2011 is to be remembered as the year of one of the greatest events in the world of arts: the confirmation, by Dr Robert Simon, from Columbia University, of Salvator Mundi painting as Leonardo da Vinci’s work. Salvator was well-known in art literature but it had been extensively discussed about which of the versions would be the original one – if any. For all purposes, this was considered one of the five still missing ones of Leonardo´s. After deep research among the best “candidates”, in 2005, it underwent a complex restoration work under the supervision of the expert Dr Dianne Modestini. Two years later, the oil-in-wood 65cm x 45cm painting revealed itself as a creation of the great Renaissance genius. Due to its superiority in terms of technique and treatment, an expert team decided to grant it the status of original. The director of London National Gallery, Nicholas Penny, was in charge of the attribution process.
Meaning and origins. It is the representation of a common theme in christian iconography since the Middle Ages (but with much older roots): “Lord of Heaven and Earth”, belonging to the latest period of Leonardo Da Vinci´s production, in 1501. It depicts Christ in an american plan, right hand in a blessing gesture and the other one holding an orbit (here, a translucent sphere, with platonic implications and greek cosmography). The unexpected absence of a cross on the top of the globe (and its opacity) must be a reference to Aristotle and Copernico´s astronomy in the conception of “Heavenly Spheres”, structures where the stars would be placed.
Its first register dates back to 1649, being considered as part of Charles I (England) Royal Collection, joining the Cook Collection (Doughty House, Richmond) in 1900 as a work of Bernardino Luini (notorious Leonardo´s pupil). Passing by Sotheby´s, the work has a new owner and enters the private american consortium R.W. Chandler (New York) by US$ 80 million, when it would be sold to the oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev by US$ 127 million. Thus, Salvator, along with the portrait Ginevra de Benci, of Washington National Gallery, becomes the second Leonardo´s painting in the New World – both in the United States. Between november of 2011 and february of 2012, it would still be present in the exhibit “Leonardo da Vinci: painter of the court of Milan”, held in London National Gallery, one of a kind.
Salvator Mundi (circa 1500) by Leonardo da Vinci: the most expensive painting ever sold (Photo by VCG Wilson/Corbis via Getty Images).
Announced by New York´s Christie´s, the painting goes to an auction on November 15th ,2017, where it would be sold for US$450,3 million (way more than the estimated US$ 100 million), figures that made it the most expensive work of art sold in auction. Its new owner, according to The New York Times, is the Saudi prince Bade bin Abdullah bin Mohammed bin Farhan al-Saud, an investor not at all linked to art collection but a giant in telecommunications (the Saudi Research and Marketing Group) and electrical energy.
.
Nevertheless, according to a note released by the Arab embassy in Washington, such a transaction would have been made in the name of exotic Abu-Dhabi Department of Culture and Tourism, where Farhan al-Saud is also a minister. There was a suspicion that the branch of Louvre Museum in the emirate (opened four days before the historical event) would be revealed as the final destination of that which would be one of the latest Leonardo´s works still in private hands. In fact, the theory was strengthened when an exhibit (cancelled without further explanations) was announced for September, 18th 2018 of Salvator Mundi in the Louvre in Arabic lands. Its participation is also programmed in Paris Louvre for the period between october 2019 and february 2020 (for the celebration of Leonardo´s 500 death anniversary). The idea is to have the painting back to Abu Dhabi non-stop. “Lost and hidden for a long time, Leonardo da Vinci´s work will be our gift to the world”, Mohammed Al Mubarak (from the institution´s department of Culture and Tourism) would have confirmed.
Authenticity under attack. As expected in this kind of situation when a new masterpiece is announced , there are many voices against the discovery and one of the strongest ammunition of the critics against the validity of the attribution is the poor state of conservation of the painting along with a lousy previous restoration. I usually deal with this kind of argument in a very Cartesian way: the professionals involved in the process of bringing Salvator back to life are a team of highly qualified experts, with extensive knowledge in the field. Dianne Modestini, from the department of conservation of Kress Foundation and ex-conserver of New York Metropolitan, is one of the highest authorities in the area, having already worked for the Vatican, in the Sistine Chapel and also for institutions such as Frick Collection and Toledo Museum of Art. Either we admit the integrity of those institutes of excellence – until proven the opposite – or we should rewrite a major part of History of Art according to the criterion of “preventive attributive terrorism”. The truth is that, so far, nothing to discredit the credibility of this restoration has been seen or noticed.
