Talk:Leonardo da Vinci/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Personal life

POV issues - Removed "handsome" from the sentence about Leonardo surrounding himself with men, changed Leonardo from being "widely assumed" he was a homosexual, to its possible that he was. Removed link to vice squad Also removed "which a majority of male Florentines engaged in" - highly POV. Probably still needs more work. Cfitzart 04:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Also removed "which a majority of male Florentines engaged in" - highly POV." What source do you base your statement on, as it in opposition to Michael Rocke's historical and statistical studies claiming otherwise? (Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and Male Culture in Renaissance Florence) Haiduc 10:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Is his opinion really accepted by the community? Here [1] it says that "Rocke builds one of his central arguments on shaky foundations". It was also defined broadly; "sodomy was legally defined as any sexual act that would not result in procreation". Cfitzart 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, interesting review, I was not aware of that interpretation. I don't mind removing the bit about "the majority" as long as we include the fact (needed to establish context) that the Florentines were famous throughout Europe for their tradition of sodomy (we can agree on that, can we not?) Haiduc 01:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I doubted it at first, but did find alot of references to it. How about using the word "widespread" as it does in the article on Florence? -- Cfitzart 01:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Good choice, thank you. Haiduc 02:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It needs a quote from Vasari implying Leonardo's fondness for young fellows or Vasari's silence on the subject, for a start. The rest is sound and fury... --Wetman 05:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse is bigger than Leonardo!

I mean, c'mon. I was reading this comments and some jerk was saying that Leonardo Fucking Vinci is more famous than Mickey Mouse! That's preposterous! I mean, tell me how many children give a fuck about the boring to death paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci. I agree the Ninja Turtles have been forgotten, but don't say stupid shit like that. 216.184.122.221

Googlefight: leonardo wins over mickey mouse 23 million to 5 million - [2] Cfitzart 23:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and Jesus beats xxx. Googlefight means NOTHING.

Jesus vrs. TEH PRON!

The first person gets all his information from kids, that's why he's so pissed. Chill out. (Anonymous User)

Possible self portrait?

Possible has been added to the description of the self portrait at the top - Isnt it generally accepted that it is a genuine one? here it says: "Over this drawing there is no dispute with Leonardo thought to have drawn it in 1512, when he was 50 and living in France." Cfitzart 00:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In 1512 Leonardo was 60 (not 50), which would correspond (I guess) with the aged face in the drawing, but the doubts raised that it is a s-p come from scholarly experts on L.'s drawings (writing before 1990). As I recall, the argument "against" was that it was not stylistically datable to 1512, but closer to 1500, in which case the face was too old. It is true that in his later drawings (1512-1519) L. favors pen-&-ink and rounded "bracelet" hatching, and/or a soft chalk or charcoal medium allowing blurry modeling transitions--this head seems closer in hatching style to his drawings of 1500-1505. BTW, if you want verifiable info, don't go to semi-anonymous online sources referred to as "it" ("it says that . . ."). Go to a book or article by a recognized expert who provides a "paper trail" for the info. Vasari may have been the first Leonardo biographer, but his paper trail for the artist is pretty thin (mucho hearsay, virtually no documentation), which is why L. seems steeped in legend so soon after his death. Martin Kemp has done a good job of sifting "hard" info from legendary material (interesting in itself) in connection with narrow topics (Madonna of Yarnwinder and distribution of creative responsibility in the mature Leonardo's workshop; the adult Salai's role as Leonardo's agent and "enforcer"), but there is a lot that remains cloudy. [[[User:65.15.229.94|65.15.229.94]] 02:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)MP]

A German expert named Hans Ost has written a book about that matter, claiming that it's a hoax done two centuries ago by the Italian artist Giuseppe Bossi: Hans Ost: "Das Leonardo-Porträt in der kgl. Bibliothek Turin und andere Fälschungen des Giuseppe Bossi", Berlin [Gebr. Mann] 1980 Hans Ost believes that this picture is the most accurate portray of Leonardo: http://home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/leo17.jpg Fulcher 01:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

How much scholarly support has Ost's idea received? PiCo 05:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, sorry. Fulcher

Some grammer help

This sentence is sitting in the lower half of this article and I can not make sense of what it was supposed to mean. "During his time in France, Leonardo made studies for the Virgin Mary from The Virgin and Child with St. Anne, and many drawings and other studies."

