On one hand, it's well-established that the Catholic Church was uncomfortable with nude art, not only in Christian works but in Roman-era 'heroic nudity'. On th

On one hand, it's well-established that the Catholic Church was uncomfortable with nude art, not only in Christian works but in Roman-era 'heroic nudity'. On the other hand, the reason that's well-documented is that we know a great deal of art, including statuary, was altered by adding fig leaves and other concealments to hide nudity. I guess it's possible that lesser works were simply defaced instead of being altered, but given how much hand-wringing was devoted to altering statues, it's the sort of practice I'd expect to be well-documented, and I've never seen any evidence to that effect. I'd guess you're right: it's yet another case of Brown grabbing a random pattern and inserting meaning for it.