Modestini: "Pentimenti are in general an indication a painting isn’t a copy..." (Photo: The Daily Item).
On the other hand, some experts (specially Dr Carmen Bambach, from Metropolitan of New York and Mattheus Landrus,of Oxford) assign the work not to Leonardo, but to two of his closest apprentices Bernardino Luini and Giovanni Boltrafio. About Luini, we know that he was an artist who suffered from the influence of the Lombard Bergognone, Bramantino and Bernardino Zenale. Though close to Da Vinci´s style – after his second stay in Milan between 1506 and 1513, Luini lacks the peculiar master usage of sfumato as well as the minutious organic details that have become Leonardo´s signature and that call the attention in this Abu Dhabi version (here, the hair curls and, moreover, anatomic details of the right hand). As a matter of fact, Luini is not Da Vinci. As for Boltraffio, the situation is no different: his characters usually have rounded faces and plump bodies. The use of the color is more “liquid”, the elements, more graphical, and his trace does not have even 30% of the maturity and the firmness as in the genius ethereal linear. Besides, by the time Salvator was created ,Giovanni was influenced by the chromatic viscerality of Perugino and Francia – which is far from the meditative softness of the work in question. In fact, Boltraffio is not Da Vinci. Notwithstanding, if the solution would be admitting that the painting is, at least, partially Leonardo´s, such participation would be so striking that it would be enough to assign it to him beyond any doubt.
Anyway, the presence of pentiments (signs of alterations or corrections in some parts of the painting made by the artist himself) was, certainly, a strong differential, determinant for a verdict regarding the legitimacy and originality of the version now in Abu-Dhabi. But, as life is not perfect, there is one detail – the left hand palm that supports the orbit – that allows Oxford Emeritus Professor Martin Kemp to defend that the pentiment is a false alarm. In fact, it is a slight visual effect on the hand heel (not in direct contact with the globe surface). The problem is that this effect extends beyond the limits of the orbit and, thus, the hand should stop duplicating – and it does not occur. A strong evidence to corroborate such an argument is found in another Leonardo´s version of Salvator Mundi that was considered definitive until the one in Abu Dhabi came to light. I refer to the copy belonging to the Diocesan Museum of Naples. In 2007, I had the opportunity to analyse the copy – often assigned to Marco d´Oggiono – thus confirming the absence of pentiment, specially over the left thumb that lies on the sphere, i.e. if it were a skin layer in Abu Dhabi (as Kemp claims to be), this should also be present in Naples.
Anyway, the presence of pentiments (signs of alterations or corrections in some parts of the painting made by the artist himself) was, certainly, a strong differential, determinant for a verdict regarding the legitimacy and originality of the version now in Abu-Dhabi. But, as life is not perfect, there is one detail – the left hand palm that supports the orbit – that allows Oxford Emeritus Professor Martin Kemp to defend that the pentiment is a false alarm. In fact, it is a slight visual effect on the hand heel (not in direct contact with the globe surface). The problem is that this effect extends beyond the limits of the orbit and, thus, the hand should stop duplicating – and it does not occur. A strong evidence to corroborate such an argument is found in another Leonardo´s version of Salvator Mundi that was considered definitive until the one in Abu Dhabi came to light. I refer to the copy belonging to the Diocesan Museum of Naples. In 2007, I had the opportunity to analyse the copy – often assigned to Marco d´Oggiono – thus confirming the absence of pentiment, specially over the left thumb that lies on the sphere, i.e. if it were a skin layer in Abu Dhabi (as Kemp claims to be), this should also be present in Naples.