If someone can follow it, please do change the grammer construct for easy readability. [3] gathima 04:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Done - just needed to change 'from the Virgin and Child etc' to 'for the V&C etc'. (The sentence is saying he was making studies that were later used in the painting - this should be clear anyway from the fact that the painting's name is marked). PiCo 10:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Incarnate Angel"

Is this really a Leonardo drawing? [4] The only sites that seem to reference it are ones promoting the view that Leonardo was a homosexual, are there any museum sites that mention it? Cfitzart 00:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This from an Indian site:

“The Incarnate Angel”, the hermaphrodite figure from Leonardo’s expert hand, is the centrepiece of an exhibition that has opened at Stia, in Tuscany. Carlo Pedretti, the eminent authority on Leonardo’s work who brought the drawing to light, says that in the eighteen hundreds it formed part of the Royal collection at Windsor where it was kept with another eleven drawings, all by Leonardo and all of an erotic setting. As the British art critic Brian Sewell recalls, one day a well-known German expert arrived at Windsor and began to examine these folios. A while later, they disappeared, to the evident relief of everybody and, so it seems with the tacit agreement of Queen Victoria, happy enough to rid herself of subjects which were, to say the least, embarrassing. So, the group of dissolute works ended up in Germany. For more than a century, then, the “The Incarnate Angel” remained buried in a German collection. At last, in 1991, Pedretti tracked it down, and gained the owners’ permission to show it from time to time in prestigious exhibitions around the world.

You are not seriously suggesting that this is all a gay plot by homophile websites, I hope? Or are you? Haiduc 01:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It just seems a little strange, I havent heard of Leonardo doing erotic drawings before. Cfitzart 13:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know he did several other erotic drawings that usually feature nude males Fulcher 01:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest it looks like an obvious fake to me. There's a change in tone in the paper colour around the genitals area (perhaps previous detail was erased), the genitals look crudely drawn compared to the rest of the figure, worst of all the composition is dreadful with the genitals being an obvious point of focus yet placed right next to the edge of the paper (though Leonardo's notebooks seem to include all sorts of scribbles on edges of pages so perhaps he didn't care too much about composition). The original female figure appears to be holding loose drapery with her left hand which would have partially clothed the bottom half. It looks like a variation on a fairly common pose for the female nude which I believe derives from Praxiteles original nude, the Aphrodite of Cnidus (and also Botticelli's The Birth of Venus), but not an obvious choice if you were intending to display an erect penis.

On the other hand the Italian site (L'articolo di STILEarte) appears to be generally credible and if this drawing really was exhibitted in Tuscany in 2001, you would expect it to have been authenticated. On the third hand, their provenance story sounds rather suspect. -- Solipsist 14:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My immediate reaction was that this had to be a fake: it's ugly, seems to me badly drawn, and doesn't accord with my perception of Leonardo as a man who, although homosexual, seems to have hated sex. And the story of the Secret of Windsor Castle seems just a little over the top. Anyway, I did a search on Google, as any good citizen of cyberspace would. Most mentions are on gay sites trying to push an agenda. But [this site]is a blog reporting on an Botticelli exhibition at the Louvre in 2003. The Incarnate Angel is mentioned only in passing, which means that the author is either very, very subtle or else he just doesn't care one way or the other. But I guess the real point is that if the Louvre sees fit to exhibit it as a genuine Leonardo, it has some credibility. PiCo 23:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The very smart Daniel Arasse treated it very seriously in his big book on Leonardo (I too find it kind of creepy, but it hasn't really been rejected by the experts)65.15.229.94 03:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)MP

Da Vinci's name in lists

In a list (e.g. List of biologists, should Leonardo Da Vinci be under D, or V? The lists Da Vinci appears in are inconsistent on this point. GabrielF 04:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

L for Leonardo. The other impossibilities are based on two separate misconceptions, the more important one being that "da Vinci" was somehow Leonardo's surname, as in "Mrs Da Vinci, can Leonardo come out and play?" --Wetman 06:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Da Vinci's Sleep Habit

