Talk:Salaì

Claims

I do find the ridiculous and fanciful claims tiresome! The article that claims that the Mona Lisa has initials in her eyes says this week that they are "L" for Leonardo and "S" for Salai. Guess what! Last week they found his mother's initials in her eyes. Microscopic of course, so that no normal person could read them! Next week they will find the algebraic solution of x to the n minus y to the n times x to the n plus y to the n tattooed across her bosom.

The same article refers to Salai as "effeminate". We have absolutely no indication that Salai was "effeminate". Where did that come from? He lied, stole, and acted like an absolute rascal. That doesn't suggest effeminacy. He died fighting a duel. That doesn't suggest effeminacy. The fact that he had long pretty blonde hair doesn't make him effeminate. So does Zakk Wylde.

There is of course a real possibility that Leonardo's relationship with his favourite pupils was sexual in nature. But there is no definite proof. Those who want to push the case that he had a pederast relationship with them cite a letter that Melzi wrote that said that Leonardo's love for his students was "passionate and (literally) from the guts" (in other words "deep seated"). An English writer would use the term "heart-felt" and equate "guts" with courage rather than love. Such expressions don't always translate directly, so it may appear to mean more than intended. Those who push this letter as an indication of sexual rather than paternal love carefully omit to give the context in which Melzi was writing. Melzi wrote this in his letter to Leonardo's siblings to inform them of their brother's death. Leonardo's relationship with the brothers was strained over his father's will (they tried to disinherit him because of his illegitimacy). I cannot believe that Melzi intended to indicate (to the brothers) anything more than the fact that Leonardo had always treated his students with love.

None-the-less, the "John the Baptist" remains a disturbingly sensuous and challenging work.

Amandajm (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here wants to push anything, at least I don't. But those are widespread theories in multiple reliable sources that need to be included in this article. I would suggest borrowing from Leonardo da Vinci's personal life#Personal relationships but I am not knowledgeable enough to try. Regards SoWhy 14:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the fact that the theories exist needs to be acknowledged in the article. And you have done so.

One of the reasons why I created that Personal relationships page was that a few years ago the whole of the main Leonardo da Vinci article had been hijacked by an editor who was pushing a case for pederasty (rather than a homosexual realtionship between adults). There was huge wads of quotations from some book as reference to his case. People got quite furious and there was a general edit war, until I made the new page and let them write about it at length. I then filled the main article with a discussion of his life and works, and it has stayed very stable for years now. Which is good, because all the kids use it for their school assignments. Amandajm (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just had a look to see if I could find a good reference in the other article, but couldn't pick one out. About that statement that Melzi replaced Salai in Leonardo's affections, it is only someone's theory. Unless we have possitive evidence that this was the case. The facts are that Melzi was a stable and devoted person who presumably didn't mind moving fom Italy to France with his aging patron. The notion that it was about change of affection would need real support, such as a letter from Salai saying petulantly "Well, now you've got him you don't need me!" If the writer of the book cannot cite something definite, then it shouldn't be included. It's enough to say "After Melzi came into Leonardo's househols...." or somrthing like that. Amandajm (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The portrait of Salai

My gut feeling.... (more guts)... is that it is an early work by the artist known as Giampietrino who was quite a prolific and talented painter. That picture is rather amateurish, but it would be consistent with Giampietrino's work, if he was only a lad himself at the time that he did it. It doesn't look particularly like the work of any other notable pupil. That's my attribution, anyway, but it can't be put in here. Amandajm (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Johnny-Peter stuff you can write up for a learned article. But in this one, why not mention that poor old Salai got himself shot in a duel? Are we trying to protect the kiddies? PiCo (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the Penises on legs part actually legit?

If so, then Leonardo was awesome.--70.70.13.203 (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's presumed to have been drawn by Leonardo, but he had a number of young male artists who were students or collaborators and it might have bee drawn by someone else. Amandajm (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: this line "A folio by Leonardo includes a page of drawings by a hand other than Leonardo's, one of which is a crudely drawn sketch depicting an anus, identified as "Salaì's bum", pursued by penises on legs." I think the source used has a clear slant - how well-established is it that the drawing depicts "Salaì's bum"? Looking at the drawing, it's hard to say for sure what's happening with the penises and Salaì's alleged bum, IMO. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I cannot read what is written near the alleged bum, but apparently it identifies it as Salai's bum.

The entire drawing is mighty suspect. Pedretti said that when he first examined the folio, the drawings of the bicycle, the head, the penises and the alleged bum were not there. Then, during the restoration of the manuscript, a couple of pages went missing, and next time they were seen, there was the bicycle and other drawings. The people who had the manuscript denied that the pages that hed "gone missing" were the same pages that then reappeared with the drawings.

The bicycle wheels are actually traced over the marks that show through from the other side, and are part of a diagram about optics or something of the sort. All the pics are so badly drawn that it is clear that none of them were drawn by Leonardo.

It has been suggested by people who want to believe that the bicycle was Leonardo's idea, that Leonardo described his idea to a student who the drew it. The problem with that is that no student would have drawn as badly as these drawings. If they did, then they would not be a pupil of Leonardo.

Also, the bike has been drawn by someone who knows about bicycles gears and pedals, not by someone who has never seen one, but has been told about a hypothetical machine that you can ride in this way (if you were to make one.

The drawings were done by the same hand. (by someone who drew very badly) But they have been cleverly contrived: A face wearing a cap similar to the young boy Francesco Melzi who was in Leonardo's studio when Salia was a young man, a drawing of a supposed "invention", and a drawing that appears to implicate leonardo as a homosexual.