Top: De Ganay version (1503), an enigmatic "Salvator" is considered as one of the most esoteric works by Leonardo's studio (Public domain) /
Down (left): an experiment by Professor Soares in order to bring the model's real face back. It could be possible just by discarding all Leonardo's "stylistic vices" there / Down (right): a new version is born at a preliminary phase for the very experiment. Is this a possibility as to how the Salvator Mundi's face may have originally featured? (Photos: Átila Soares)
Down (left): an experiment by Professor Soares in order to bring the model's real face back. It could be possible just by discarding all Leonardo's "stylistic vices" there / Down (right): a new version is born at a preliminary phase for the very experiment. Is this a possibility as to how the Salvator Mundi's face may have originally featured? (Photos: Átila Soares)
Solved this problem, there is also the fact that a lapis lazuli pigmentation was noticed in Jesus´ vest. Lapis Lazuli is an intense blue rock, one of Da Vinci´s favorite materials. We must also take into account that, opposed to what some detractor may claim in terms of an alleged absence of “davincian” dynamism (as the british Charles Hope, ex-director of Warburg Institute), the representation of Salvator Mundi is the version of a traditional Byzantine icon, a static art, symbolically and deeply austere, not to be manipulated in such a way. Likewise, the proposition of the expert in Leonardo Jacques Franck according to whom the portrait can not be Leonardian just because it does not have more contort is too weak. Adjusting Christ to a different perspective (as in Mona Lisa) would annulate the main mark of Salvator Mundi brand: its sacrality protected by sobriety. It is also possible that the bitter experience of the painter in a similar episode of order had taught him a lesson regarding the pictoric language of the sacred ( I will resume this subject later).
Aware of the necessity to cut the evil by the root, Christie’s decided to enter in the discussion in self-defense:”There are several reasons for the scholar consensus to agree that the painting is truly Leonardo da Vinci´s, including the previously mentioned relation between the painting and the two preparatory autographed drafts in Windsor Castle, their correspondence with Salvator Mundi composition in Wenceslaus Hollar picture of 1650 and its recognized superiority compared to the over twenty known versions of the composition”.
Amongst all aspects submitted to so many questioning, the greatest controversy would be attached to a small element after which the painting is named: the crystal sphere that does not produce any refraction of light, a natural optical phenomenon that would not have escaped to the sharp perception of Da Vinci and his obsession by minutia. The biographer Walter Isaacson, for example, declares that the non-distortion would have been “a conscious decision made by Leonard”. According to him, the artist must have thought that a more precise representation would divert the attention from the real essence of the painting (the Messiah) or “he could be trying to transmit a miraculous act to Christ and His Orbit”. As far as I am concerned, none of the above reasons make sense… For a better understanding of the following considerations, I recall an extract from my study about the Mona Lisa published in 2013. I think it is important to bring to the reader an idea of the revolution that was the usage of sfumato technique in the end of XVth century and how decisive it was in the constitution of Salvator Mundi.
The Sfumato: 3D without glasses. Even though the technique known as sfumato was raised to a new level once it was combined with oil painting, Leonardo Da Vinci is not its creator, as is commonly thought. The Italian term means “gone up in smoke”, “smoky”, or “evaporated”, since that is what used to happen with brush marks on a painting: they virtually disappeared. Actually, the procedure has a distant origin, whose systematic application has been demonstrated for millennia, above all, in drawing and other dry techniques. Da Vinci, however, applied sfumato with a new glacis, a technique that consisted of the application of an oil layer mixed with a minimum amount of colored pigment over a white primer.
From this, a thin layer was developed by reproducing ethereal colored tones. Such a procedure allows light, when passing through this “veil”, to penetrate into the bottom of the painting and then reflect back to the viewer. The multiple shade tones in the later works of the artist are actually due to successive applications of those layers. Showing each a specific pigmentation, one on top of the other, thus results in an effect of vibrant constancy. This peculiar process appears only in the later works of the artist; quite possibly, the Gioconda of Louvre was the first instance in which it was used. Some evidence to this respect was confirmed by recent findings of the painting by Mady Elias of the French National Center for Scientific Research, and by the multispectral digitization tests performed by Pascal Cotte of Lumiere Technology.
A device to suggest the illusion of volume so characteristic of the Italian Renaissance, the sfumato is used in post-medieval art with the purpose of creating a supernatural atmosphere. Through this, the composition was given a new aura in a world used to limited 2D imagery in painting, producing a type of representation that was more naturalistic. Hence, it is not hard to imagine the reactions of those who witnessed the transition in this dramatic chapter of visual history, similar perhaps to the fascination of the public for 3D projections or I-Max in movies with the last generation technologies.