It's a popular legend that Da Vinci slept for 15 minutes every 4 hours. A Seinfeld episode was dedicted to kramer attempted to replicate Da Vinci's sleep patterns. I added a few words mentioning this claim, but more should be said about whether it's true or how the legend originated.Alecmconroy 09:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The earlier reference to Da Vinci sleep got deleted for being weasel-worded (which it most certainly was). So I created a separate article on Da Vinci sleep, which is the name for sleeping 15 minutes every few hours, without taking a stance on whether Da Vinci himself every actually slept this way. I do think at some point the Leonardy Da Vinci article should mention Da Vinci's sleep legend and whether it's true, false, or indetermined, but i'll leave that for future authors :). Alecmconroy 23:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Mona Lisa

"There is some debate whether Leonardo himself painted the Mona Lisa." There is? If no-one can substantiate this claim, I'll delete it. PiCo 10:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it Cfitzart 00:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone appears to have added a bunch of info taken straight from the Da Vinci Code to the section on the Mona Lisa. I'll remove it for now, since it's taken from a work of fiction. If I am in error, put it back. Sdalmonte 18:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It would depend how it's treated. I see no problem in a single line statement like: The Mona Lisa plays a central role in Dan Brown's bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code. PiCo 22:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Sorry, checked the page and it's already done. Please ignore. PiCo 22:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sexual innuendo passage

Wikipedia is absolutely infested with faggots, that's the problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

I reverted recently the removal of a passage which seemed to be mostly innuendo about Leonardo's sexuality (Freud's analysis and unproductive pupils). I reverted the removal because it was an undiscussed deletion of a lot of text, but it really isn't a very useful passage. What do others think? DJ Clayworth 14:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

that was the same text I wanted removed to a different article a while back, after another editor had removed it previously. I think it might be a consensus that it goes Cfitzart 06:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the élan to expunge the man's love life is misguided. I have added more details about his same-sex attractions, and will investigate the claim that he had a thing for Isabella D'Este. I have no investment in his being monosexual, but I do believe that his sexuality is significant, and of interest to our readers. Haiduc 11:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

His sexuality is significant to his art (it does explain a lot the longing you see in it), but not as to justify the length now being given to it. Couldn't it be cut back to something like: "Leonardo's homosexuality had a significant influence on his art..." followed by a very concise explanation of that influence? If anyone wants to go into all this detail it can form a separate article with that cross-link, but at present the article is seriously unbalanced. (I mean unbalanced in the sense of too much detail on the great man's loves, not enough on his works - have a look at the Caravaggio article to see what a well-balanced discussion of the life and achievement of a homosexual artist can look like). PiCo 12:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article is unbalanced, by I think the solution a bit procrustean. Obviously some editors are more focused on his biography than on his art. But the solution is not to remove one particular aspect of his life (especially that one which has been the target of previous suppression), since that would create a more serious imbalance, and suit the agenda of those who would cover up his sexuality. If you must separate things, then put all his personal life in one article, and only his artistic production in another. But a better solution would be to balance the article by expanding on those aspects of this article which are found wanting. Haiduc 20:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care if he was gay or not, but the fact so much space in spent itemizing every arguement ever made is going way overboard. More effort is spent on this one topic than any other part in the article, and for a man as accomplished as Leonardo this is rather insulting. Don't get me wrong- I think it's fine to speculate, but not to this length exclusively, and just for the sake of perpetuation of what amounts to largely modern-day inueindo. I get the definite feeling that the author is trying to get across his ideas, instead of a fair accessment of the theory. The ultimate answer is that if you were to ask Leonardo, he'd probably say, "it's none of your damn business". CFLeon 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be that there is a preponderance of material on his personal life, but there are two issues to consider here. The first is that the proper solution is to include more info in the underdeveloped sections, rather than criticize the abundance of information in this one. The second is the process by which this section has been expanded as much as it has. Initially, the discussion of his personal life and sexuality was quite rudimentary, though the spirit of it was as at present. However, in the absence of all this supporting evidence for his love of youths, time and time again the section was challenged as consisting of unsupported statements placed there to make a political point by falsely homosexualizing the great man. In order to answer these continuous challenges, the discussion of his sexuality expanded to the present size. Thus I would submit that if this section is overdeveloped, it is because it is the muscle most exercised by readers of this article. Haiduc 23:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Experience has shown that any reference to homosexuality in historical figures on Wikipedia needs to be backed by evidence, (even when commonly accepted) or such references are aggressively deleted by the ignorant or homophobic. Engleham

