Posted on 05/15/2006 5:54:37 PM PDT by Coleus
It's hard to say which is hotter: anticipation of "The Da Vinci Code," which opens Friday, or the impassioned controversy surrounding the portrayal of Catholicism in the novel by Dan Brown. What seems to have escaped notice, however, are the religious and historical fallacies the book presents regarding Leonardo da Vinci's works -- the basis for the "code" on which the story rests.
In the preface of the novel, Brown writes under the heading "fact" that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
This is not the case.
Italian Renaissance scholar Sarah Blake McHam, an art-history professor at Rutgers University, separates fact from fiction and touches on a few real mysteries surrounding the works discussed in the novel. Though she takes issue with the book's treatment of facts, McHam enjoyed the novel and is looking forward to seeing the movie.
"I hate to think that people might take Brown's interpretation of Leonardo as truth. It's absolutely not," she says. For starters, Leonardo shouldn't be referred to as "Da Vinci." "The phrase is Italian for 'from Vinci,' the province in Italy where Leonardo lived," McHam explains. We're willing to let that one slide. Other fallacies regarding Leonardo and his works:
'Mona Lisa'
"THE DA VINCI CODE" SAYS: "Mona Lisa" is a partial anagram for Amon Lisa, the Egyptian god and goddess, respectively, of fertility (Isis is also known as Lisa). When the painting is X-rayed, a self-portrait of the artist is apparent.
THE TRUTH: The painting -- also known as "La Gioconda" -- started out as a conventional commissioned work, McHam says. It depicts Madonna Lisa di Antonio Gherardini, the wife of Francesco del Giocondo, a wealthy banker. "Mona" is short for Madonna, a popular nickname in Renaissance Italy.
The real mystery behind the "Mona Lisa" isn't addressed in the book. "The ambiguity develops because the painting wasn't delivered to Francesco del Giocondo," McHam says. Art historians believe Leonardo might have kept the painting for himself because it touched him on some personal level, but no one's quite sure. "It's really an enigmatic situation," she says.
X-rays have revealed no image of Leonardo or anyone else.
DID YOU KNOW? The left and right sides of the painting were cut off at some point -- no one knows when. Mona Lisa used to sit between columns whose bases are still visible on the lower corners of the work.
'The Last Supper'
"THE DA VINCI CODE" SAYS: The work proves the marriage between Mary Magdalene and Christ. Brown focuses on a hand, seemingly unattached to any figure in the painting, holding a knife. He asserts that the lack of a chalice -- in the book a symbol of a holy bloodline -- implies that Mary Magdalene, who Brown says is the figure at Christ's right hand, represents the chalice.
THE TRUTH: "Leonardo wanted to show the psychological reaction of the Apostles to Christ's announcement that one of them would betray him, but traditional fresco painting did not allow for the vivid colors and detail that he wanted to utilize," McHam says. To get around this issue, Leonardo used a combination of tempera and egg to create the work, which deteriorated very quickly. The work's fractured state lends itself quite well to imagination, but Brown's interpretation of the work is "preposterous," McHam says. "The raised knife is a standard symbol of the saint represented, St. Peter, and alludes to when Judas betrayed Christ, and Peter attacked a person in the crowd to save Christ," she says. "The figure of St. John the Evangelist -- who Brown claims is Mary Magdalene -- is always portrayed as a young, somewhat androgynous figure. His idealization isn't characterized as masculine, but it is certainly him. He is always placed close to Christ because he was one of his favorite disciples."
The lack of a chalice in the scene is not unusual, McHam says: "Other depictions of 'The Last Supper' do not include a chalice."
DID YOU KNOW? The refectory that houses the work, Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, Italy, was bombed during World War II. Sandbags were in place to protect the art from ruin; the wall with "The Last Supper" was one of the few pieces of the building that survived the attack.
'Virgin of the Rocks'
"THE DA VINCI CODE" SAYS: The first "Virgin of the Rocks" painting had "explosive and disturbing details," such as "Jesus submitting to John the Baptist's authority," that displeased its commissioners. Brown writes that Mary's hand, positioned over Christ's head, is "menacing." To amend the situation, a watered-down painting had to be produced.
THE TRUTH: "It is most unusual to have two versions of the same work," McHam says. The second painting is the one that ultimately went to the commissioners, but she disagrees with Brown's interpretation that the first painting has offensive details.
"It is an unusual grouping in that the Christ child is not right next to his mother, the Virgin Mary. [The question of why there are two versions of the same work has] always been a problem that hasn't been understood. For some reason, the original painting was replaced. There is no complete explanation."
DID YOU KNOW? You'll have to travel to two countries to compare the works. The painting believed to have been finished first and done completely by Leonardo is in the Louvre in Paris; the second painting, the majority of which is thought to have been completed by Leonardo's assistants, is housed in the National Gallery in London.
* * *
WHY LEONARDO?
"The Da Vinci Code" author Dan Brown was smart to focus on Leonardo da Vinci rather than, say, Michelangelo, says Italian Renaissance scholar Sarah Blake McHam, an art-history professor at Rutgers University. What is known about Leonardo lends well to a mystery with an anti-church sentiment. "Leonardo wasn't devout, as far as we can tell," she says. "He was much more interested in empirical learning and didn't accept passed-down traditional beliefs."
Brown could never have assigned this role to Michelangelo, who was extremely religious, McHam says. Michelangelo's beliefs only intensified as he aged, as evidenced in writings by his associates that survive from the period. "Leonardo never produced a treatise that explained his beliefs, which gives room to a novelist such as Brown to insert certain meaning," she says.
Could be simply that the banker who comissioned the portrait didn't pay up so the work was never delivered.
That's highly unlikely. Leonardo was really a hobo. This train of thought lends it's self quite nicely to documenting all sorts of invaluable and prehistoric passages inside and outside of scripture, not the least of which, well known to the scholars of that period included a precise yet hidden description of the Council of Worms.
There is quite a bit of evidence that x-rays of Leonardo himself prove that he knew little of the cinematic techniques employed in this movie.
There are many who believe the NYT, Washington Post, and the Democrat Party talking points too.
Actually, the author supports Dan Brown's assertion: the artwork is described accurately, but the interpretation disagrees with convention. That was exactly what Brown set out to do!
I stand corrected, I meant the diet of worms...
Anybody else listen to The Jesus Christ Show last Sunday?
It was amazing the way Jesus blew the DaVinci Code to smithereens !!!
http://www.kfi640.com/pages/streaming.html at 8 to 11 AMCT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.