Dietrich / ASalvatorMundiQuestionnaire

SPECIAL EDITION

MICROSTORY OF ART ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM A Salvator Mundi Questionnaire

It is Monday, 19 April, 2021, and it is time for a Salvator Mundi questionnaire: another set of microessays, but here, specifically dealing with and enlisting questions. Funny questions, but also very, very serious ones. I am suggesting some answers, my answers, but I am not stressing my answers, and, as a manual of use, I would recommend: prepare yourself with this questionnaire, and if ever one of these Salvator Mundi smartasses crosses your way, one of these superspreaders of superficial knowledge, confront him (or her!) with some of these questions. It will enhance everybody’s knowledge and foster serious scholarship. The two lists of questions (that have become, in some indirect ways I might say, part of the whole saga) are also to be found here.

---

Leonardo Fixation:

There are many frontal representations of Christ with a blessing hand, and with the hand raised high, that come from the Renaissance. Probably due to the Salvator Mundi frenzy there is a tendency to associate virtually all of these representations with Leonardo da Vinci, as if Leonardo had also invented the type.
But have you ever looked at a 14th century tryptic by (or attributed to) Giovanni del Biondo with this blessing Christ on top?

Because here we find, in Florentine art, a frontally represented Christ with a blessing hand and the hand raised high, obviously predating the High Renaissance. It might not be a representation of Christ as a Salvator Mundi, but this is not the point. The point is to relativize collective Leonardo fixation and Leonardo frenzy.

And to relativize it even more:

Are we to believe that no one else but Leonardo was capable of transforming the pictorial conventions of the 14th century into the pictorial language of the High Renaissance? And are we really to believe that Leonardo spent decades to think about how exactly to do it and finally to execute it (in a rather mediocre way).

And if we would think that, we would also ignore that such representations were ideal challenges for pupils, to learn how to appropriately represent Christ, and ideal for a workshop, because this type of picture was certainly as sought after as the picture of the Madonna (for which the Bellini workshop, as the one example at the time of Leonardo, had developed stereotypes).

And finally: why are scholars so certain that, even if some Salvator Mundi representations indeed come from Leonardo’s studio (or the studios of his followers), that Leonardo himself invented the design? Not even the two Windsor sheets are proof that Leonardo (and not Boltraffio, or Salaì, or Melzi) did that. Because there was not exactly much to invent. And one of the three drawings has traditionally been ascribed, due to its anatomical incorrectness, to a pupil.

Leonardo fixation has a flip side – it is the belittleing of the whole (and very heteregeneous) group of the Leonardeschi.

---

The More You Know About Leonardo:

(25.4.2021) People like to impress you by saying: ›The more you know about Leonardo, the more certain you are about this attribution.‹? And you feel intimidated, because you don’t know that much about Leonardo?
Here is the way to challenge these people:

Imagine that one leading Leonardo-scholar says: This face of Christ was painted by Leonardo. And another one says: No, only the better-preserved parts around the face were painted by Leonardo. Which means: these two scholars contradict each other diametrically as to the face. Which means that they cannot be both right. One of the leading scholars must be wrong. And they even can be both wrong (which we don’t know). But they cannot be both right. Period. It’s logic
Which means that one of two leading scholars is not able to recognize if a face of Christ was painted by Leonardo.
And do you think you get a better or worse quota by asking two people on the street?
And this is not an invented situation for a story.

---

The Pentimento (at your service):

(25.4.2021) You are thrilled by having found a pentimento? But all these people that are constantly repeating that ›pentimento means original‹ do confuse you? Here is the way to challenge them. In a brief, simple and effective way:

Imagine that ten pupils of Leonardo are working after a Salvator Mundi cartoon (a stereotype that they use as a model). One of ten is negligent and has to correct. Nine work carefully and don’t have to correct. And we get one Salvator Mundi painting with a pentimento (the error that had to be corrected coming through) and nine without. The modern art dealer says: The one with the pentimento is the original, this must be Leonardo; all the other are copies, because here the position of the hand is stable and shows the corrected state. But wait, he is wrong. All of them worked after a cartoon.

Which means: pentimento does not necessarily mean ›original‹. We have to find ways that allow us to say it means either ›people working after a cartoon‹ or ›master’s original, because his decision to change something shows here‹. And if you decide for one interpretation you have to say why (whether you are an art dealer, or Louvre people).