Discovery of workshop

Any word following up on the news back in January that da Vinci's workshop had been discovered? [5], [6], [7]. I commented on it, but then I deleted it. Now I don't remember why. Was the discovery discredited? <>< tbc 01:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of italicized part

There is an italicized part in Leonardo's Life section that doesn't make much sense. I suggest that someone should remove it.Tom 17:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki

why is there a useless interwiki line on the bottom?

I could not guess at which interwiki was being attempted so I removed it. --Alf ^melmac 08:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

La Scapigliata

(Newbie alert): This is a rather well-known work of LDV, one can buy posters of it, anyway. Perhaps it should be mentioned in here?

Leonardo as a roboticist

I found an interesting story about Leonardo at this page:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/davinci.html

Here they claim that he made programmable machines, which would make him a precursor to modern robotics.

I’ll post here some excerpts from the article:

So here you had a small, front-wheel-drive cart no more than 20 inches square - many Codex illustrations are one-to-one scale fabrication drawings - that could, on the basis of spring-loaded power, be triggered via remote control and run a specific course, turning in a programmed direction at a certain point and perhaps even executing a "special effect" or two.

"I found a fantastic document, date 1600," Pedretti says. "It's a description of a banquet held in Paris to honor the new queen of France, who was a Medici. On that occasion, Michelangelo Buonarroti the Younger observed the presentation of a mechanical lion. It walked, opened its chest, and in place of a heart it had fleurs-de-lis." Pedretti pauses, gathering more papers. "This document, which was totally unknown, says this was a concept similar to one that Leonardo carried out in Lyons on the occasion of Francis I." It appears da Vinci had engaged in high tech diplomacy circa 1515.

The cart, suggests Pedretti, may have been an early study in an emerging da Vinci sideline. Leonardo, he believes, created animated spectacles centuries before the great age of the European automata of Jacques de Vaucansan and Wolfgang von Kempelen. "The irony of the whole thing is that there is not a single hint in Leonardo's manuscripts of this greatest technological invention," Pedretti says. "Imagine to have a lion walk and stand on its legs and open up its chest - this is top technology!" What happened to those pages of drawings that would have revealed the inner workings of these wondrous devices? Perhaps they lie misfiled in some lost archive; perhaps they were destroyed by some church authority in the manner of Albertus Magnus' mechanical woman, smashed by Thomas Aquinas as a work of the devil. Half a millennium on, the cart could, says Rosheim, not only rewrite the history of robotics but also bring another da Vinci to light: da Vinci the roboticist. "If it was simply a spring-powered cart, it would not be that big a deal," he says. "What's significant is that you can replace or change these cams and alter how it goes about its path - in other words, it's programmable in an analog, mechanical sense. It's the Disney animatronics of its day."Caballaria 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cat lover?

Da Vinci is categorized as a "cat lover". Is that true or vandalism?Extremophile 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

He certainly made charming cat drawings (studies, really)--both early (1480?) and late (1513?) in his career. 65.15.229.94 03:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)MP

Polymath

Vinci is mention on polymath. Should it be added to see also? Timothy Clemans 20:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

da Vinci as an outcast

I was reading through this here article, and I always thought da Vinci was outcast from the science community etc. for his ideas. I didn't really find much of it in here. The most prominent mention of which is his use of mirror writing. I don't exactly know too much on him, but I think this article would benefit from having some more about it. --Snaxe920 05:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Leonardo's name

I'm sure this has been brought up; sorry, I'm new to this discussion.

In the "Art" section, the article says, "Another effect created by da Vinci is called sfumato" ... shouldn't we refer to him as either Leonardo or Leonardo da Vinci, never as "da Vinci"? (You know ... it's like calling Alexander the Great just "the Great" ...)