It is a blatant and very crude forgery. But some people want to believe in it none-the-less.

It leaves us no wiser as to whether Salai was homo-sexual or not, and says nothing about Leonardo. Amandajm (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating! Wish we could put more of your explanation into the article - perhaps if we could find references? I think it may also be good to be clearer that a bicycle like the one drawn predates its real-life counterpart - to which looks nearly identical - by a few centuries. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the point that you are making about the bicycle. The bicycle, like the other drawings on the page, is a fake.

But there are people out there who are still arguing the point, and want to believe that Leonardo came up with the idea. When one points out that it is hopelessly badly draw, and that Leonardo could not have drawn it so incompetently, the argument comes back, "He must have described his idea to a student."

This is not the case, unless the student was a very very astute listener, an exceptional mechanic, fully grasped the concept of something he hadn't seen, and yet had such abysmally poor drawing skills that every line is crude and clumsy, and he drew the pedals further down than the wheels.

This is a very unlikely scenario. The bicycle has plainly been drawn by someone who knows what a bike is like, but draws badly.

The combination of the drawings is a joke that has been set up by someone who had access to the manuscript, specifically to get the experts razzed up.

A discussion of the bike doesn't really belong on the Salai page. If you look at the Leonardo da Vinci talk page, it' discussed there a bit more fully.

With regards to whether or not either Salai or Leonardo was homosexual, nobody knows for certain, but the evidence points to Salai being LGBT because there are a number of pictures in which a young man who is presumed to be Salai appears in an androgynous or erotic manner. One of these is the John the Baptist painting which is in the Louvre and is universally attributed to Leonardo. (As far as I know, I am the only person that believes that it is not by Leonardo.) If leonardo painted Salai in that manner, which is very odd for John the Baptist, then presumably it indicates something about the way that he perceived the young man. However, I believe that Leonardo never painted anything with such poor anatomy and such lack-lustre hair.

Some people, ever since the mid 16th century, a couple of decades after Leonardo's death, have liked the idea that Leonardo might have had a pederast relationship with his young pupils. This scenario was written into an erotic novel, entirely without basis.

In the twentieth century this theme has been picked up. Apart from the John the Baptist paint (which proves nothing) there is an erotic drawing of Salai with an erection. It is well-drawn, but not necessarily by Leonardo. It is based on a genuine drawing by Leonardo, but given the erection and a humorous slant on the name, suggesting the young man is a fallen angel.

The two other pieces of evidence that have been seized upon are 1. a statement by Vasari, the biographer, that when Salai was a little boy, (ten) Leonardo loved his beautiful long curling hair. (Of course he did. He was an artist) 2. When Leonardo died, his pupil Melzi wrote "He had a passionate and gut-felt (translates as "heartfelt") love for his students". This statement, taken out of context, has been used to suggest a homosexual relationship. In context, it is part of the letter that Melzi wrote to Leonardo's step-brothers to say that he was dead, and includes the statement "He was the dearest father to us".

It seems most unlikely that Salai's relationship with Leonardo was ever other than that of a very difficult stepson. But there are people who want to have it otherwise.

Th penises on legs, in combination with the bicycle (invention) the face and a diagram are probably intended to convey a message about Leonardo. But the drawings are so bad that the joke falls flat. Amandajm (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Fact and speculation

I have separated the two. One is led to think that Salai was almost certainly actively homosexual. Whether Leonardo was or not is much less clear. Amandajm (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Authorship of the portrait of Salai

That portrait of Salai is not by Leonardo. It is clearly by a lesser painter. Possibly by Giampietrino while a young student. It is too amateurish to be the work of a mature student.

Carlo Pedretti has recently claimed (or has been claimed to have claimed) that several paintings which are clearly the work of Giampietrino are by Leonardo.

Sometimes these are not so much direct claims as fuzzy statements that then get misinterpreted as being a clearly stated opinion. For example, when asked if a picture is by Leonardo, Pedretti might say "Leonardo did several drawings like that", and this is taken as confirmation that the painting is by Leonardo.

I have no idea what the status of the claim is in this case, but no-one else with expertise has recently claimed this to be by Leonardo. He had a workshop full of pupils.

Amandajm (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Death

Why is there such a drought of information regarding Salai's death? The fact that he was killed in a crossbow duel would seem to be an interesting nugget worth exploring further. Who was this duel against? What prompted it? Does anybody know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.110.217 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

So intriguing

It is intriguing that the letters which form "Mona Lisa" can be rearranged to form "Mon Salai".

Did Leonardo choose to spend years doing the Mona Lisa portrait because the letters which form ”Mona Lisa” can be rearranged to form ”Mon Salai”? Or did he choose to live with Salai for years because the letters which form ”Mon Salai” can be rearranged to form ”Mona Lisa”, which was what interested him all along? Or is it, perhaps, not very intriguing at all?2001:1BA8:143A:E300:2DDD:8820:AB60:325B (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the way to go "talking", layout wise and whatnot, but... Doesn't the title "Mona Lisa" come from Vasari's description of the painting rather than it being originally given by Da Vinci? If so, is it relevant that the letters can be re-arranged, or shouldn't it at least be noted?93.108.59.70 (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the name at the time was La Gioconda, as evidenced in Salai's estate documents. I think we should remove this reference from the article, unless anyone has a reliable source to back it up. Dan88888 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)