---

Journalism:

After viewing the Salvator Mundi documentary by Antoine Vitkine several things crossed my mind, and I am going to reveal here one or two of these things. First of all, I am perhaps not alone in wondering why it seems that some journalism comes out relatively well or very well or even brilliantly well in the context of the Salvator Mundi saga, and why on earth, Leonardo scholarship does come out, in the overall picture, so horrificly bad?

Is it

a) because good journalists know the notion of bias, because it is part of their professional training to think about it, while, on the other hand, many, all-too-many art historical scholars seem not to know the notion of bias (nor that of the valid argument and the not-valid argument), because, during their professional training, they are never confronted with these notions (i.e. with the elementary theory of science)?

or is it
b) because possibly a gigantic blunder has been commited by one of the so-called ›leading scholars‹, who could not be contradicted, since it is one of the laws of power not to contradict your superior, while it is also one of the laws of convenience not to contradict your colleague? Which would mean that, in secret, many substantial things might be going on of which we simply hear nothing, until Leonardo scholarship would awake from its state of paralysis and be realeased to new creativity (rather unlikely).

or is it
c) all of the above?

ps: it is not necessary to remind me that there is also some horrificly bad journalism. And in case you tend now to jump to the topic of ›but a majority of Leonardo scholars does say…‹, please jump to the topic ›Majority‹ below.

---

Specific Question, A:

Here is a specific question for the New York Times which, in a recent article, repeated, as a fact, the view that the Salvator Mundi once was in the collection of the English king Charles I. It goes:

How exactly do you know that it was not the Detroit version of the Salvator Mundi that was the picture that once was in the collection of Charles I (and as such mentioned in some inventories)?

ps: If you don’t know or if you are not able to rule out the possibility that it was indeed the Detroit picture, please don’t repeat as a fact which is nothing but a hypothesis.

---

Majority:

Every now and then I am hearing (but not being pronounced with boasting confidence anymore) that a ›majority of Leonardo scholars would stand behind the attribution of the famous Salvator Mundi to Leonardo da Vinci. My questions are these:

1) Who decides over who is being part of serious Leonardo scholarship and who is not, and based on what criteria? Someone from inside or outside? From one, some or all countries? From one, some or all academic tribes? From one, two or all sexes?

2) Would it not be appropriate to have Leonardo and Leonardeschi scholars to pronouce their views as to the authorship of the Salvator Mundi, since it it is about the question whether it is by Leonardo or by one of the Leonardeschi (or both)? I have already said above that there is a long tradition of belittleling the Leonardeschi within Leonardo scholarship, but here it is about the belittleling of Leonardeschi scholars.

3) Is it nowadays a democratic matter if an argument (or a set of arguments) is to be considered valid or not? In other words: Is it not substantially irrelevant to count the number of people who agree on something, if their argument carries no weight (is inconsistent, implausible, biased or whatever)? In other words: why counting votes (opinions) if there is the chance to weigh (to check) the arguments? Isn’t counting for mere rhetorical use?

ps: I am seeing the question on the horizon if I consider myself to be a Leonardo scholar or not. Yes, I do. Check out my Leonardo monograph which was the outcome of a Swiss research project directed by me. Leonardo scholarship is not the only thing I do (nor was it), and it is not what I am doing right now. But I have also published extensively on the history and theory of connoisseurship, which indirecly includes much Leonardo-scholarship (as also the history of it). Right now I am in the mood rather to be counted among Leonardeschi scholars (see: Journalism; above). And perhaps I may add that I am the author of the only existing paper so far on the topic ›confirmation bias in connoisseurship‹, which, among other things suggest a criterion of quality for attribution processes.

---

On the left the Leonardeschi cabinet from our virtual Louvre show: two loans (the Columbia museum’s ›Scorpio lady‹ and the Salvator Mundi), appropriatedly grouped with the Louvre’s own Vierge aux balances.

On the right the autograph stars from Leonardo’s late work. (This grouping does not reflect any certainties – I would not be claiming that –, but a working towards such certainties that takes into account the problem of confirmation bias; for our reasons see my Salvator Mundi Microstories and particularly my Salvator Mundi Afterhoughts).