Given Leonardo’s interest in optical and nature studies, and their multiple dimensional implications, this technique became an essential feature of his artistic production. It is also important to note here the comments by De Beatis, following the meeting with Leonardo and the Gioconda in 1517. Referring to the “Gioconda” as perfect and looking alive, the secretary describes the moment as a discovery of a fascinating and extraordinary image. For the public of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the impression must have been exactly this: a shocking realism. It is here that the two-dimensional plane goes into crisis, since, together with the use of the golden section, the figure of Lisa Gherardini in the pictorial composition dominates the scene. No doubt, this iconographic schematic model emerged from the desire of this Homo Universalis, Renaissance person, who sees in this form an integration of Nature and the Divine. It is well known that Da Vinci defended the concept that the Creator is manifest in every creation, inside or outside our senses, in things that we are capable of understanding. It is also where we realize the open path through the artist mind: we are inserted into this same Nature from where we are fruit.
Aware of the necessity to cut the evil by the root, Christie’s decided to enter in the discussion in self-defense:”There are several reasons for the scholar consensus to agree that the painting is truly Leonardo da Vinci´s, including the previously mentioned relation between the painting and the two preparatory autographed drafts in Windsor Castle, their correspondence with Salvator Mundi composition in Wenceslaus Hollar picture of 1650 and its recognized superiority compared to the over twenty known versions of the composition”.
Amongst all aspects submitted to so many questioning, the greatest controversy would be attached to a small element after which the painting is named: the crystal sphere that does not produce any refraction of light, a natural optical phenomenon that would not have escaped to the sharp perception of Da Vinci and his obsession by minutia. The biographer Walter Isaacson, for example, declares that the non-distortion would have been “a conscious decision made by Leonard”. According to him, the artist must have thought that a more precise representation would divert the attention from the real essence of the painting (the Messiah) or “he could be trying to transmit a miraculous act to Christ and His Orbit”. As far as I am concerned, none of the above reasons make sense… For a better understanding of the following considerations, I recall an extract from my study about the Mona Lisa published in 2013. I think it is important to bring to the reader an idea of the revolution that was the usage of sfumato technique in the end of XVth century and how decisive it was in the constitution of Salvator Mundi.
The Sfumato: 3D without glasses. Even though the technique known as sfumato was raised to a new level once it was combined with oil painting, Leonardo Da Vinci is not its creator, as is commonly thought. The Italian term means “gone up in smoke”, “smoky”, or “evaporated”, since that is what used to happen with brush marks on a painting: they virtually disappeared. Actually, the procedure has a distant origin, whose systematic application has been demonstrated for millennia, above all, in drawing and other dry techniques. Da Vinci, however, applied sfumato with a new glacis, a technique that consisted of the application of an oil layer mixed with a minimum amount of colored pigment over a white primer.
From this, a thin layer was developed by reproducing ethereal colored tones. Such a procedure allows light, when passing through this “veil”, to penetrate into the bottom of the painting and then reflect back to the viewer. The multiple shade tones in the later works of the artist are actually due to successive applications of those layers. Showing each a specific pigmentation, one on top of the other, thus results in an effect of vibrant constancy. This peculiar process appears only in the later works of the artist; quite possibly, the Gioconda of Louvre was the first instance in which it was used. Some evidence to this respect was confirmed by recent findings of the painting by Mady Elias of the French National Center for Scientific Research, and by the multispectral digitization tests performed by Pascal Cotte of Lumiere Technology.
A device to suggest the illusion of volume so characteristic of the Italian Renaissance, the sfumato is used in post-medieval art with the purpose of creating a supernatural atmosphere. Through this, the composition was given a new aura in a world used to limited 2D imagery in painting, producing a type of representation that was more naturalistic. Hence, it is not hard to imagine the reactions of those who witnessed the transition in this dramatic chapter of visual history, similar perhaps to the fascination of the public for 3D projections or I-Max in movies with the last generation technologies.
Given Leonardo’s interest in optical and nature studies, and their multiple dimensional implications, this technique became an essential feature of his artistic production. It is also important to note here the comments by De Beatis, following the meeting with Leonardo and the Gioconda in 1517. Referring to the “Gioconda” as perfect and looking alive, the secretary describes the moment as a discovery of a fascinating and extraordinary image. For the public of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the impression must have been exactly this: a shocking realism. It is here that the two-dimensional plane goes into crisis, since, together with the use of the golden section, the figure of Lisa Gherardini in the pictorial composition dominates the scene. No doubt, this iconographic schematic model emerged from the desire of this Homo Universalis, Renaissance person, who sees in this form an integration of Nature and the Divine. It is well known that Da Vinci defended the concept that the Creator is manifest in every creation, inside or outside our senses, in things that we are capable of understanding. It is also where we realize the open path through the artist mind: we are inserted into this same Nature from where we are fruit.
