—
## What the Case Looks Like Now
From the distance of more than a century, the Mona Lisa theft of 1911 looks like a case that has been absorbed into the painting’s mythology in ways that are both accurate and distorting.
The accurate parts: Vincenzo Peruggia did steal the painting. He hid it for twenty-eight months. He was arrested in Florence after approaching Alfredo Geri. The investigation did fail to identify him despite having fingerprint evidence that could have done so. Apollinaire was wrongly arrested. The press coverage did transform the painting’s global reputation. These facts are well documented.
The distorting parts: The theft did not make the Mona Lisa famous from obscurity. The theft was not an operation of criminal genius. Peruggia was not primarily a patriot — the documented evidence of financial motive is real. The Valfierno story is not established. Picasso was not a thief. The painting was not in poor condition when recovered. Napoleon did not steal it.
The case has been told many times and in many formats, and the accretions of myth — the colorful alternative explanations, the romantic readings of Peruggia’s motive, the exaggerated versions of the painting’s pre-theft obscurity — have attached themselves to the documented record. Reading the case clearly requires distinguishing what can be established from what has been added.
What can be established is striking enough without embellishment. A man who had worked briefly in one of the world’s great museums, in a low-skilled maintenance role, used his knowledge of the building to steal the most famous painting in France. He kept it in his apartment, within walking distance of the Louvre, for over two years. The police failed to find it despite having evidence that pointed to him. He eventually tried to sell it in Florence, was identified by the first expert who saw it, and arrested. He spent seven months in prison.