Booklet, The:

It has now been leaked three times (not to me). And although I don’t have it, I am inclined to say that it might be the real embarassment of the Louvre. The booklet itself.
Although I don’t have read it, I am inclined to say that the arguments from the booklet, as leaked, are not worth anything, because they are just redolent of the type of confirmation bias that was part of the saga from the beginning.
Please spare me with walnut. We know the picture is on walnut (and I like walnut) – which might be mentioned as a clue that it is a Lombard production. Do we really have to start on that level? Apart from the question that dendrochronology has been applied to walnut (but not to the Salvator Mundi), because the test can be applied, given that the region in question has oaks. And Lombardy certainly has oaks.
Again: I am not reviewing a booklet I don’t have, but the question any serious reader in the future has to ask is

Does the booklet deal with the wealth of criticism that has been uttered in the meantime (let’s say since 2018) or not? Does it consider the criticism of bias? What does it mean something (a ›barely perceptible‹ underdrawing) is ›similar‹ to works of Leonardo (any work of the Leonardeschi has multiple matches with works of Leonardo – and based on such comparisons all the gigantic blunders of the past have been committed!)? What exactly does ›similar‹ mean here? Has the Louvre really made comparisons in both directions? Why is it that another French expert (Jacques Franck) contradicts that the underdrawing does match the habits of Leonardo (but matches those of a pupil). Does it matter that pentimenti are found in works by the Leonardeschi as well (as also mentioned and shown by Franck). And so on.

What really happened in Paris is not transparent for an outside observer, but it seems that, after some of the besaid wealth of criticism reached the circles of Parisian experts certainly it stimulated and accentuated already existing controversy. If this is true, why considering the views of one (booklet) party alone? Be transparent and have us review the whole process. As long as this is not possible, parties will pick pieces of information and present them within their respective narratives, give it particular spin and frame it within alleged certainties.

Further questions (21.4.2021): Why does the Louvre not just release the technical dossiers and images without voicing an opinion or interpretation? This would also help to understand why neither Dianne Modestini nor Christie’s detected much of an underdrawing (while also using the infraredreflectography technique). Further: what exactly was or is the point of the infraredreflectography within Christie’s sales catalogue that simply showed the restoration in terms of a technical image (check for the newly painted thumb of the blessing hand, newly painted by Modestini)? Couldn’t it be that people, expecting to see an underdrawing, might take the image that stacks a representation of the new restoration upon ›nothing‹ for an underdrawing?

---

Wreck-Theory, The Ambiguity of the:

(24.4.2021) Okay, it seems that this is necessary: here is my attempt to explain the recent Parisian Salvator Mundi turmoil (or »taradiddle«, if you like it better). It is called ›The Ambiguity of the Wreck-Theory‹.

Remember the days when it was said that the – or better: some – leading scholars unanimously supported the Leonardo attribution? In truth one of them, Pietro C. Marani, revealed in an interview that, if he had said yes to this ›Leonardo‹, he had meant that only the ›better-preserved‹ parts had been done by Leonardo. Not the face, though. The better-preserved parts around the face, ringlets, blessing hand, whatever. Brief: a ›faceless‹ Leonardo. This is, basically, what I am calling the wreck-theory. Leonardo, yes, but only parts of it regarding the painting as it is now. The rest is whatever it is: parts ruined by old restoration, workshop contribution, later overpainting, newly painted ›flashy‹ restoration, whatever.
One might mention now or not that Marani’s position was or is literally light years away from what Martin Kemp thinks. Because Kemp stresses the ›communicative presence‹ of the painting. And this cannot be thought without the gaze.
But did these leading scholars care about their differences, did they discuss them? – It seems that this was never the case and I found this rather shocking then as I am still finding this shocking now.
Now we have 2021, and it seems to me that Louvre curator Vincent Delieuvin was or is rather inclined to follow Marani’s line: Leonardo, yes. We think that a ›barely perceptible‹ underdrawing is by Leonardo, and that the better-preserved parts ›invite us to privilege‹ an autograph attribution.
So far so good, but now imagine those people studying the already notorious booklet whose job it was to report back to President Emmanuel Macron. Prepared probably also by materials provided by rebel expert Jacques Franck they must have cared mainly for one question: do we have here a 100% pure and authentic Leonardo painting that we might place next to the Mona Lisa? And it would be interesting to know if these people were prepared to find something as ambiguous as what I am calling the wreck-theory: Leonardo, yes, it probably was an autograph painting. We do believe so on the basis of underdrawing and best preserved parts. But for someone asking: is this a 100 percent pure and authentic Leonardo, the wreck theory translates into: Leonardo only contributed to this painting as it is now (because, apart from the authentic rest, it has lots of other ingredients). And this we do not consider as a 100 percent authentic picture, and we do not want to place that next to the Mona Lisa. Brief: in the very essence there was probably no misunderstanding that the painting, as it is now, is ‹Leonardo slash wreck‹.
One could also imagine that there were some misunderstandings in the process as to the rest (workshop? or only abrasion and old and too aggressive restoration campaigns?) And perhaps there have also been two campaigns of technical investigations as Franck suggests, coming to inverse results, in 2018 and in 2019 respectively, I don’t know this, but it is also rather irrelevant as to explaining what might have happened in 2019).
All we have is the booklet as leaked, and the wreck-theory is ambiguous to the extreme, because it has one imaginary aspect. Marani, namely, in his mind, had completed the wreck. By proposing this theory. Inviting to privilege and to place an authentic Leonardo in our mind, as one might say. Although nobody knows how it once might have looked like if indeed it once was an autograph picture. And this – one has to say it, also invited to all kinds of misunderstandings, but people who are told to see a Leonardo see a Leonardo and not something they have to complete like a painting by numbers piece.
And the wreck theory can also be given a certain spin. Although I don’t have the booklet, as I said repeatedly, I am imagining that it actually says loud and clear yes to the Leonardo. But then it only ›murmurs‹: but a wreck. And from what I have heard the technical investigation had aimed at determining how much old overpainting there was or still is. It is interesting that we hearing not much of that from the leakers. Because, obviously you can stress the Leonardo or the wreck. And the booklet, in style and politeness, probably was a concession to the owners. Leonardo, yes, and ›wreck‹ a softly, softly spoken word (that some factions don’t want to hear and some journalists, that obviously also do not know the beautiful and modest technical lecture once published by Dianne Modestini, especially are not able to hear).