Saint John, The Baptist (1513-1516) by Leonardo: with the sfumato, a pure ethereal atmosphere (Public domain).
The orbit and the left hand. Answering Isaacson, for anyone in those days when a new usage of those Leonardian techniques would begin to appear, an illusory effect of light refraction in a painting – though very interesting – would not call so much attention in terms of visual appeal. After all, Mona Lisa is what it is despite the absence of an orbit in her hands, right?
Regarding his second theory (Jesus and the prodigy of non-refraction), what would be so interesting about a reverse miracle? Expecting that the surprise of seeing Christ holding a crystal globe be exactly the absence of its biggest charm (the distortion effect), even though it may make some sense, would be as weird as accepting that “the absence of evidence would be an evidence”… and this is also a kind of logical thought. The problem is that it creates a dead-lock: the cyclical idea that does not develop and does not lead anywhere.
Martin Kemp´s declaration mentions the kind of mineral our globe is made of: calcita or rock crystal, which explains the optical behavior of what is seen in the picture – completely coherent with what would actually happen – including the presence of the so-called “air bubbles”.
In his study, Die Entdeckung der Jupitermonde 105 Jahre vor Galileo Galilei, Professor Frank Keim (a scholar used to approach Astronomy to History of Art) offers a strange theory - to say the least - to explain one of the most appealing peculiarities of the globe. For him, the sphere is, in fact, a map showing two of Jupiter´s moons. Ganimedes (represented twice) and Calisto on the three most highlighted white spots (Orion Belt, for Kemp). Jupiter is exactly in the crossing of the leather stoles in the Messiah´s chest: the pearl. Da Vinci´s interest in Astronomy was especially intense during the preparation of the painting in 1501 and his project about the composition would deal with some didactic preoccupations regarding new scientific discoveries (some of his notes about building a telescope have come to us). Therefore, the intention to leave the orbit “clean” in the painting must have been to make it work simply as a background to the pictorial and schematic representation of this truth, resulting from the several observations that he had made in Florence. Salvator Mundi, can also be considered a harmonious union between Science and Religion: the ideal knowledge, defended by Leonardo Da Vinci.
I wonder whether one of the reasons why Leonardo did not worry so much about optical distortions might have left some clues in Paris, in another of his masterpieces, The Virgin of the Rocks, in the Louvre. We know that it was made between 1483 and 1485 in the context of passionate debates inside the Church, aiming for a revisionism about Ephesus Council (431) and the mystery of Mary´s divine motherhood (Theotokos). Ordered by the Immaculate Conception of Milan that supported the thesis that Mary would, in fact, be the mother of God – before, during and after Jesus´conception, Leonardo has decided to present it in a completely new and arguable way. Instead of the classical halo of holiness, dazzling angel´s wings or clouds connecting heaven and earth, he presents a scenarium free from all human conventions and physical laws where time and space no longer exist and where all the holy characters look like ordinary people. The artist offers us a new, transcendental, metaphysical and unknown reality… new age. There, everything is instantaneously at the same level and becomes one… unus. By the way, there is in Salvator Mundi, a central “U” in the leather border of Jesus´ robe, on top of His chest, that could pass this message. Even the different kinds of vegetation in the landscape – it has been proven – could not coexist in reality. Therefore, the absence of optical effects (as expected) and of the cross on top of Salvator “orbis” would make perfect sense, due to the fact that the representation does not belong to the natural world and its particularities. Leonardo would pay a high price for his adventure with The Virgin of the Rocks. Rejected by the brotherhood (precisely because of its innovations), the artist was obliged by law to remake it along with two co-workers – Ambroggio and Evangelista de Predis. The result is what can be seen nowadays in the London National Gallery.