Scrutchfield 04:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Go boldly - edit away. PiCo 10:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Other works by Leonardo

I think some attempt should be made to list works by leonardo. For example, Codex of the eye, Manuscript D is mentioned on the page about contact lenses, but isn't mentioned here. Fresheneesz 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Extensive original internet work

Cited sources are original internet work. Please improve this and the language to an NPOV standard before placing it on the article. Deletions from the page are following

The Duke of Milan, Ludovico Sforza, chose the church Santa Maria del Grazie, in Milan, Italy, as his family chapel, court church, and burial place for members of the Ducal family. Then he commissioned Leonardo Da Vinci, renowned Italian renaissance artist, to paint the Last Supper on the northern wall of the church’s refectory, or dining hall. Leonardo began work in 1495, completing the 15 by 29-foot mural in 1498. The masterpiece was, and still is, immensely popular, and quickly became famous.

Although the Last Supper has been painted many times, there are many things unique to this particular painting, from the technique to the composition. Da Vinci chose to show the precise moment when Jesus tells his disciples that one of them will betray him. This in itself is not unusual, and was a relatively common scene. What is unusual is the way he showed this scene. When Leonardo began work, there were two longstanding ideas about the depiction of this event, neither of which can be found in his painting. First was the arrangement of the disciples around a circular or square table. Ignoring this, Da Vinci painted the disciples all along one side of a long rectangular table. Secondly, The Last Supper, in terms of Christian iconography, usually included two ideas found in the Gospels. The first idea is traditionally illustrated by separating Judas, the Traitor, from the other apostles, and showing Jesus feeding him a piece of bread dipped in wine. The second idea has John reclining his head against the Lord’s breast. Leonardo ignored both of these traditions, putting Judas in the midst of the disciples, with John leaning away from Jesus, toward Peter.

Some of this can be better understood when you know more about the subjects of the mural. The apostles are arranged in four groups of three. Starting on the left, Bartholomew, James Minor, and Andrew form the first group of three. All three looked surprised; Andrew even has his hands up as if to say, “stop!” The second group is made up of Judas, Peter, and John. (This point is disputed - John or Mary Magdelene? I believe it to be John, albeit a very feminine John, but he isn’t the only very female looking man Da Vinci ever painted. From here on, I’ll refer to him/her as John.) Judas is the only figure whose face is lost in shadow, possibly an indication that he is lost from the light of Christ. Peter seems to be angry, and the very feminine John looks like he’s about to faint. Jesus is seated in the center, his dominant position emphasized by the empty space around him. Directly to his right we find the next group of three, Thomas, James Major, and Philip. It seems Thomas is agitated, James Major very surprised, and Phillip seeking clarification. The last group of three consists of Matthew, Thaddeus, and Simon. Matthew and Thaddeus appear to be looking to Simon for explanation. Leonardo painted the disciples in this arrangement for two reasons. One reason was that it made expressive characterization of each apostle possible. The second reason involves the amazing technical perspective. Da Vinci’s use of perspective successfully creates an extension of the refectory and every aspect of the painting directs attention to the midpoint of the composition - Jesus Christ’s head. The discovery of a hole where there had once been a nail provides evidence of how Leonardo was able to see the perspective so clearly. He apparently radiated string in various directions from the nail, which is the key spacial focus of the mural, in order to create what is arguably the best example of one point perspective ever created. The depiction of Christ as the focal point of the perspective, and in the form of a triangle, symbolic of the trinity, implies calm and stability, while the facial expressions and body language of the disciples obviously shows their astonishment.

Da Vinci’s method of working on The Last Supper was unprecedented. The common mural painting medium of that time involved quickly applying paint to wet plaster before it dried. This did not suit Leonardo, who had a hesitant manner of execution and was prone to changing details during the course of his work. Always the inventor, he devised his own technique for mural painting, which had since been likened to tempera on stone. First the brick wall was coated with a base made of gesso, pitch, and mastic, that was meant to absorb the tempera emulsion and protect it from moisture. While it did result in a more varied palette, it has not proved durable. The paint soon began to break lose from the base, and decay was observed as early as 1517.

