Intending to have a debate involving the Holy Shroud of Turin - the linen cloth that many believe has covered Christ's body after his death and that has registered his (dimmed) printed image - without a lot of controversy would be like having traditionally rival cheerleaders in a final Cup without "some”noise. It brings a lot of passion and lacks a lot of exemption from both parties. The questions about this, which is the most studied object in the world, sprout in hundreds of aspects at all times, be it in History, Sociology, Science, or Arts. And one of its strongest questions, besides concerns about its real age, its creator and manufacturing method, it’s whose face is on this ghostly print from a man tortured in the same way as Jesus described in the canonical or apocryphal texts?
In 1997, Freemasonry historians Robert Lomas and Christopher Knight published the book "The Second Messiah”, where they claimed that the image in the cloth belonged to the last Grand Master of the Templar Knights, "Iacobus Burgundus”or Jacques de Molay (1243-1314). They claim that the knight, under the orders of the French Inquisitor Guilherme Imbert, was forced to suffer all the tortures applied to Christ as an exemplary way of punishing him for his "heretical practices”. In spite of going through all that circus of horrors, the shabby body of "Burgundus” had been able, even in his lifetime, to imprint the marks of his passion on a linen fabric - especially provided by the Countess of Champagne. And that is where this theory comes up against some concepts of very difficult refutation. Today any serious professional in Legal Medicine fully agrees that it is impossible for a human being to undergo that bodily destruction session and not have his or her vital functions promptly shut down at some point. Add to this, the fact that the authors' thinking does not achieve a more secure basis by means of more solid documents or evidence: even the face of Jacques de Molay is an absolute mystery, given that he himself had never been portrayed in life, and absolutely nothing has been written about it - which makes the much-needed forensic comparisons unfeasible. Finally, Lomas and Knight justify the "million dollar question", that is, how the image was formed in the cloth, using the Volkringer Method. We all already have some familiarity with this chemical phenomenon: it is the same as the imprinting of leaves and plants when pressed into books for too long a time. But the biggest issue with the explanation is that such a process could only be tested in the plants and, moreover, if it only occurs via the formation of polymers (monomer's assembly) on free radicals in suspension, how to explain the marks in the back of the fabric, on the body's back?
Cover of Argentine edition for The Second Messiah by Lomas-Knight (mercadolibre.ar).
The thesis of English Art historian Thomas de Wesselow according to which the image of Christ has truly been formed by a natural action, similar to the "Jospice effect” (published in his book in 2012, "The Sign"), is a really interesting study - especially in the more detailed considerations on Image History. The problem is that, aiming to support the main idea, Wesselow relies on almost supernatural odds... The Jospice effect is a chemical reaction capable of producing brands, sharp output, caused by naturally altered urine in contact with the nylon (!!!). This phenomenon was registered only once in History among humans (on a 44 year-old Antillean patient only known as "Les", who died in 1981 of pancreatic cancer in a hospice in Liverpool, Jospice International - hence the name of the reaction).
To consider that such an extraordinary event would be orchestrally linked to a series of many other actions in favor of such a singular figure in History - Jesus Christ - seems at least a very forced thing. In addition, the Jospice effect proves to be very different from Turin’s, because besides the obvious difference of catalysts involved in the process, in Liverpool it only managed to print the body lines of "Les” (like a simple drawing) against those characteristic effects of shadow and depth in various degrees, like a sfumato.
Among these pale attempts of elucidation let’s not forget the Maillard Reaction, something easily seen in everyone’s kitchen, because it gives the brownish-red color of the meats when cooked or baked. In order to do that, we would need a significant heat generation plus a chemical reaction involving a protein (or aminoacid) and a reducer carbohydrate. Now, any of the theories related to natural phenomena to explain the formation of the image - if Jospice’s, Volkringer’s or Maillard’s - when not meddle in the total lack of empirical evidence, do it against a colossus of statistical improbability.
Another obstacle is that, here and there, De Wesselow claims to have been using poetic license by records of early Christianity, explaining why these directly contradict key elements to substantiate the arguments of that theory of his. It’s the typical case of the archer who, after shooting an arrow on a white wall, begins to paint the target circle around the arrow already stuck, expecting one thing to legitimize the other and vice-versa.
The “Les” Jospice effect (Shroud.com).
In fact, the strongest arguments related to the sacred authenticity of the Shroud is that no one was able to reproduce its characteristics, which certainly does not proceed, since such a feat has been achieved in at least three times in a very satisfactory level of verisimilitude, and drawing on medieval material – as the carbon-14 tests tell us. These successful experiences took place in the early 90’s through the use of lenses (the pin-hole style), with the British independent researchers Lynn Picknett and Clive and Keith Prince; and in 1995 with the Art historian from South Africa, Nichollas Allen. Also in 2009, by a heating technique involving acid pigmentation and friction, with Luigi Garlaschelli, Italian chemist at the University of Pavia.