Regarding his second theory (Jesus and the prodigy of non-refraction), what would be so interesting about a reverse miracle? Expecting that the surprise of seeing Christ holding a crystal globe be exactly the absence of its biggest charm (the distortion effect), even though it may make some sense, would be as weird as accepting that “the absence of evidence would be an evidence”… and this is also a kind of logical thought. The problem is that it creates a dead-lock: the cyclical idea that does not develop and does not lead anywhere.
Martin Kemp´s declaration mentions the kind of mineral our globe is made of: calcita or rock crystal, which explains the optical behavior of what is seen in the picture – completely coherent with what would actually happen – including the presence of the so-called “air bubbles”.
In his study, Die Entdeckung der Jupitermonde 105 Jahre vor Galileo Galilei, Professor Frank Keim (a scholar used to approach Astronomy to History of Art) offers a strange theory - to say the least - to explain one of the most appealing peculiarities of the globe. For him, the sphere is, in fact, a map showing two of Jupiter´s moons. Ganimedes (represented twice) and Calisto on the three most highlighted white spots (Orion Belt, for Kemp). Jupiter is exactly in the crossing of the leather stoles in the Messiah´s chest: the pearl. Da Vinci´s interest in Astronomy was especially intense during the preparation of the painting in 1501 and his project about the composition would deal with some didactic preoccupations regarding new scientific discoveries (some of his notes about building a telescope have come to us). Therefore, the intention to leave the orbit “clean” in the painting must have been to make it work simply as a background to the pictorial and schematic representation of this truth, resulting from the several observations that he had made in Florence. Salvator Mundi, can also be considered a harmonious union between Science and Religion: the ideal knowledge, defended by Leonardo Da Vinci.
I wonder whether one of the reasons why Leonardo did not worry so much about optical distortions might have left some clues in Paris, in another of his masterpieces, The Virgin of the Rocks, in the Louvre. We know that it was made between 1483 and 1485 in the context of passionate debates inside the Church, aiming for a revisionism about Ephesus Council (431) and the mystery of Mary´s divine motherhood (Theotokos). Ordered by the Immaculate Conception of Milan that supported the thesis that Mary would, in fact, be the mother of God – before, during and after Jesus´conception, Leonardo has decided to present it in a completely new and arguable way. Instead of the classical halo of holiness, dazzling angel´s wings or clouds connecting heaven and earth, he presents a scenarium free from all human conventions and physical laws where time and space no longer exist and where all the holy characters look like ordinary people. The artist offers us a new, transcendental, metaphysical and unknown reality… new age. There, everything is instantaneously at the same level and becomes one… unus. By the way, there is in Salvator Mundi, a central “U” in the leather border of Jesus´ robe, on top of His chest, that could pass this message. Even the different kinds of vegetation in the landscape – it has been proven – could not coexist in reality. Therefore, the absence of optical effects (as expected) and of the cross on top of Salvator “orbis” would make perfect sense, due to the fact that the representation does not belong to the natural world and its particularities. Leonardo would pay a high price for his adventure with The Virgin of the Rocks. Rejected by the brotherhood (precisely because of its innovations), the artist was obliged by law to remake it along with two co-workers – Ambroggio and Evangelista de Predis. The result is what can be seen nowadays in the London National Gallery.
The cosmic sphere: authentic Renaissance Man Leonardo da Vinci offers the key (Public domain).
Within the Eye. Another relevant element that I came across while analyzing some high-resolution reproductions of the painting, would be the marks on the Christ’s (proper) right eye, perhaps indicating an inscription: "lionardo". Found along the curvature just below the iris, it's similar to some signatures by the Tuscan artist. It’s certain that previous studies conducted by researchers, in many cases, were able to identify some hidden signs in other paintings by Leonardo. The greatest proof of the reality about this “imagery game” is the fact that the character of his most iconic work, Mona Lisa, is actually a human being half-man, half-woman - as confirmed by anthropometric studies on model’s face and head. The analyzes usually point to the presence of sayings, as well as to figurative representations - camouflaged or not. Such lines, in fact, are not usually so easy to identify, but a sequential-graphical sum of evidence seems to indicate some “intention” behind what may appear to be just marks to the random. In fact, they would be an interference by the genius in the process of eternalizing some authorial, symbolic, Family references, initials for his own clients or even to his great love: his favorite pupil, Giacomo Caprotti, the “little devil” - someone Da Vinci has lived with since the boy was 10 years old.
