Yes there are many theories about who she is but I do feel from 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 'Mary' in there finding's and back them up, but they have also said they have found a series of Symbols that also prove the name 'MARY'to be true and the connection between the Templars and the Masons, all written in symbol form.

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,





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':



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 ?)



Neither Varsari’s reputation nor his work is held in the disrepute expressed by nanago by the world art community:








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.

…and Grrr82CU

Mary in Italian is short for Maria, this is a fact!, It does not matter if Leonardo was Italian or not it has no play on the name chosen by Leonardo.
Note the name Mary, as in Mary Magdalean!
There is proof of Leonardo using optical illusion in most of his work from a young age to his twilight ages and Leonardo writes of the use of this in his notes very clearly, the Experts have totally missed this.


This has no play on what he wrote at all , the fact is with or without the name traced it is there in optical illusion form! The trace by pen was put there so people like yourself could understand how to look at what Leonardo did, and still you missed the point! Grrr82cu, I suggest you look into some research in the following area it may also help you with you fatal flaw. This would be a great place for you to start with you search.http://www.jstor.org/


It is well documented that Giorgio Vasari was not telling the truth about the name of the Mona Lisa.
The two doctors in the da Vinci Project, Research Group come with great backgrounds, what do you Grrr82CU bring to the table, I am sorry but from what I have read and seen from the project they are on something great.
Sorry it is my opinnion, we all have one.

Grrr82CU, You are as Accurate as Dan Brown is, and that is not much!
Grr82CU, Scotoma is alive and well with what you are saying??? I think before you start pointing who is right and wrong you should research more and cross reference your material, and I personal wouldn't use (Originally Posted By: Wikipedia,) for any reference.

I would use the Oxford Library where most Scholars go to for information or http://www.jstor.org/, to start with, not Wikipedia.
I would also recommend the head of the research department for the Da Vinci Project, Research Group, Doctor Glynne Milburn or Doctor Lauren Noll, they can help you greatly in your Quest to answer some of your own questions you might have about what the time line is and what the Experts have missed within Leonardo's works. http://www.lionardofromvinci.com/About.html, I am sure these two people can help you see what has been discovered and understood.

Grrr82CU,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 ? Grrr82CU, Is this what you are trying to do in (Leonardo's Painting - A Fatal Flaw ??)sell a book? I also didn't say Vasari was lying, I did say he was no correct in what he said about Leonardo in many ways. Yes he has his facts wrong! He is the only person that made up the story about Leonardo's paintibg we call the

Look you people think what you want, all I was pointing out was something for you to debate, some new evidence, enjoy, need a break! Smiles

Agreeing to disagree and move forward is a good thing to do. Enjoy the sabbatical

Grrr82CU, Thank you for your interest in one of the findings. It appears you have given it a fair amount of consideration and have formed an opinion based on your perspective. We welcome all serious civil responses to the findings, in the negative as well as positive. We do not claim to interpret or reason why the appearance of any anomalies occur. We point out those things that appear to have been included in DaVinci’s work. We are not in a position to know the why or wherefore of reasons for any of the findings to have been created. We simply point out occurrences of anomalies that appear to exist. Some of them will have a higher probability of being intentional inclusions than others. There is much about DaVinci that is not known and may never be known. Did he have some knowledge of the English language? Or did the Italians use Mary as a nickname? Did he use a code? This is not for us to determine. Having found dozens of other hidden, imbedded images and constructs of various types that appear to have a very high probability of deliberate creation, Mary on the sleeve is but one of the optical illusions that some feel may be real, while others feel that it is not real. There are arguments of varied validity using a wide variety of information in support of positions on both sides of the investigation on this particular finding. We leave the deliberation of all findings on the aspect of validity and interpretation to any who deem it worth their while to investigate and discuss it. We have received many emails on both sides of the argument and take no position. In the end the final determination will come from people such as you and other scholars. In the future it is our intention to create a comparative analysis on each finding giving the public’s view of acceptance or rejection for each of our findings. Again, thank you for your interest and the time you have taken in considering the finding as such discourse is valuable to all who are interested in the subject.

Thank you for the kind explanation and insight provided. It is helpful in understanding the disposition towards the question of Leonardo painting folds of cloth to spell out a name in modern day English.



The thought occurs, a determination of 'yes' or 'no' to each interogatory should be forthcoming pursuant to any evidence of (a) any other examples of Leonardo writing a modern day English word such as "Mary" in his journals or utilizing painting to form such a word (b) evidence from any writing emanating from Italian archives specific to Leonardo's time wherein there is an example of a modern English word such as "Mary" used (b) the same standard as above for usage of a "nickname" or "code" employing a modern day English word such as "Mary" to stand for an Italian name of Leonardo's time.

Perhaps identifying such evidence(s) would be a worthwhile quest by those involved with the "da Vinci Project, Research Group".

This writer would think finding a modern day English word equal to "Mary" from any source of Italian art or literature from Leonardo's time would certainly be very helpful to the project for validation purposes.

One other clarification please...

The frequent use of "we" in the post...seems to indicate a collective from inside the circle rather than from outside of it. Are you, nanago, a participating/active researcher of the "da Vinci Project, Research Group" or does the composition reflect someone else ??

Just curious...and thanks again for the insight provided.

After reviewing whatever reply follows, this writer will take a brief break (up to a couple of weeks if necessary) in responding to buy out time to compose the last intended segment on the topic of "Leonardo's Painting - A Fatal Flaw ??". What Leonardo painted in relation to Passover.

...and Grrr82CU