The author Lynn Picknett and historian Clive Prince are two of the main advocates of Da Vinci's theory as responsible for the sheet fake, and came to publish an intriguing book in 1994: Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?. Many detractors of the 1988 dating declare that this British couple is not worthy of being taken seriously due to their names being associated with more "hyped"questions and historical legends, and also due to the fact that none of them was an academic in fact at the time of their research. However, and as Lynn herself argues, we must recognize that a ruler in the hand of an amateur should mark with the same precision as if in the hand of an academic professor... Unravelling some of the mysteries of the Holy Shroud can perhaps be more dependent on pure perception of a layman - in an inspiring day - than of seals in educational institutions, whatever they are. In fact, the first person to officially photograph the cloth in 1898 was not a professional photographer, but the Italian lawyer Secondo Pia (two days after the clandestine photos shot by A. Gallo on the night of May 26). It was from there that this work of his revealed to the world the "miraculous” negative image from that like-erased human figure, inaugurating a new era in the way we see and research it. The following statements are the main arguments supporting the thesis of Da Vinci as being the creator of the Shroud:
ARGUMENT 1 - The dating by carbon-14 in the 1988 tests, pointing to the manufacture of tissue between 1260 and 1390 – which would readily disqualify the object as an early Christian relic. These procedures were guided by the Catholic Church with the British Museum and conducted by three of the most reliable scientific and technological institutes of the world: the universities of Oxford and Tucson (Arizona), and the Institute of Technology of Zurich. So, in order to increase the level of confidence about the outcome of the Shroud’s test, they sent to the institutes other three Ancient (known only by themselves) fragments to dating: a linen from a Christian tomb of Qasr Obrim (Egypt) - centuries XI-XII; one of another Theban tomb of the year 75; and some asperges mantle wires of St. Louis d'Anjou (St. Mary Magdalene St. Maximus) - thirteenth century. The results of dating on the three objects were completely correct. Curiously, a fierce questioning following the validation of the tests on the Shroud - something that usually does not occur with the vast majority of archaeological and / or historical pieces – had taken place. These questions wanted to set aside the method of carbon-14 due its alleged inaccuracy because of so many impurities deposited in the sheet and as a result of two fires to which the cloth was exposed in 1516 and 1532. Let's see what says the one who is considered the "father of Modern Microchemistry", American Dr. Walter C. McCrone (died in 2002): “The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equalling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Amount of Modern Biological Contaminant Required to Raise the Date of a 36A.D. Shroud). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.”
And, about the possibility that the fragments taken for analysis belong, in fact, to the patches in the original material, the Nature magazine confirms the obvious, in 1989: a body of experts in weaving focused specifically to select a spot to extract the sample of radiocarbon out of patches and seams... For any sense with a minimum of reasonableness, they can believe "age of the Shroud” is a subject now closed.
The Salvator Mundi’s character model by Da Vinci is traditionally identified as Cesare Borgia: a possible witness for the greatest hoax in all times (Source of the photo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuN4vuohRz0).
ARGUMENT 2 - "Now the dating indicates the interval between 1260 and 1390, whereas Leonardo was to be born only in 1452": However, he might well have produced the image of the "Shroud” later on an old fabric and may even have come from Jerusalem. After all, it is impossible to date the image itself precisely. It would also explain the presence of pollen, mineral particles and other substances typical of the region of Judea – it could also be explained by the constant contact of pilgrims coming from various places – including Jerusalem – who had access to the object. Considering that a smarter forger would fake a Rembrandt painting, certainly he would not use canvas, brushes and ink bought in the corner store... Da Vinci must have thought in the same way six centuries ago, in order to produce something really convincing.
By the way, the notorious expert in Leonardo, Carla Glori, tells me that there are strong signs pointing to the fact that Leonardo would have requested access to the tissue to the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II – thanks to the close contact he had with Ludovico Sforza “the Moorish”. Based on documents (including pictures taken by herself in the Royal Library of Turim), Carla explains that the episode would have taken place between 1502 and 1503 during a trip of Leonard to Genova, invited by the sultan himself, to work on a project of building a bridge in Istanbul. It would be a big central pillar in one of the entrances of Bosphorus mouth (the Golden Horn), between Serralho Cape and the Pear, thus uniting East and West.
ARGUMENT 3 – According to the Relic supporters, "the image of the man in the Shroud is tridimensional, thus, the tissue had involved a body at the very moment the spots were fixated": About the existence of 3D information in the tissue fibers, revealed in 1976 by VP-8 technology, we must be very careful about it. In fact, the management of VP-8 – a graphical analyser of NASA - occurs according to the mapping coordinates (numerical values) intended, which will lead to a pre-programed result. In other words, the device will always provide induced responses rather than spontaneous ones.
ARGUMENT 4 - The Shroud behaves in every way like a photograph produced, of course, by rudimentary, medieval routes, taking advantage of elements relatively easy to obtain at Leonardo's time. In fact, as demonstrated, the printed image is gradually disappearing.
ARGUMENT 5 – The one aiming to forge the Shroud would necessarily have to be someone with talent and intelligence above the average, a craftsman with deep knowledge in anatomy and optics, with funds available for it and the image of Da Vinci fits perfectly in these prerogatives. It’s a fact that we’ve got his technical notes about the camera obscura, the grandmother of modern cameras. So, imagining an anonymous (owner of such intelligence, why remain as an anonymous!!??), or even a counterfeiters group to perform such a deed (each carrying a special gift), although possible, sounds extremely unlikely, almost Hollywoodian - and not to mention the fact that, when it comes to secrets, the fewer people involved, the better.
ARGUMENT 6 - There is also a note made by Leonardo himself around 1490 informing us that he has borrowed a bone pierced by a nail. It’s known that he never painted a crucifixion, then, why so unusual interest? Learning about the "science”of crucifixion in order to give more realism to the image of the Shroud seems to make a lot of sense.
ARGUMENT 7 - Clearly the head in the Shroud is incompatible to the body – due for the wrong proportions, or the abrupt cut down the beard (which suggests a composition - mounting - work), or even due the fact that is very clearly better marked than the rest of the body (due to greater exposure to light). This indicates that there was enormous care (typical of Da Vinci) about whom Christ should look like physiognomically. But for what purpose?.. Here we can speculate about Leonardo’s wish to print through a photograph of the bust from a specific person in order to extract his facial features.
For the body, it’s almost certain to have belonged to someone intentionally exposed to the same instruments of torture - at least part of them - that had taken the Messiah to death. Arranging them would have been no obstacle, as the model of these objects had remained virtually unchanged from imperial Rome to the Middle Ages and part of Renaissance.