It remains to be added that personally I do think that the wreck theory is rubbish, because if the painting was a wreck it would not show similarities with the ›Scorpio lady from Columbia‹ anymore (a Boltraffio attributed painting; see above on the left). And the similarities are so obvious that I have little doubt that these two paintings, Salvator Mundi and ›Scorpio lady‹ come from the same kitchen.

---

Five Neglected Reference Pictures:

Before we (again) name our five neglected reference pictures: let’s give a warm welcome to the new addition to the swarm: from Spain – the Pontevedra Salvator Mundi, a version that is obviously (check the blessing hand and the face with its asymmetric mouth!) related to the Detroit group (although it has now, again arbitrarily in my view, been authenticated by Martin Kemp as coming from Leonardo’s workshop).

Since today (6.12.2019) the Financial Times played with the notion of Schrödinger’s cat (as for the Abu Dhabi version, which might, in the author’s opinion, be both, dead and alive, authentic and not authentic, fully autograph and not fully autograph), we’d like also to stress that connoisseurship is not merely about conflicting intuitions, as the author also suggests. It might well be that the outcome of the whole debate will be that everything will remain a matter of belief (this, in fact, I consider to be the most likely scenario), but we are not yet at that point. And connoisseurship is, or should be, about reflected comparisons in the first place, about arguments and not about mere intuitions. If we would agree now that everything will remain a matter of belief, we would allow a case be settled, without important comparisons being discussed.

And therefore I would like to remind again the five pictures that, after careful comparisons, I consider to be the most interesting and important reference pictures:

– the Louvre’s Vierge aux balances; its author is unknown and therefore called the ›Master of the Vierge aux balances‹;

– the Columbia museum’s Portrait of a Young Woman with [without] a Scorpion Chain; it had been under suspicion to be a 19th century fake (the Pedretti camp had contradicted); by Boltraffio? or by Cesare da Sesto? or by another, unknown follower?;

– a picture of Christ that Federico Zeri had attributed to Francesco Melzi (therefore I call it simply the ›Zeri Melzi‹);

– and two pictures by Cesare da Sesto (plus workshop, probably); his one Madonna and Child with the Lamb of God (with the pebbles in the foreground; see picture), and the Hermitage picture with its very good hands;

Why is Leonardo and also Raphael influenced Cesare da Sesto a particular interesting reference as regards ›our‹ central picture? Because Cesare is known to have cooperated with another painter named Cesare Bernazzano, a Milanese who was a specialist for landscape (of rather Flemish character?) and all things natural. If for example the separately lit pebbles (mentioned also in Ben Lewis’ book), appear to be a Cesare trademark (similar scattered spots of light are also to be found in other pictures), it seems that we rather have to think of Cesare Bernazzano than of Cesare da Sesto. And the comparison between the Abu Dhabi Salvator Mundi’s orb with its separately lit inclusions and the trademark in Cesare attributed pictures is particularly interesting.