Concerning eventual suspicions that the restoration may have unwittingly "manufactured" these lines, it should be considered that more than half of this "inscription", apparently, escaped from the most noticeable damage into the respective area - which is very clearly shown by the infrared exams. In addition, this part has been completely cleaned from the old repainting. Modestini, moreover, assures that she intervened as little as possible working there. As she attests that the overall result from the right eye restoration was reasonably satisfactory, it can be understood that there's a high probability that the portion where these marks rest may have preserved the basis of its graphic structure on which the full recovery had unfolded. Also worthy is the evaluation by Martin Kemp, who, amazed after seeing the results in flesh, declared that, above the right eye he could spot the manipulating of the paint by its creator using the heel of the hand (typical of Leonardo). In other words, it can be understood as a certificate of good fidelity about what we can see today in this fraction to what it must have been 500 years ago.
Concerning eventual suspicions that the restoration may have unwittingly "manufactured" these lines, it should be considered that more than half of this "inscription", apparently, escaped from the most noticeable damage into the respective area - which is very clearly shown by the infrared exams. In addition, this part has been completely cleaned from the old repainting. Modestini, moreover, assures that she intervened as little as possible working there. As she attests that the overall result from the right eye restoration was reasonably satisfactory, it can be understood that there's a high probability that the portion where these marks rest may have preserved the basis of its graphic structure on which the full recovery had unfolded. Also worthy is the evaluation by Martin Kemp, who, amazed after seeing the results in flesh, declared that, above the right eye he could spot the manipulating of the paint by its creator using the heel of the hand (typical of Leonardo). In other words, it can be understood as a certificate of good fidelity about what we can see today in this fraction to what it must have been 500 years ago.
The name in the right proper eye? Some fragments of an apparent "Io, Lionardo" inscription lines could be (hardly) seen even through a post-cleaning / pre-restore photo in damaged painting. Top: the portion marked "in natura" / Down: the portion after spectrometry adjustments. Please, compare the present one with one of the best known signatures by Da Vinci. More analyses could or not could confirm (Public domain).
Task, certainly, is arduous and practically unfeasible, due to the impossibility of a direct examination on the original material – or, even, on images in resolutions in ideal quality for such. However, with the best reproductions after its cleaning and before restoration, it’s possible, thanks to the intervention from an advanced image editing software - making use of the adjustment for curves, contrast, brightness, saturation, negative and others - detect fragments of lines similar to what is seen in the final product of the painting (see photo on the side). It’s true that what is stated here is solely the fact of a possibility of evidence about something worthy to see than random traces. For all this, of course, more tests are needed.
But the chances for a coincidence, surely do exist and there is still the fact – as said – of the interference in favor of a misinterpretation due to the not-so-good quality of the available photos. Well, the question is there... Even more - as I also discovered -, taking into account the presence of what resembles the letters L and S in the model's eyes . Let’s see:
Almost in the exact way we can see a L and a S in the eyes on the Mona Lisa, Salvator Mundi seems to house the letters L and S too – at least, after its deep cleaning and before restoration processes. The only difference is the S touching the iris – and not fully inside it. These initials may refer to Da Vinci's notes in his Trattato della Pittura, when he suggests that, for a better contemplation of a painting, we should focus on it only with the left eye: that is, abandon ("Lascia") the right one, for us to use the left one ("Sinistra"). Some good reasons for dismissing it as a mere coincidence:
1) The letters L and S are located, respectively, in each eye of “Salvator” in a similar way to those of the Mona Lisa: right - L, and left - S (from the proper's point of view);
2) Both letters are located, exactly, in very almost SAME PORTION in both eyes: what reveals an aesthetic pattern - that is, this would hardly happen in a coincidence;
3) Furthermore, if all of it is just a coincidence, the letter S in the left eye would also appear, as well as the L in the right eye - given the organic symmetry that exists in any pair of eyes... but definitively it’s not what we are seeing in Salvator Mundi;
Conclusion: the probability for the letters L and S to be produced intentionally - and adjusted there - is quite positively considerable and should not be ignored. In any case, it’s right that further analysis should take place, of course.