ARGUMENT 8 - Analysis has detected retouching brush strokes to simulate drops of blood in the picture - and the meticulous style of the artist. Recently – july, 2018 – the University of Pavia (Italy) and the University John Moores, of Liverpool (United Kingdom), have launched a series of researches to confirm anomalies present regarding the way the so-called bloor would react in contact with the tissue. The study, published in the American Journal of Forensic Sciences, establishes a set of serious discrepancies between what can be seen in the tissue and what should be found in a dead body of a crucifixion victim. At least half of the material that one would like to believe was blood, had actually been forged.
By the way, the notorious expert in Leonardo, Carla Glori, tells me that there are strong signs pointing to the fact that Leonardo would have requested access to the tissue to the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II – thanks to the close contact he had with Ludovico Sforza “the Moorish”. Based on documents (including pictures taken by herself in the Royal Library of Turim), Carla explains that the episode would have taken place between 1502 and 1503 during a trip of Leonard to Genova, invited by the sultan himself, to work on a project of building a bridge in Istanbul. It would be a big central pillar in one of the entrances of Bosphorus mouth (the Golden Horn), between Serralho Cape and the Pear, thus uniting East and West.
ARGUMENT 3 – According to the Relic supporters, "the image of the man in the Shroud is tridimensional, thus, the tissue had involved a body at the very moment the spots were fixated": About the existence of 3D information in the tissue fibers, revealed in 1976 by VP-8 technology, we must be very careful about it. In fact, the management of VP-8 – a graphical analyser of NASA - occurs according to the mapping coordinates (numerical values) intended, which will lead to a pre-programed result. In other words, the device will always provide induced responses rather than spontaneous ones.
ARGUMENT 4 - The Shroud behaves in every way like a photograph produced, of course, by rudimentary, medieval routes, taking advantage of elements relatively easy to obtain at Leonardo's time. In fact, as demonstrated, the printed image is gradually disappearing.
ARGUMENT 5 – The one aiming to forge the Shroud would necessarily have to be someone with talent and intelligence above the average, a craftsman with deep knowledge in anatomy and optics, with funds available for it and the image of Da Vinci fits perfectly in these prerogatives. It’s a fact that we’ve got his technical notes about the camera obscura, the grandmother of modern cameras. So, imagining an anonymous (owner of such intelligence, why remain as an anonymous!!??), or even a counterfeiters group to perform such a deed (each carrying a special gift), although possible, sounds extremely unlikely, almost Hollywoodian - and not to mention the fact that, when it comes to secrets, the fewer people involved, the better.
ARGUMENT 6 - There is also a note made by Leonardo himself around 1490 informing us that he has borrowed a bone pierced by a nail. It’s known that he never painted a crucifixion, then, why so unusual interest? Learning about the "science”of crucifixion in order to give more realism to the image of the Shroud seems to make a lot of sense.
ARGUMENT 7 - Clearly the head in the Shroud is incompatible to the body – due for the wrong proportions, or the abrupt cut down the beard (which suggests a composition - mounting - work), or even due the fact that is very clearly better marked than the rest of the body (due to greater exposure to light). This indicates that there was enormous care (typical of Da Vinci) about whom Christ should look like physiognomically. But for what purpose?.. Here we can speculate about Leonardo’s wish to print through a photograph of the bust from a specific person in order to extract his facial features.
For the body, it’s almost certain to have belonged to someone intentionally exposed to the same instruments of torture - at least part of them - that had taken the Messiah to death. Arranging them would have been no obstacle, as the model of these objects had remained virtually unchanged from imperial Rome to the Middle Ages and part of Renaissance.
ARGUMENT 8 - Analysis has detected retouching brush strokes to simulate drops of blood in the picture - and the meticulous style of the artist. Recently – july, 2018 – the University of Pavia (Italy) and the University John Moores, of Liverpool (United Kingdom), have launched a series of researches to confirm anomalies present regarding the way the so-called bloor would react in contact with the tissue. The study, published in the American Journal of Forensic Sciences, establishes a set of serious discrepancies between what can be seen in the tissue and what should be found in a dead body of a crucifixion victim. At least half of the material that one would like to believe was blood, had actually been forged.
The so-called “proof” in the Codex Pray (Wikimedia Commons).
ARGUMENT 9 - There was a very strong interest from families rulers in Italy in making themselves known owners of holy relics. This type of event sounded like a "formalization” of the divine sonship to those who possessed them... and owning a full body relic of the Son of God out, then the thing took unthinkable, magic proportions. The Shroud was acquired by the House of Savoy (the Italian royal family) in 1453 from De Charney, with a French influence. Contemporary say that Shroud of De Charney looked like a gross fraud, being even denounced in 1389 to Pope Clement VII by the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis, in order to interrupt its public exhibition. Prior to this, Henrique de Poitiers, Archbishop of Troyes, with King Charles VI of France, had also spoken out against its authenticity. While Portugal ratified the Tordesillas Treaty in 1494, the sacred cloth is unhidden by Savoy; and here comes a new completely redesigned linen sheet, more realistic, believable. Detail: it was precisely around this time that Leonardo reached his highest level of creative power. And, although there are no documents that link it directly to the Savoy, it does not mean that it might not have occurred - in fact, there is also no incontestable proof that Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa itself. But the artist had registered in one of his notebooks a trip to Savoy between late 1480 and the early 90s, with ignored purpose.
ARGUMENT 10 – The “ultimate” evidence by many of the Shroudies to cast aside the dating of carbon-14 is the 1192 drawing - much older than the date specified in the tests - in a Hungarian codex now maintained by the Széchényi National Library in Budapest. We are referring to “Codex Pray”, discovered by Jesuit historian György Pray (1723-1801). In the picture, we see two moments following the death of Christ on the cross: one, above, while deposited on an extended sheet and, secondly, an empty tomb where an angel announces the resurrection of the Savior to a group of women. The latter shows a detail that really caught the attention of researchers over the past decades eager to prove the authenticity of the piece: the four-hole design forming an "L” on a detail that you want you believe is the tissue placed on top of the tomb. Interestingly enough , these "L” holes are also found, in the same position in the real Shroud. That is, the artist copied what he had seen in the Shroud and in order to give greater credibility to its representation, the person had left this "trademark”in the drawing. But, is it a fact?..