For more details as to the comparisons check the earlier series of Salvator Mundi related mini essays, because, for the moment, I am closing this window to the fascinating world of Salvator Mundi studies, frenzies, manias and other landscapes, because I am busy in the world of Modernism and also in the world of Asian Art. The five series of essays I have collected now as A Salvator Mundi Encyclopedia.

(6.12.2019)

---

Flora bust, (The good old):

They chose Leonardo’s birthday (15 April) to settle another Hundred Years War in attribution: the good old Flora bust (Bode Museum, Berlin), may it rest in peace, is not by Leonardo (picture of the wax bust by Daderot).
›So they say‹, I am hearing. And another Hundred Years War might be in preparation. But hopefully not, and no art historical scholar does understand much of calibring anyway (and it had to be a war on calibring methods).
Only recently there was a documentary on ARTE, that covered the case, and with a curator keen to go the extramile, if only the slightest possibility for maintaining a Leonardo attribution would show.
As many of the old battles, this long war, might serve as an example. But people do not like to learn from the past. Rather they fight wars about what should be learned from it (see also: Who decides; below).

---

Who decides?:

I once had the privilege to discuss with Martin Kemp, and over the question who should decide in matters of attribution. The public, the expert? Or who else?
I am not leaking what was said then, in 2014, and in a more or less private circle. Here are some thoughts on the question as I tend to see it now:

My view is a decidedly sociological one: everybody, the expert, the man or woman on the street, journalists, public players of any kind, all these actors make decisions. But what happens in society at large, insofar society is interested in matters of attribution at all, is not the result of one steering impulse. It is the result of all impulses, and ideas – about who should decide – play a role, but also not a determining role. The result is called emergence, which may sound sophisticated, but it is just the chaotic result, if there is not the one steering impulse.
There is a fight over public opinion, certainly. But does it matter? People might win it for some reasons, and some of these reasons might have nothing to do with reason or scholarly quality. But the point is: there are no final decisions. This is an illusion. There are at best conventions. The truths of some circles become textbook truths, at best. But new generations of scholars with challenge them. And they should.
This does not mean that the fight for quality, at any point in time, is pointless. Controversy should be respectful, and every actor should be committed to ideals. But this, of course is one of the besaid ideas, and it is just an ideal (of promoting better knowledge). We see mudslinging right now, and the sad truth is, that it is also about the reputation of scholars that will be affected if some win over public opinion. And reputation (an attribution of some sort) can be lost (de-attributed). Again, the result of such results is not permament. It is emergence as well. And this is the overall frame I would like to give the saga of the Salvator Mundi as I see it just now.

---

Lists:

– Did Father (Joseph) Hirst of Ratcliffe College bring the Salvator Mundi from Italy, or was bought in England by his father Joseph Hirst of Leeds, or inherited by the latter Hirst’s wife (Anna Maria?), or was it brought from Ireland by the couple’s son-in-law Edward McSheehy?

– When will conflicting interpretations among proponents of a Salvator Mundi attribution to Leonardo da Vinci (as a wholly autograph picture) be adressed and discussed (conflicting interpretations as to the interpretation of the thumb pentimento, as to the authenticity of the face, but also as to the quality of lapislazuli)?

– Will proponents of a wholly autograph attribution declare how they handled the problem of confirmation bias, or will it be up to the critics of such an attribution to detect confirmation bias (everywhere in the proponents’ case)?

– How many times has the Salvator Mundi been compared to pictures by Leonardo da Vinci, and how many times to pictures by Leonardo’s pupils and followers?

– Wouldn’t it be better to distinguish more sharply between restoration in terms of integration and restoration in terms of (re-)interpretation (of a ruin)?
– And: as far as restoration in terms of interpretation is concerned: wouldn’t it be better to restore just digitally, because any consensus among scholars might be called into question any time, while an experimental restoration could not easily be taken back?

