the collection of the Marquess of Hastings
• Giampietrino, Venus and Cupid, private collection, Milan
• Venus and Cupid, 16th century, Oil on panel, New Orleans Museum of Art

The Incarnate Angel,
satirical copy

The painting is described by Vasari. A drawing survives among studies for the Battle of Anghiari (see below). The drawing at left, known as The Incarnate Angel, is a satirical copy, by Leonardo.^[61][62] There are some extant copies of the subject by Leonardeschi, including:

• Workshop of Leonardo da Vinci? Angel of the Annunciation, c. 1505 – 1513? Oil on canvas (transferred from panel), 66 cm × 47.3 cm (26.0 in × 18.6 in), Hermitage, Saint Petersburg.^[63]
• Workshop of Leonardo da Vinci? Saint John the Baptist, c. 1508 – 1513? Panel, 71 cm × 52 cm (28 in × 20 in), Kunstmuseum Basel.^[64]
• Workshop of Leonardo da Vinci? Saint John the Baptist, c. 1508 – 1513? Oil on panel, 75 cm × 53.4 cm (29.5 in × 21.0 in), Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.^[65]
• Baccio Bandinelli. Annunciate Angel. Sketch after Leonardo da Vinci.

Previously attributed to Verrocchio or Lorenzo di Credi. Most critics have considered the anatomy of the Christ Child to be so poor as to discourage firm attribution to Leonardo, but some believe that it is a work of his youth. This attribution was made by Suida in 1929. Other art historians such as Shearman and Morelli attribute the work to Verrocchio.^[2] Daniel Arasse discusses this painting as a youthful work by Leonardo in his monograph of 1997.^[67]

Workshop of Verrocchio, with a possible contribution by Leonardo^{[lower-alpha 8]}

Martin Kemp suggests that Leonardo may have painted some part of this work, most likely the fish. David Alan Brown, of the National Gallery in Washington, attributes the painting of the dog to him as well.

Several versions in private collections.

Generally attributed to Ambrogio de Predis. According to Martin Kemp, Leonardo may have been responsible for "laying down the basis of the image", based on "[t]he quality of drawing in the head".^{[lower-alpha 9]}

Identified as a Leonardo by Martin Kemp on stylistic grounds, and confirmed using the evidence of a fingerprint.^[71] Other experts have not agreed with this attribution. As of 2010 the methods used to analyse the fingerprint have come into question.^[72] The presence of holes in the page shows that it was once part of the Sforziada, a manuscript kept in Warsaw; this fact points to its originality.

Attributed to Leonardo and his workshop by Carlo Pedretti;^[73] believed by others to be a copy of the Virgin of the Rocks by Leonardo's student Giampietrino. Mentioned by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres in 1845 and by Pierre Puvis de Chavannes; both were convinced that it was an original work by Leonardo.^{[citation needed]}

The bust is said by Kemp to be the most likely candidate for a surviving sculpture by Leonardo.^{[lower-alpha 10]}

The painting has been generally attributed to Jacopo de' Barbari due to the presence of a cartouche with a cryptic inscription resembling his name, but some attribute the painting (at least partially) to Leonardo,^[75] who began collaborating with Pacioli when the latter moved to Milan in 1496.^[76][77] Leonardo illustrated Archimedean solids, including the rhombicuboctahedron (pictured in the portrait), in Pacioli's Divina proportione (1509).^[78] According to one scholar, in the rhombicuboctahedron "we surely see the ineffable left hand of Leonardo da Vinci, who drew the superb pictures for De divina proportione, which, moreover, hang from a string ..."^[75]

Previously attributed by Sotheby's to Gian Francesco Maineri.^[79][80] Attributed to Leonardo by its former owner.^[79] Attribution based on the similarity of the tormentors of Christ to drawings made by Rubens of the Battle of Anghiari. According to Forbes magazine, Carlo Pedretti said that he knew of three similar paintings and "[a]ll four paintings, he believed, were likely the work of Leonardo's studio assistants and perhaps even the master himself."^[79]

Its proponents claim that this is the earlier of two versions of the Mona Lisa, painted for Francesco del Giocondo (husband of Lisa) in 1503, and that the Louvre version was painted for Giuliano de' Medici in 1517.^[81]

Fragmentary wax statuette in a private collection in London, formerly in the Sangiorgi Collection in Rome; said to have come from the Melzi estate at Vaprio d'Adda.^[84][85] Carlo Pedretti in 1985 considered it to be an autograph work by Leonardo,^[86][87] and Martin Kemp, after personally examining the wax model wrote in 1992, "My overall conclusion is that I would not eliminate an attribution to Leonardo."^[88] The attribution has been criticized by various other art historians^[89][90][91] and publications, citing a lack of hard evidence or documentation.^[92][93][94]

A painting discovered in 2008 near Naples, which closely resembles the Uffizi's 17th-century copy of the "Self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci", is currently undergoing restoration and investigation. A date in the late 15th or 16th centuries has been confirmed by scientific testing. Fingerprints match those found on the Lady with an Ermine. Alternatively attributed to Cristofano dell'Altissimo.^[95]

Accepted by some scholars, but not universally accepted.^[96][97]

Disputed

Generally considered to be a workshop copy of a drawing.^[2] According to Kemp, it may have been begun by Leonardo as a figure of John the Baptist.^[99]

Described as a potential Leonardo by Carlo Pedretti. Previously attributed to Giampietrino, who painted a number of similar Magdalenes.^[100] Pedretti's attribution is not accepted by other scholars, e.g. Carlo Bertelli (former director of the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan), who said that the subject could be a Lucretia with the knife removed.^[101]