First, it is very clear that the pattern of escalations and crosses you see in the drawing are on part of the tomb itself, not the tissue that, in the image above, is presented totally flexible and virtually flat. There is even a painting of the deposition of Christ on a similar tomb produced in 1181 by the French goldsmith Nicholas of Verdun (today in Klosterneuburg Abbey, Vien), where everything is very clear: just as the image of Budapest, the "sheet" with the four holes, actually, is the cover of the tomb.
Another point of great importance is that the "L” on the Shroud of Turin may be nothing more than holes opened by the melted wax of candles many of the believers have, inadvertently, dripped over the centuries of devotion. Now the cloth is far from an intact piece of the action of time, and human disasters... In addition, the use of these circles - not holes - served at the time of the Byzantine Medieval Art, part of the codex designer's daily life, as a brand of "holiness", as we have today, the "stylistic hearts” to mean “love”. This is demonstrated by the illustration, where we will only see again these circles (like the "L") in elements of most sacred value - besides the Shroud itself - in this new phase of Christianity, the resurrection of Christ: these elements are the angel and the Virgin Mary, the central figure of the followers group of Jesus.
About the bloodstains on the right eyebrow in the face of Christ (the first codex image) also "repeated” on the Shroud, it looks more like a coincidence of a blur on the manuscript than anything else. Moreover, how to explain, then, that the other bloodstain in the sheet image, much more striking, had passed completely unnoticed by this anonymous artist of the codex, "so hung up on details"?
Finally, there’s still a chance of things happening the opposite of what the shroudies have been claiming: the artist has taken the first knowledge of the illustration on the manuscript in Budapest and, more inspired, played this detail on a real fabric later.
ARGUMENT 11 - Some curious circumstantial data were collected by the American author Ian Caldwell for his novel of 2014, The Fifth Gospel, where he notes that several of the wounds printed in the tissue (like the “Spear of Destiny”) are reported only in the Gospel of John, admittedly of a more theological than narrative character. The intention would be to unite Jesus' figure with that of characters from the Old Testament and, thus, to corroborate some described prophecies for the coming of the Messiah. Therefore, the alleged historical validity of the fabric - judging by its marks - becomes suspicious.
ARGUMENT 10 – The “ultimate” evidence by many of the Shroudies to cast aside the dating of carbon-14 is the 1192 drawing - much older than the date specified in the tests - in a Hungarian codex now maintained by the Széchényi National Library in Budapest. We are referring to “Codex Pray”, discovered by Jesuit historian György Pray (1723-1801). In the picture, we see two moments following the death of Christ on the cross: one, above, while deposited on an extended sheet and, secondly, an empty tomb where an angel announces the resurrection of the Savior to a group of women. The latter shows a detail that really caught the attention of researchers over the past decades eager to prove the authenticity of the piece: the four-hole design forming an "L” on a detail that you want you believe is the tissue placed on top of the tomb. Interestingly enough , these "L” holes are also found, in the same position in the real Shroud. That is, the artist copied what he had seen in the Shroud and in order to give greater credibility to its representation, the person had left this "trademark”in the drawing. But, is it a fact?..
First, it is very clear that the pattern of escalations and crosses you see in the drawing are on part of the tomb itself, not the tissue that, in the image above, is presented totally flexible and virtually flat. There is even a painting of the deposition of Christ on a similar tomb produced in 1181 by the French goldsmith Nicholas of Verdun (today in Klosterneuburg Abbey, Vien), where everything is very clear: just as the image of Budapest, the "sheet" with the four holes, actually, is the cover of the tomb.
Another point of great importance is that the "L” on the Shroud of Turin may be nothing more than holes opened by the melted wax of candles many of the believers have, inadvertently, dripped over the centuries of devotion. Now the cloth is far from an intact piece of the action of time, and human disasters... In addition, the use of these circles - not holes - served at the time of the Byzantine Medieval Art, part of the codex designer's daily life, as a brand of "holiness", as we have today, the "stylistic hearts” to mean “love”. This is demonstrated by the illustration, where we will only see again these circles (like the "L") in elements of most sacred value - besides the Shroud itself - in this new phase of Christianity, the resurrection of Christ: these elements are the angel and the Virgin Mary, the central figure of the followers group of Jesus.
About the bloodstains on the right eyebrow in the face of Christ (the first codex image) also "repeated” on the Shroud, it looks more like a coincidence of a blur on the manuscript than anything else. Moreover, how to explain, then, that the other bloodstain in the sheet image, much more striking, had passed completely unnoticed by this anonymous artist of the codex, "so hung up on details"?
Finally, there’s still a chance of things happening the opposite of what the shroudies have been claiming: the artist has taken the first knowledge of the illustration on the manuscript in Budapest and, more inspired, played this detail on a real fabric later.
ARGUMENT 11 - Some curious circumstantial data were collected by the American author Ian Caldwell for his novel of 2014, The Fifth Gospel, where he notes that several of the wounds printed in the tissue (like the “Spear of Destiny”) are reported only in the Gospel of John, admittedly of a more theological than narrative character. The intention would be to unite Jesus' figure with that of characters from the Old Testament and, thus, to corroborate some described prophecies for the coming of the Messiah. Therefore, the alleged historical validity of the fabric - judging by its marks - becomes suspicious.
The entombment by Nicholas of Verdun (Shroud.com).