– Would’t it be better to hand the problem of the Salvator Mundi’s attribution to the next generation of scholars, since the matter cannot be freely discussed under the present circumstances (any concession of errors would be too damaging)?
– And: wouldn’t the next generation of scholars be well advised to handle this question just hypothetically (withough moving on all-too-fast from hypothesis to certainty)?

– Given our apocalyptic age: is the whole Salvator Mundi saga an expression of our age’s ultimate decadence rather than it is an expression of our age as such?

(30.11.2019)

And here my ›old list‹ of questions (not that many have been answered in the mean time, that is: since winter of 2017/18):

– Why does the Christ of the painting show beardless, if it is supposed to be the model for the Hollar etching (some seem to assume that the paint layers of the face are intact, and some don’t)?

– Is exclusive optical knowledge absent or present in the painting?

– Is the lapis lazuli used for the robe of »extraordinarily fine quality« (Nica Rieppi, as quoted by Time) or »rather coarse and contains particles of quartz« (restorer Dianne Dwyer Modestini; online brochure as provided by Christie’s, p. 71; and Modestini goes on to say: »I have wondered whether it was made by merely crushing the mineral rather than being the product of the elaborate process of extraction used in Tuscany.«)?

- Are the pentimenti to be interpreted as more than mere corrections or as mere corrections?

– Can it be excluded that the picture mentioned in the inventories of English Royal collections is the painting of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts?

– Why is the ›omega-shape‹ in the drapery, to be found in the preparatory sketches, lacking in the New York painting, while it does show in other versions, supposedly derived from or later as the New York version?

– How do the experts who do not mention the Vincenzo Monti testimony interpret it?

---

Upcoming Revisions (possibly upcoming):

I have two suggestions to make:

1) Since we have little reflection on what the notion of ›workshop‹ actually does mean in the case of Leonardo (the notions of ›workshop‹, ›circle‹, ›follower‹ are very cloudy), but since we also have – with the Pala Grifi – a ›window‹ into the world of his ›circle‹ (this was a pre-1500 commission Boltraffio and Marco d’Oggiono worked on as a team, and it was their own commission) one should use the model of the Pala Grifi to think about various models of how the relation of Leonardo and his followers can be thought. Because the assistants were, obviously, also freelancers, while being attached to Leonardo. And one should also think about what that might mean regarding the Salvator Mundi.

2) Only recently scholarship has begun to discuss the phenomenon of so-called ›belated Leonardism‹. This might be defined as: ›the second generation of followers that begun to study Leonardo again more closely, after the first generation had also tended to move away from him‹. And we have also to think about what that might mean regarding the production of Salvator Mundi pictures. What about Gerolamo Figino, for example? Who is now thought to have worked with (or have been influenced by) Francesco Melzi. And Melzi had been still young, when Leonardo had died in 1519, and had not only inherited his master’s manuscripts, but also his workshop materials. And although new Melzi scholarship has been conducted in recent years (by Rossana Sacchi), we still seem to know rather little, what this pupil of Leonardo actually might have done with these materials.

---

Who will save me from myself?:

Above I said that one or two things crossed my mind while and after viewing the documentary by Antoine Vitkine. Here is another thing. I put this at the end of this series of microessays. But this is serious. Dead serious and sinister.
What crossed my mind when seeing the film, seeing all these people speaking more frankly, or less frankly, laughing, speaking body language, or doing whatever they did, was the question: Do I have somebody to save me from myself (if it would be necessary)?
And the irony that a work of art is the MacGuffin of a bizarre saga, with the potential layers of meaning of this particular work of art hardly ever being addressed is striking. It is obvious that it is mainly about the relic of a myth, not about the spiritual or intellectual value of something. And the saga today (era of a batshit virus) certainly is mainly of worth as escapism. But we need also escapism from escapism from time to time, and this is my path. It is not even a spiritual question, but what about, as a journalist, a writer, a scholar, to have somebody around who, in case it would be necessary, would save me from myself? There had to be somebody around, and in some cases, it seemed, that there had been no one.

---

See also: A Salvator Mundi Provenance

Some Salvator Mundi Microstories

Some Salvator Mundi Afterthoughts

Some Salvator Mundi Variations

Leonardeschi Gold Rush

A Salvator Mundi Geography

A Salvator Mundi Atlas

Index of Leonardiana

MICROSTORY OF ART ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM A Salvator Mundi Questionnaire

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM
HOME

---

Top of the page

Microstory of Art Main Index

Dietrich Seybold Homepage

---

© DS