[Romish_Papist]

Go here for visiual evidence of this "mystery":

http://www.fisheaters.com/xdavincilastsupperphotos.html

The restoration of the painting is the cause of the idiotic controversy.

[maine-iac7]

Go here for visiual evidence of this "mystery": http://www.fisheaters.com/xdavincilastsupperphotos.html The restoration of the painting is the cause of the idiotic controversy.

Thanks - I was beginning to think I was the only one 'out here' who actually researched anything.

I am an artist, and so have been researching these areas for decades (I'm a ole great-granny, so that covers a lot of 'decades' ;o) ) - there were NO surprises in Brown's book to me. He is being credited and vilified for ideas that have been in the public domain for centuries...he just spun them into a great novel - and it caught attention, unlike the many - even contemporary - publications on these themes...I hope not too many who hide safely in a spoon fed cocoon read any of them. They would find them hard to handle and reconcile to history

[maine-iac7]

The restoration of the painting is the cause of the idiotic controversy.

actually = not

there are in existence, copies done by his pupils a few years after they finished the original, seeing that the original was deteriorating before their eyes...that have the original colors, used the original cartoons, and are far more faithful than the poor destroyed LS on the Milan wall -

These paintings show a much more "feminine John."

Leonardo ( He should be referred to as Leonardo, by the way, [actually baptised "Lionardo"]or the full Leonardo da Vinci - never just da Vinci, which is not his last name. For example, if you referred to the artist "di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni" even tho' this is the actual last name of another artist, or by the desigination "da Caprese", how many people would instantly know the artist meant?) was known to paint the same painting more than once...so no surprise that more were done of the LS when the original obviously wasn't going to survive...