The Borgias in Rome
In the fifteenth century, the Ottoman Turks expanded their empire to the Balkans area and took Constantinople in 1453. A large fraction of the Mediterranean along with India is taken by different groups and Islamic dissents. The situation of the Eastern Church is downright dramatic for the second half of this century. A witness of these events is the masterpiece of 1455 Piero della Francesca, The Flagellation of Christ (today, in the Ducal Palace in Urbino), and it was just in this year that the House Borgia, of Spanish origin, takes the Church leadership Rome by Alfonso Borgia, Pope Callistus III, following up to 1458. In 1492, Rodrigo, Alfonso's nephew, won the papacy - with the title of Alexander VI - due the strong influence that he had on the cardinals, buying and trading favors from powerful families that ruled the Italian patchwork of post-medieval Europe.
The illegitimate son of Rodrigo, Cesare Borgia, appears as one of the most visceral figures of Renaissance and Church History by his ambition and cruelty. Model for the classic Prince of Machiavelli, one character willing to do anything (really) to achieve his goals. At 15, he was the bishop of Pamplona and later archbishop of Valencia. At 18, Cardinal-Deacon of Santa Maria Novella; then, Duke of Valentinois from 1498. In his climb to power without limits, assassinates the firstborn, Juan... so leaves the cardinalate to join the war as General Captain of the Papacy Armed Forces. According to the Latin Christian tradition, the oldest brother would be engaged in military activities and the second one would be in priesthood. After the murder of Juan, Cesar would take his older´s brother’s place.
As it often happens in History regarding the use of the image, one of the ideas of the Pope to stop the Muslim expansion in those critical areas was to draw on the visual impact on the campaigns he had on the dominated cities. And if he, Alexander VI, was the mirror of God upon the Earth men, why your beloved Cesare could not be the very image and likeness of the Son of God?.. So, replacing the middle-eastern iconography more or less regular of Jesus modeled by the traits (Caucasian) of his son, and make a direct reference to the center of the sacred world as established in Europe (Rome), would ensure a higher level of importance and confidence to Cesare and, consequently, to “Peter” himself. The captain-general would become the "Christ” incarnated again: now, as a military to defend the "legitimate” interests of the Lord in this land of barbarity. Therefore, this reinvention of Jesus needed an object, besides all the paintings, sculptures, flags and pennants - the "matrix” and indisputable element binding the divine reality to the image of the Borgias - already tremendously trampled and mocked. Theme of frequent revisionism, most of the terrible fame of the Borgias must be attributed to the bad will of his Vatican pairs and the high level of nepotism practiced by Rodrigo – the highest of the History of Church. Another reason for a weak popular acceptance is the fact that the family was of catalan tradition in an Italian environment. Anyway, the fact is that there was a lack of principles and much cruelty during the “Borgian regimen”.
Much of the iconography of Jesus in the East, from that moment on, suffers a change of direction. Let’s take for example the Second Coming of Christ, a mosaic of the sixth century in Roman-Byzantine style (Eastern) in the Basilica of Saints Cosmas and Damian (Rome). This work makes clear the real "ethnic” trend on the figure of the Nazarene. We also have a Byzantine old genre called "Emmanuel", invariably presenting a twelve years old Redeemer, which is represented in negroid appearance. Although much has already been artistically produced on a Europeanized Jesus long before the Renaissance and the Eastern World, we are talking about the attempt to eradicate another aspect of this iconography, the "black” one, and at the same time, consolidate the Caucasian version - with the mark of a Borgia, a leader consumed by vanity and megalomania. Interesting to notice is that, in 1498, Rodrigo himself had already hired Michelangelo Buonarrotti (through his french ambassadeur, cardinal Jean de Bilhères) to turn Jesus and the Virgin Mary into his son Juan and one of his unforgettable mistresses, Vanozza dei Cattanei (Giovanna de Candia), Juan’s mother, when carving the Pietá. The touching and majestuous image of a powerless mother holding the lifeless body of his young son would also be a poetic speech about the recent death of Juan, beheaded and stabbed nine times – a crime never solved. Thus, forging a sacred Shroud could be the chance of a life to the Pope – if it were not an idea in progress in the House of Savoy.
The power of an image
To understand better the importance (and manufacturing) of possession of a sacred relic, I use an excerpt signed by researcher José Machado de Oliveira Anderson, in his work The Cult of Saints in Colonial Brazil: theoretical and methodological aspects. He claims that even the graves of saints were brought to the living space of the living, "marking a profound break with the ancient standards.” For the author, such a transformation in mentality regarding the dead would become a crucial element in the constitution of medieval society. The episode would also cause an increase of episcopal power, as there was on the part of bishops, a relationship of the cult with the direct strengthening the power of their power, since "the displacement of the pilgrims to the shrines with relics implied a form of submission to the episcopal power , which was placed as guardian par excellence of those places of devotion”.
Cesare and Leonardo: a bustling relationship
Thus, between 1502 and 1503 it's known that Leonardo, already a well-known genius, worked for the Borgias as a military designer under Cesare's command. Such a short period of service was the result of fear that Da Vinci germinated by him who, besides the psychopathy in the air, turned out to be a perfect deadbeat. The curious thing in all of this is that both had a close relationship. Now, in the Xvth century Florence, the friendship between master and pupils could lead to the exchange of deepest affections, something more or less tolerated in that society. And there has always been many suspicions that Leonardo had embraced the practice (Salaino, Melzi ...) even on Cesare Borgia - a friend. Hence, in addition to working duty commissioned by the Pope - the new face of Jesus – it could bring speculations about the physical admiration that Leonardo would have regarding his son: the proud, altuve and beautiful male figure, able to inspire the model of divinized Christ. And it would be the reason why Cesare's face had ended up on the relic of Savoy.
Remember it was between 1502-1503 that the artist met Sultan Bayezid II in Genova.