But the chances for a coincidence, surely do exist and there is still the fact – as said – of the interference in favor of a misinterpretation due to the not-so-good quality of the available photos. Well, the question is there... Even more - as I also discovered -, taking into account the presence of what resembles the letters L and S in the model's eyes . Let’s see:
Almost in the exact way we can see a L and a S in the eyes on the Mona Lisa, Salvator Mundi seems to house the letters L and S too – at least, after its deep cleaning and before restoration processes. The only difference is the S touching the iris – and not fully inside it. These initials may refer to Da Vinci's notes in his Trattato della Pittura, when he suggests that, for a better contemplation of a painting, we should focus on it only with the left eye: that is, abandon ("Lascia") the right one, for us to use the left one ("Sinistra"). Some good reasons for dismissing it as a mere coincidence:
1) The letters L and S are located, respectively, in each eye of “Salvator” in a similar way to those of the Mona Lisa: right - L, and left - S (from the proper's point of view);
2) Both letters are located, exactly, in very almost SAME PORTION in both eyes: what reveals an aesthetic pattern - that is, this would hardly happen in a coincidence;
3) Furthermore, if all of it is just a coincidence, the letter S in the left eye would also appear, as well as the L in the right eye - given the organic symmetry that exists in any pair of eyes... but definitively it’s not what we are seeing in Salvator Mundi;
Conclusion: the probability for the letters L and S to be produced intentionally - and adjusted there - is quite positively considerable and should not be ignored. In any case, it’s right that further analysis should take place, of course.
Just like in Gioconda's eyes, could the L and S letters repeat with Salvator Mundi's? (Public domain).
The Catechism of Science. Following the tendency to have everything regarding Da Vinci and his works inspire puzzles and uncertainties (either fair or unfairly), Salvator Mundi just meets the standard - especially when there is US$ 450,3 million involved, a dream to any investor in the Arts field. The difference is that, here, the “too good to be true” is for real. Technical expertise and serious testimonies atest what has become evident to the eyes of many “connoisseurs”.
Although still controversial, the painting seems to consolidate in Da Vinci´s production, adding to it a peculiar set of mystical-figurative attributes. As a matter of fact, the mere presence of an adult Jesus among his so praised collection of female portraits proves it. Holding the record and being a turning point in the wild capitalism of Art Business, the biggest irony of Salvator (far from the debated attributions) may be the huge convulsion it has caused versus the serenity and harmony with which Christ wants to bless and inspire us. As it is easier for a camel to pass through a needle hole than for a rich one to enter Heaven, we could say that the purchaser of a mythical Leonard – though extremely rich – would never have the glory of acknowledgement.
Professor Átila Soares da Costa Filho (Opening photo by Tolga Akmen/AFP/Getty Images)
English version: Gilza Martins Saldanha da Gama, PhD in Literature - Catholic Pontifical University, Rio de Janeiro
Bibliographical References
Argan, Giulio Carlo. Arte e crítica de arte. Lisboa: Estampa, 1988.
Baccarini, Enico; Pinotti, Roberto. Itália esotérica. São Paulo: Madras, 2005.
Christie’s. The Last da Vinci. October, 19-2018. <https://www.christies.com/features/The-last-da-Vinci-Salvator-Mundi-8598-3.aspx>.
Filho, Átila Soares da Costa. A Jovem Mona Lisa. Rio de Janeiro: Multifoco, 2013.
Eco, Umberto. Arte e beleza na estética medieval. Rio de Janeiro: Globo, 1989.
Keim, Frank. Salvator Mundi: die Entdeckung der Jupitermonde durch Leonardo, Dürer und Giorgione. October, 20-2018. <http://dx.doi.org/10.18725/OPARU-5423>.
Modestini, Dianne Dwyer. Salvator Mundi revisited: Materials & techniques. May, 18-2021. <https://salvatormundirevisited.com/Materials-Techniques>.
Pomilio, Mario; Chiesa, Angela Ottino della. “L’opera completa di Leonardo pittore”. Coleção Classici dell’arte, vol.12. Milão: Rizzoli, 1978.
Santillano, Giorgio de et al. Leonardo da Vinci (An Artabras Book). Nova York: Reynal & Co. e William Morrow & Co., 1965.
Vasari, Giorgio. Vidas de pintores, escultores y arquitectos ilustres. Buenos Aires: El Ateneo, 1945.
Venturi, Lionello. História da crítica da arte. Lisboa: Edições 70,(?).