In mainstream history, Leonardo Davinci is depicted as genius. All praise is cast upon this figure historically. Films and books alike by diverse authors repeat the same familiar outlines of a "genius", "thinker", "vast intellect" and "man of Science and Reason", "inventor".
However, historical "idols" have a way of being more myth than reality. My particular interest is not so much in his perverse abuse of corpses which has been reframed as "scientific interest", as so many modern Mengele's are funded by governments across the whole earth under similiar auspices... it is with the painting "Mona" or "Mona Lisa".
**I propose he is more 'James Franco' plus Hannibal Lector with the lecherousness of John Rhys-Davies. And a wicked thief. **
To be truthful is to acknowledge that 1) the painting of the unknown woman is a departure from known painting styles 2) the quality exceeds all of Davinci's prior works 3) Davinci had understudies who were more talented than he was.
It was therefore, a convenience to a man who desecrated corpses - we are told ones he pilfered at night with aid - but in actuality were likely live prisoner inmates handed to him during his commissions in various important masonic positions around France, Italy and other places of high society he frequented.
Source: https://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/mona_lisa/mlevel_1/m3technique.html
***Comment on Citation: Imagine that, as with historical narratives about old world mega structures, Leonardo so managed to create a wholly new art style too that was not common to his contemporary society! This hints at the true painter's origin, perhaps from beyond the countries Leo frequented ***
By no means a "commoner", Davinci was of the stock of Machiavelli, born and bred within high society. His interests were in cutting up bodies. He took live and dead bodies. He performed expiriments on both and delighted in these acts.
Lastly, he stole and took a perverse pleasure in destroying young artists - by reputational arson, and by taking their young wives to himself. What could they say of the great Davinci with a reputation the size of the 'globe' itself?
The reality, if one were to look at the myths presented today as fact about this fiend: a perverse, sick and highly connected individual took on all the merits of better minds, ambitious hearts and then was lifted by way of faux historians a la human bridge.
Consider:
- Would Davinci be seen a different "type" of inventor and genius if he took live prisoners to "investigate the human body" and for "scientific reason on human anatomy"?
- Would Davinci's purchase of corpses (for to move corpses requires more than two people, especially when dealing with authorities who protect bodies from robbers and desecration) be seen as a deviant behavior if it was not done for scientific purposes as he is mythologized as?
- Why is his bribing of officials for prisoners (live) and taking the bodies from cemeteries not mentioned as often as his great reasoning mind? Is deviance then also a counterpart of his genius, or only the tip of the iceberg of an insane madman Italian mason?
- Why did Mona Lisa, the painting we know today, still have no identification when patrons and commissions typically have documentation, especially with a high paid man such as Davinci? If majority of his charges came with papers from certain people, we would have proof it was his painting done by his hand
- Why did Mona Lisa painting use a completely different art style and not his own crude and basic painting skills?
- Why did Davinci hold courses with young aspiring students who had already been trained?
- Why are the current "historians" simply regurgitating myth with scant evidence of his actual accomplishment? Who are these men and why are they adamant about being a human bridge for this perverse killer psychopath?
Now granted, the world will just continue in lavishing praise upon the man based upon myths of television shows, movies, books and "historians" who speak so authoritatively on a topic they have shallowly investigated using other boastful accountants of his "genius".
For you, the reader, this shall be a test. Have you looked into this genius and his claims to genius? Would he still seem the great man to you if the bodies were given to him not for science but for his perverse pleasure?
In our day and age, serial killers are pop stars. Why would it be any different with him, a person idolized for the last several hundred years?
The Mona Lisa was stolen from a younger artist who was working for or "studying" under Davinci. He frequently enjoyed abusing the wives of the students he had under him.