We are going off topic, I think. This thread is to address what might be considered a 'fatal flaw' in the beliefs of Dan Brown re Leonardo's 'Last supper'
Agreed, but this for another writer's sake and that one's desire to research...
Referring to Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa,
…a researcher by the name of Michael W. Domoretsky found the true name within the painting call the Mona Lisa woven within the sleeve of the painting itself
… the research that has been shown thus far that the da Vinci Project, Research Group is onto something great. I think also not only do they produce the name [color:#CC0000][b]'Mary' in there finding's[/b][/color] and back them up…
Following the link provided by nanago to the da Vinci Project, Research Group
, sure enough one finds the word 'Mary'
in highlight atop the folds of the Mona Lisa’s right forearm.
Before all exchange hi-5s, however, what’s wrong with that picture ??!!??"Leonardo didn’t speak or write in English !!!
Further proof (if any is still needed) that Leonardo did not write the “true name” of the Mona Lisa’s on her forearm:
From what languages would Leonardo have chosen ??
Hebrew ?? Italian ?? English ??
Any of the above present an insurmountable problem for Mr. Domoretsky and the “da Vinci Project, Research Group” to still justify the use of their highlighter pen to trace out 'Her Name'
on the right forearm of the Mona Lisa as Leonardo painted it.
How so ??
If Leonardo used his native language (Italian), he would have painted the folds of cloth to spell out 'Maria'
, which of course he didn't, which further means "Maria"
will not flow nicely from the highlighter pen on to the top of the folds of cloth adorning the Mona Lisa’s right forearm as Leonardo painted it !!
If Leonardo had chosen instead to represent her name in her
native language (Judeo-Aramiaic) he would have created folds of cloth whereupon the name 'Maryam'
(derived from the Hebrew “Miriam”) could be traced out...but he did no such thing. Unfortunately for Mr. Domoretsky and the “da Vinci Project, Research Group” is concerned, no matter how hard they try, 'Maryam'
won’t fit the folds of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa right forearm as Leonardo painted it !!
Is anyone getting the picture that this is “research” and accompanying claims is utter nonsense ??
What about choosing English ??
Well, that won’t work out for Mr. Domoretsky and the “da Vinci Project, Research Group” either. If Leonardo had written in English, that language in his day bore absolutely no resemblance to today’s English.
Try reading Canterbury Tales in Chaucerian English (Chaucer lived 1343 – 1400), just for starters.
Want more proof of how Leonardo would have had to paint the folds of cloth on the Mona Lisa’s forearm to accommodate the English of his day ??
In the following sample, see if you can find the name of 'Mary Magdalene'
Syððan wæs geworden þæt he ferde þurh þa ceastre and þæt castel: godes rice prediciende and bodiende. and hi twelfe mid. And sume wif þe wæron gehælede of awyrgdum gastum: and untrumnessum: seo magdalenisce maria ofþære seofan deoflu uteodon: and iohanna chuzan wif herodes gerefan: and susanna and manega oðre þe him of hyra spedum þenedon.
Given the above evidence, about all this writer can say about the “research” of Mr. Domoretsky and the so-called “da Vinci Project, Research Group” is that Scotoma
is alive and well regarding their claims that the “true” name of the Mona Lisa, 'Mary'
, was painted by Leonardo in English on her right sleeve.
Just for fun, let’s take a look at how Leonardo frequently painted “sleeves”. Pull up his painting of Benois Madonna
, c.1478 – and observe the elaborate folds of fabric on her forearm. Probably if you look enough, the letter “M” or “W” could be made out on it.
Next, pull up Leonardo’s Grotesque Heads
, c.1490 – and focus first on the figure in the foreground. Zoom in (if you have found a site that provides that capability) and note the right shoulder blade from just above the waist ascending upwards towards the neck.
Beginning with an unmistakable ”M”
, that little section of wrinkles and folds ends with an equally unmistakable ”Y”
. Using the same alchemy employed by Mr. Domoretsky and the “da Vinci Project, Research Group”, highlighting other fabric wrinkles, folds, to produce an ”a”
and then an ”r”
would not be difficult at all.
There…another one of Leonardo’s figures identified as 'Mary'
employing the same methodology of Mr. Domoretsky and the “da Vinci Project, Research Group !!
Also – zoom in on the figure to the right of the one just examined. It could be argued that visually it is a woman with a tiny baby (top of its head showing, complete with eyebrows and a nose) swaddled into the folds of her garment against her left breast (if one could be made out).
You see, it is a small matter to find whatever one wants
to find in art to support an agenda (such as preparations for…selling a book ?)
Personally from my own perspective I find what Giorgio Vasari wrote about many things when it came to da Vinci not to be true, by study of my own research have found many things Vasari says made up to sell books
Neither Varsari’s reputation nor his work is held in the disrepute expressed by nanago by the world art community:
With a few exceptions, however, Vasari's aesthetic judgment was acute and unbiased. He did not research archives for exact dates, as modern art historians do, and naturally his biographies are most dependable for the painters of his own generation and the immediately preceding one (Vasari 1511-1574 – Leonardo 1442 – 1519, inserted, this writer)
Look at Vasari's time line and compare it with much of what was going on at the time in history
Modern criticism — with all the new materials opened up by research — has corrected many of his traditional dates and attributions. The work remains a classic even today, though it must be supplemented by modern critical research
So, enough on this. Leonardo didn’t paint the folds of cloth on the forearm of The Mona Lisa to form the name “Mary” in English. Leonardo painted many fabrics with elaborate folds, peaks and valleys, and Vasari wasn’t the lying scoundrel just trying to sell his books as accused.
This post hasn't been about trying to discourage the love and pursuit of “research” by another writer, it’s about trying to encourage pursuit of research along credible lines.