In the fifteenth century, the Ottoman Turks expanded their empire to the Balkans area and took Constantinople in 1453. A large fraction of the Mediterranean along with India is taken by different groups and Islamic dissents. The situation of the Eastern Church is downright dramatic for the second half of this century. A witness of these events is the masterpiece of 1455 Piero della Francesca, The Flagellation of Christ (today, in the Ducal Palace in Urbino), and it was just in this year that the House Borgia, of Spanish origin, takes the Church leadership Rome by Alfonso Borgia, Pope Callistus III, following up to 1458. In 1492, Rodrigo, Alfonso's nephew, won the papacy - with the title of Alexander VI - due the strong influence that he had on the cardinals, buying and trading favors from powerful families that ruled the Italian patchwork of post-medieval Europe.
The illegitimate son of Rodrigo, Cesare Borgia, appears as one of the most visceral figures of Renaissance and Church History by his ambition and cruelty. Model for the classic Prince of Machiavelli, one character willing to do anything (really) to achieve his goals. At 15, he was the bishop of Pamplona and later archbishop of Valencia. At 18, Cardinal-Deacon of Santa Maria Novella; then, Duke of Valentinois from 1498. In his climb to power without limits, assassinates the firstborn, Juan... so leaves the cardinalate to join the war as General Captain of the Papacy Armed Forces. According to the Latin Christian tradition, the oldest brother would be engaged in military activities and the second one would be in priesthood. After the murder of Juan, Cesar would take his older´s brother’s place.
As it often happens in History regarding the use of the image, one of the ideas of the Pope to stop the Muslim expansion in those critical areas was to draw on the visual impact on the campaigns he had on the dominated cities. And if he, Alexander VI, was the mirror of God upon the Earth men, why your beloved Cesare could not be the very image and likeness of the Son of God?.. So, replacing the middle-eastern iconography more or less regular of Jesus modeled by the traits (Caucasian) of his son, and make a direct reference to the center of the sacred world as established in Europe (Rome), would ensure a higher level of importance and confidence to Cesare and, consequently, to “Peter” himself. The captain-general would become the "Christ” incarnated again: now, as a military to defend the "legitimate” interests of the Lord in this land of barbarity. Therefore, this reinvention of Jesus needed an object, besides all the paintings, sculptures, flags and pennants - the "matrix” and indisputable element binding the divine reality to the image of the Borgias - already tremendously trampled and mocked. Theme of frequent revisionism, most of the terrible fame of the Borgias must be attributed to the bad will of his Vatican pairs and the high level of nepotism practiced by Rodrigo – the highest of the History of Church. Another reason for a weak popular acceptance is the fact that the family was of catalan tradition in an Italian environment. Anyway, the fact is that there was a lack of principles and much cruelty during the “Borgian regimen”.
Much of the iconography of Jesus in the East, from that moment on, suffers a change of direction. Let’s take for example the Second Coming of Christ, a mosaic of the sixth century in Roman-Byzantine style (Eastern) in the Basilica of Saints Cosmas and Damian (Rome). This work makes clear the real "ethnic” trend on the figure of the Nazarene. We also have a Byzantine old genre called "Emmanuel", invariably presenting a twelve years old Redeemer, which is represented in negroid appearance. Although much has already been artistically produced on a Europeanized Jesus long before the Renaissance and the Eastern World, we are talking about the attempt to eradicate another aspect of this iconography, the "black” one, and at the same time, consolidate the Caucasian version - with the mark of a Borgia, a leader consumed by vanity and megalomania. Interesting to notice is that, in 1498, Rodrigo himself had already hired Michelangelo Buonarrotti (through his french ambassadeur, cardinal Jean de Bilhères) to turn Jesus and the Virgin Mary into his son Juan and one of his unforgettable mistresses, Vanozza dei Cattanei (Giovanna de Candia), Juan’s mother, when carving the Pietá. The touching and majestuous image of a powerless mother holding the lifeless body of his young son would also be a poetic speech about the recent death of Juan, beheaded and stabbed nine times – a crime never solved. Thus, forging a sacred Shroud could be the chance of a life to the Pope – if it were not an idea in progress in the House of Savoy.
The power of an image
To understand better the importance (and manufacturing) of possession of a sacred relic, I use an excerpt signed by researcher José Machado de Oliveira Anderson, in his work The Cult of Saints in Colonial Brazil: theoretical and methodological aspects. He claims that even the graves of saints were brought to the living space of the living, "marking a profound break with the ancient standards.” For the author, such a transformation in mentality regarding the dead would become a crucial element in the constitution of medieval society. The episode would also cause an increase of episcopal power, as there was on the part of bishops, a relationship of the cult with the direct strengthening the power of their power, since "the displacement of the pilgrims to the shrines with relics implied a form of submission to the episcopal power , which was placed as guardian par excellence of those places of devotion”.
Cesare and Leonardo: a bustling relationship
Thus, between 1502 and 1503 it's known that Leonardo, already a well-known genius, worked for the Borgias as a military designer under Cesare's command. Such a short period of service was the result of fear that Da Vinci germinated by him who, besides the psychopathy in the air, turned out to be a perfect deadbeat. The curious thing in all of this is that both had a close relationship. Now, in the Xvth century Florence, the friendship between master and pupils could lead to the exchange of deepest affections, something more or less tolerated in that society. And there has always been many suspicions that Leonardo had embraced the practice (Salaino, Melzi ...) even on Cesare Borgia - a friend. Hence, in addition to working duty commissioned by the Pope - the new face of Jesus – it could bring speculations about the physical admiration that Leonardo would have regarding his son: the proud, altuve and beautiful male figure, able to inspire the model of divinized Christ. And it would be the reason why Cesare's face had ended up on the relic of Savoy.
Remember it was between 1502-1503 that the artist met Sultan Bayezid II in Genova.
The Man of the Shroud, according Ray Drowning (Veronica’s veil - fineartamerica.com).
But who would be the face in the cloth’s picture?
