For years, Fiona McLaren ignored the old painting, which was a gift to her father from a grateful patient, but after embarking on a painstaking analysis of the portrait, she now believes it to be a final, unfinished painting by the Italian Old Master.
Her book, Da Vinci’s Last Commission: The Most Sensational Detective Story In The History Of Art, is being published to coincide with the Edinburgh International Book Festival, which starts next week. According to McLaren, the painting also contains clues indicating that Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code was actually based on historical truth not just the inventive fiction that Jesus Christ had a love affair with Mary Magdalene and their relationship produced children.
She argues that the painting was commissioned by King Francis I of France and is not a painting of the Madonna and Child but of Mary Magdalene cradling either Jesus as an infant or Jesus’s own child.
So much for the hope this whole Da Vinci Code lunacy would go away after the popularity of Dan Brown’s book diminished. But some people still cling to it as if it’s ACTUAL HISTORY.
As Professor Martin Kemp of Art History at Oxford University says in the article, there are two aspects of these outrageous claims.
First, what is the picture of and who made it? That’s rather important as this is not, at the time being, validated as a true Leonardo da Vinci piece. Secondly, why would da Vinci (and others of the era) paint pictures with codes in them that people wouldn’t decode for centuries? Seems rather pointless, doesn’t it?
Why was this not authenticated FIRST?
It’s hard not to just assume that this woman is trying to create publicity for her book. There is no good evidence for such claims.