We all love a good yarn about Vatican secrets. What are those wacky prelates up to now? But what a great tale it would be if one the Vatican's own treasures -- Michelangelo's bravura painting of the Sistine chapel ceiling and front wall -- was laden with anti-Catholic messages and secret insults against popes?
That's the idea behind Sistine Secrets. The book sets the stage by discussing little-known tales of artists embedding secret messages in their art. How many know, for instance, that sculptor Daniel French's Lincoln Memorial statue show Abe's forming the initials "A" and "L" in sign language? And what are the strange openings in the leafy canopy to either side of the head of the central figure in Botticelli's "Primavera"? Could the artist, in an age in which human dissection was taboo, have surreptitiously revealed his participation in this illicit practice by embedding the outline of human heart and lungs into his painting? I'm not sure what art historians make of this this theory, but it certainly got my attention.
Having established the fascinating possibility that artist embed "secrets" into their art, the authors move on to their main thesis. Michelangelo's tumultuous family life and apparent homosexuality come in or scrutiny. The story of how he snuck in at night to carved "Michelangelo made this" on the band across the Virgin's chest (in badly-spelled and ungrammatical Latin) was fun and accurate as far as I know.
But from here, things got dodgy. Michelangelo, taken in by the de Medici family, is supposedly instructed in the ways of the Kabala as well as neo-platonic teachings supposedly banned by the Church. I'm no scholar, but Church teaching took Plato quite seriously, seeing in his theory of the ideal forms an echo of divine perfection. Moving to the Sistine chapel painting, the book lands into trouble. While suggesting that the artist incorporated the symbols of papal families into the painting seems innocent enough, the authors claim that Michelangelo incorporated numerous insults to Julius II -- the pope who commissioned the work. Supposedly, portraying the worldly, intemperate Julius as a book-reading prophet Jeremiah was a subtle insult. But this seems too ambiguous to be truly insulting -- at best it seems like an ironic compliment. The authors then point to a putti figure behind Jeremiah who is supposedly showing the "fig" gesture -- the Italian equivalent of a raised middle finger. But the accompanying illustration is dark and obscure, and all I can see is a closed fist.
In another supposedly devastating example of Michelangelo's secret messages, the authors discuss the figures of Judith and her maidservant carrying aloft a basket holding the head of Holofernes. Tracing the figures supposedly shows the figure "T", the Hebrew letter chet, which the authors relate to the Kabalistic female principle. But the figures could just as easily be the figure "pi", suggesting...what? That Michelangelo was hungry? That he loved geometry?
By the time the authors get to the figure of Jonah, things get truly weird. Jonah is said to be the only figure shown barelegged. But his oddly-splayed legs are said to be in the form of the Hebrew character for the number 5. What does this mean? To the author, it means that Michelangelo was expressing the idea that the Hebrew Bible's Pentateuch (literally 5-"five books") must be honored along with the New Testament. But 5 could mean anything -- say, the five senses. And the Church has honored its Jewish roots from he beginning, albeit with long and irredeemable periods of persecution.
The front wall of the Sistine Chapel is supposed to be secretly in the shape of the round-topped tablets of the Ten Commandments. While many depictions show them this way, many show rectangular tablets. And the Bible doesn't say either way. The problem with the supposition is that the chapel's front wall had this shape long before Michelangelo started painting it, as the illustration on page 10 helpfully indicates.
What to make of "Sistine Secrets"? It says something that for all its controversial claims, the book contains just barely over a page of notes. I don't know the Kabala from a Cub Scout or a Medici from a medfly, and I'm not about to take the word of a couple of guys who write about a farfetched idea without a boatload of sources. Reviewers who claim that a book without references is "scholarly" are talking out of their hats. But references or no, the book finally falls apart on its own. The secret messages in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel are very few and are ambiguous at best. Even if the artist camouflaged a whole alphabet of Hebrew letters in the writhing forms of his work, what would it mean? And to suggest that Michelangelo pulled the wool over the eyes of the greatest minds of his times -- and those of the last 500 years -- until now, of course, seems hubristic to say the least.
"Sistine Secrets" did make me genuinely curious about the true meaning of Michelangelo's master works. Though I don't buy this book's thesis, I'd love to know more about the weird features of his work. Why *are* Michelangelo's figures posed in such varied poses of motion -- simple variety? What is the point of the main Genesis stories he chose to portray? I would love to read a debunking of the book by an educated scholar -- in the same ay that Bart Ehrman deconstructed "The Da Vinci Code" in his book.
As of today, I'm waiting.