Even though some argue it belongs to Da Vinci (as Picknett-Prince), this idea doesn’t find support in certain crucial points to develop this thought. About a young Leonardo, the chronicles of his time depict him as a young man of immense physical beauty, blond and blue eyes - unlike the more Latinized, Mediterranean man from the Shroud by according to all facial reconstructions already undertaken on the fabric. The reconstruction considered the "definitive” one occurred in 2010 on the hands of graphic designer Ray Downing and "Shroud specialist”, John Jackson (from the Turin Shroud Center, Colorado) for the documentary The Real Face of Jesus?. Then, these features could fit with the figure of Cesare Borgia, the result of the entire Italian miscegenation, Iberian, Catalan, the ancient Carthaginians and Arabs. One of the biographers to confirm these data was also a painter Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574), famous for his Lives of the Artists, while the most reliable images of his youth hanging is in the painting on Francesco Botticini, Tobias and the Three Archangels (1469-70). In this painting in the Galleria degli Uffizi (Florence), Da Vinci, embodying the Archangel Michael, was seventeen years old. Botticini and Leonardo also worked in the studio of Andrea del Verrocchio at that time, as Verrocchio would have taken Leonardo as model in a bronze sculpture of biblical David.
Another point where arguments to fit Da Vinci as the Shroud figure are created is the concept according to which he was an heretic, always on a collision course with the power of the Church and its dogmas. There is absolutely nothing documented to prove, in fact, the idea of a rebel genius against the millennia-old ancient Roman institution. The point is that depending on the interpretation of a number of his drawings and paintings, it is even possible to sketch the image of a questioning mind shaking the pillars of the official religion. A strong example of this is his great inclination for intuitive translation about Nature and its future. However, an overwhelming outbreak of the sickest of vanities as to produce a "self-portrait” so that present and future generations would worship him, thinking worship the Son of God - also a way to mock the Church - can be considered very disproportionate and even insane. For all of these, supporting Leonardo as the man's face in the cloth becomes too complicated. So if not Da Vinci, who else?..
Very few are the contemporary visual sources representing Cesare Borgia. The most reliable portraits are some paintings by Pinturicchio (Bernardino di Betti), while in charge of decorating six rooms in the Vatican, the Appartamenti Borgia, by the request of Alexander VI between 1492 and 1498. The work of this painter shows us a Cesare well situated in the standard to which the "man of the Shroud” belongs, as in "the Trial of St. Catherine of Alexandria", which embodies the emperor Maxentius. In another of these works, entitled Portrait of a Young Man (Gemäldegalerie, Dresden), Pinturicchio shows a fourteen-year-old Cesare already showing authoritarianism and arrogance signals and, similarly, that’s exactly what we feel in a certain "Da Vinci": Salvator Mundi, the versions from the De Ganay Collection (Paris) and the Louvre Abu Dhabi. It’s the representation of a current theme in Christian iconography since the Middle Ages, but with much older roots: Christ in American plan, right hand in gesture of blessing and the other holding a globe (here, a translucent sphere with Platonic and physical-optical implications), Lord of Heaven and Earth, and apparently from the later period in the artist's production.
The Christ there is traditionally referred to as a portrait of Cesare and, in fact, there’s a huge physiognomic similarity of the face of this "Salvator” to the Shroud. This is so great that it allows an almost perfect match between the two, which calls the attention to a question: only the one who had witnessed the moment of his creation could know the original face – either a fraud or not. By the way: it's imperative to recognize that the existence of Salvator Mundi itself becomes tangible proof that its author knew the original face that made possible the scam. Of course, it was only with the advent of modern Photography - when it was allowed to analyze the negative of the plate - that it became possible to know all the information we now recognize in "Salvator". That is, the fact that a painting of the sixteenth century has so many points of reference with what we see in the negative of the Holy Shroud, can never be just a coincidence: whoever painted the painting MANDATORY he knew the face of the man of the Shroud in life.
If the idea of Rodrigo Borgia was to rebuild the image of his beloved as a "savior” of Christianity – and of Mankind as well - a model like this seems to fit perfectly into his plans.
Even though some argue it belongs to Da Vinci (as Picknett-Prince), this idea doesn’t find support in certain crucial points to develop this thought. About a young Leonardo, the chronicles of his time depict him as a young man of immense physical beauty, blond and blue eyes - unlike the more Latinized, Mediterranean man from the Shroud by according to all facial reconstructions already undertaken on the fabric. The reconstruction considered the "definitive” one occurred in 2010 on the hands of graphic designer Ray Downing and "Shroud specialist”, John Jackson (from the Turin Shroud Center, Colorado) for the documentary The Real Face of Jesus?. Then, these features could fit with the figure of Cesare Borgia, the result of the entire Italian miscegenation, Iberian, Catalan, the ancient Carthaginians and Arabs. One of the biographers to confirm these data was also a painter Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574), famous for his Lives of the Artists, while the most reliable images of his youth hanging is in the painting on Francesco Botticini, Tobias and the Three Archangels (1469-70). In this painting in the Galleria degli Uffizi (Florence), Da Vinci, embodying the Archangel Michael, was seventeen years old. Botticini and Leonardo also worked in the studio of Andrea del Verrocchio at that time, as Verrocchio would have taken Leonardo as model in a bronze sculpture of biblical David.
Another point where arguments to fit Da Vinci as the Shroud figure are created is the concept according to which he was an heretic, always on a collision course with the power of the Church and its dogmas. There is absolutely nothing documented to prove, in fact, the idea of a rebel genius against the millennia-old ancient Roman institution. The point is that depending on the interpretation of a number of his drawings and paintings, it is even possible to sketch the image of a questioning mind shaking the pillars of the official religion. A strong example of this is his great inclination for intuitive translation about Nature and its future. However, an overwhelming outbreak of the sickest of vanities as to produce a "self-portrait” so that present and future generations would worship him, thinking worship the Son of God - also a way to mock the Church - can be considered very disproportionate and even insane. For all of these, supporting Leonardo as the man's face in the cloth becomes too complicated. So if not Da Vinci, who else?..