Aside from the problem of decay, the painting has suffered countless other disasters throughout the course of history. In 1796, the refectory was used as a stable by French troops, who, defying Napoleon’s orders, pelted the painting with clay. Some time after that, the room was used to store hay. Then, in 1800, a flood covered the entire painting with green mold. Later still, in 1943, the monastery was hit by bombs, which blew the roof off the refectory and destroyed much of the apse of Saint Maria. The painting has also been restored any number of times.

The earliest recorded restoration was done by Michelangelo Bellotti in 1726, and was based on the false premise that the painting was executed in an oil medium. It was cleaned with caustic solvents and covered in layers of oil and varnish. Later restorations occurred in 1770, 1853, and in 1903 when Luigi Cavengahi first used photographs as an aid. He was also the first restorer to discover that the mural had been done in tempera, not oil. Between1947 and 1949 Mauro Pelliccioli proceeded to clean the painting, anchoring the paint using shellac as a fixative, and lightened the overall tonality of the painting.

The most recent restoration, done by Pinin Brambilla Barcilion, was started in 1979, and ended in May of 1999. The renowned restoration artist used multiple new technologies to completely clean and restore Da Vinci’s masterpiece. She removed everything that had been added since the painting was finished in 1498 in an effort to restore it to its original state. The painstaking process would take 20 years and often took a whole day to clean an area the size of a postage stamp. Brambilla also added some basic color to blank areas, doing so in such a way that it would not be confused with the original paint. Other areas were left blank. The mural was reopened to the public in May of 1999. After all its been through, enough of Leonardo Da Vinci’s work remains for us to recognize his brilliance.

From the time he finished it, Leonardo’s The Last Supper has been surrounded bu mystery and intrigue, and has played a key role in several works, chief among them , The Da Vinci Code. Only Leonardo ever really knew whether the figure to the left of Jesus was Mary or John, and only Leonardo ever knew the real story about “Peter’s” hand - the seemingly disembodied one holding a knife. Later in the story, Peter would defend Jesus with the knife, so it makes sense for him to be holding it. What doesn’t make sense is the unnatural angle of the hand in relation to Peter’s body. Leonardo was brilliant with anatomy, so this can’t be explained away as a mistake. It has been said that he was subtly trying to say something about Judas. The hand is positioned at Judas’s back, the knife seemingly coming out of his back. And then there’s Andrew, looking horrified, hands straight up. He is even looking in Judas’s direction. (Shea). We can infer many different meanings, but we will never really know what Da Vinci meant by it.

• sources

Essak, Shelley. Leonardo Da Vinci, The Last Supper. 06 April 2005 <http://arthistory.about.com/cs/leonardo/a/ last_supper.htm>. The Last Supper. 1998-2000. 06 April 2005 <http://www.lairweb.org.nz/leonardo/supper.html>. Shea, Lisa. The Last Supper-The Mysterious Hand and Knife. 1990-2005. O6 April 2005 <http://www.lisashea.com/hobbies/art/handknife.html>. Bianco, Luigi. Da Vinci’s Last Supper. 08 May 2001. University of Pennsylvania: Computing and Humanities. 06 April 2005 <http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~lbianco/project/home.html>.

Comments

Discussion of the painting in this much detail should be kept to the article The Last Supper (Leonardo). I'm afraid that article already covers most of the same ground as the passage you've submitted (NB: you may want to read Wikipedia policy regarding original research) but there is some valuable info in your piece – I'm thinking of the traces of a nail on the vanishing point in particular. Two niggling points: You've written

In 1796, the refectory was used as a stable by French troops, who, defying Napoleon’s orders, pelted the painting with clay.

although one of your references seems to suggest that this was some time after 1796 (in that year the refectory was being used as a prison). Also, Wikipedia's Last Supper article gives the dates of Mauro Pellicolli's restoration as 1951-54; in the text above it's 1947-49. Which is right? A third, not so niggling point: please, please, never refer to Leonardo as "Da Vinci" – it's a fallacy that's already been discussed more than once on this talk page. Dan Brown has a lot to answer for. HAM 15:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)