Very few are the contemporary visual sources representing Cesare Borgia. The most reliable portraits are some paintings by Pinturicchio (Bernardino di Betti), while in charge of decorating six rooms in the Vatican, the Appartamenti Borgia, by the request of Alexander VI between 1492 and 1498. The work of this painter shows us a Cesare well situated in the standard to which the "man of the Shroud” belongs, as in "the Trial of St. Catherine of Alexandria", which embodies the emperor Maxentius. In another of these works, entitled Portrait of a Young Man (Gemäldegalerie, Dresden), Pinturicchio shows a fourteen-year-old Cesare already showing authoritarianism and arrogance signals and, similarly, that’s exactly what we feel in a certain "Da Vinci": Salvator Mundi, the versions from the De Ganay Collection (Paris) and the Louvre Abu Dhabi. It’s the representation of a current theme in Christian iconography since the Middle Ages, but with much older roots: Christ in American plan, right hand in gesture of blessing and the other holding a globe (here, a translucent sphere with Platonic and physical-optical implications), Lord of Heaven and Earth, and apparently from the later period in the artist's production.
The Christ there is traditionally referred to as a portrait of Cesare and, in fact, there’s a huge physiognomic similarity of the face of this "Salvator” to the Shroud. This is so great that it allows an almost perfect match between the two, which calls the attention to a question: only the one who had witnessed the moment of his creation could know the original face – either a fraud or not. By the way: it's imperative to recognize that the existence of Salvator Mundi itself becomes tangible proof that its author knew the original face that made possible the scam. Of course, it was only with the advent of modern Photography - when it was allowed to analyze the negative of the plate - that it became possible to know all the information we now recognize in "Salvator". That is, the fact that a painting of the sixteenth century has so many points of reference with what we see in the negative of the Holy Shroud, can never be just a coincidence: whoever painted the painting MANDATORY he knew the face of the man of the Shroud in life.
If the idea of Rodrigo Borgia was to rebuild the image of his beloved as a "savior” of Christianity – and of Mankind as well - a model like this seems to fit perfectly into his plans.
Portrait of a Young Man by Pinturicchio: arrogance at fourteen (Wikimedia Commons).
The mystery leaves marks
On 20 May 2014, the actor who plays Cesare Borgia in the series BORGIA: Faith and Fear(Atlantique Productions/EOS Entertainment/Canal+), the Irish actor Mark Ryder, posted a message to fans on the worldwide web. Ryder, recently dismissed from the long hair and beard characterized for the final season of the program, says that, finally, people would stop calling him Jesus all the time, that it was getting boring. Far from claiming to be some evidence of anything, what happened can configure a certain analogy to that in the XXIth century imagery in Renaissance. It’s clear that more evidence is needed to confirm the object of the present study, because, in the case of the Shroud of Turin as a scam, most of the facts are confused with the very "lack of evidence". In other words, confidentiality and evidence destruction are totally appropriate when thinking about a hoax of this size in order to deceive the world - as pointed out by this article.
As it may seem to belong to the fantastic kingdom, the Shroud of Turin is a fact and that figure was necessarily settled there in one way or another. And all the crossing information here wants to suggest a theory – and it quests for the best way to remain inserted in the framework of logic and good sense considering that universe of the amazing Renaissance in Italy. There, predominated a lot of geniuses of the Arts, ambitious and unscrupulous rulers, daring experiments and discoveries, philosophical discussions, a lot of faith and a lot of blood. But for a definition of the secrets of the Shroud we have to wait until a "like-miracle” event happens - as the emergence of a final document, or a scientific revelation - and then, who knows, we could properly render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's...
Professor Átila Soares da Costa Filho (Opening photo: a 3D model according the Shroud by the University of Padua - Getty Images)
English version: Gilza Martins Saldanha da Gama, PhD in Literature - Catholic Pontifical University, Rio de Janeiro
English version: Gilza Martins Saldanha da Gama, PhD in Literature - Catholic Pontifical University, Rio de Janeiro
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES.
____________________. Dicionário do Renascimento Italiano. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor, 1988.
____________________. Leonardo da Vinci (An Artabras Book). Nova York: Reynal & Co. e William Morrow & Co., 1965.
BRISOLARA, Oscar. Sancta Lucrezia dei Cattanei. Rio Grande: Author’s print, 2013.
BURKE, Peter (Org.). A escrita da história: novas perspectivas. São Paulo: UNESP Press, 1992.
DE WESSELOW, Thomas. O sinal: o Santo Sudário e o segredo da Ressurreição. São Paulo: Cia da Letras, 2012.
DELUMEAU, Jean. A História do Medo no Ocidente (1300-1800): uma cidade sitiada. São Paulo: Cia. das Letras, 1989.
ECO, Umberto. Arte e Beleza na estética medieval. Rio de Janeiro: Globo Press, 1989.
KNIGHT, Christopher; LOMAS, Robert. O Segundo Messias. São Paulo: Landmark Press, 2002.
OLIVEIRA, Anderson José Machado de. “O Culto dos Santos no Brasil Colonial: aspectos teóricos e metodológicos”, ANPUH (Associação Nacional de História). Rio de Janeiro: ANPUH (Associação Nacional de História), 1998, <http://www.rj.anpuh.org> [accessed 20 Mar 2008].
PICKNETT, Lynn; PRINCE, Clive. O Sudário de Turim: Como Leonardo da Vinci enganou a história. São Paulo: Record, 2008.
POMILIO, Mario; CHIESA, Angela Ottino della. L'opera completa di Leonardo pittore. “Classici dell'Arte”, 12. Milan: Rizzoli, 1978.
SACERDOTE, Gustavo. Cesare Borgia: La sua vita, la sua famiglia, i suoi tempi. Milan: Rizzoli, 1950.