The Davinci Code: The Last Supper
Probably the main theme of the Davinci Code is the idea that Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ were actually married and had a child together. Click here to visit Spark Notes and read a summary of the book, for those of you who haven't read it. In this post I don't want to go into details about whether or not Jesus and Mary were or could have been married, but instead I want to focus on a piece of artwork used in the novel to "prove" that it's true.
This piece of artwork, as many of you already know, is none other than The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci. The original painting itself measures 460 à 880 cm (15 feet à 29 feet) and can be seen in the convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan. Leonardo created the painting over a four year time period (1495 to 1498), although it was not worked on continuously during that time period. Though often referred to as a fresco (and reportedly done so in The Davinci Code itself) the painting was actually created on dry wall, and cannot be called a true fresco. It is due to this fact that the painting has not withstood time very well, and has gone through a variety of renovations since it was completed.
According to the book, the Holy Grail (said to be the chalice/cup that was used for the wine of the last supper) was never really a chalice, but rather a metaphor for a person - Mary Magdalene. Leigh Teabing, the character who explains this in the book, goes on to show that Leonardo da Vinci knew this, and that is why there isn't one chalice in Leonardo's The Last Supper. He goes on to say that not only is there no real chalice/cup, but the person who is really the Holy Grail is in fact in the painting and is sitting to Jesus's right hand. History says that this person is really the apostle John. That however, is not true..According to the book. The book argues that Leonardo da Vinci put hidden symbols in the painting in order to secretly show the world the truth about Jesus and Mary. It is these symbols that I want to look at a little closer. I have included pictures of the painting which will draw your attention to the details I want to focus on, however if you click here you'll find a link to a full screen, high quality version of the painting, which you can zoom in and out of wonderfully. I suggest using it, in order to take a better look at the painting as you read.
One of the first thing that the book points to is the appearance of a "v" which is said to be the symbol of woman or a feminine symbol (I'm not sure the exact term used by the book). It is pointed out that this "v" shape is created in the painting by Jesus and the figure to his right, as seen below.
Now, as you can see, this is a legitimate claim. The painting really does form a "v" shape. However, as was pointed out to me in a recent lecture I attended on the topic, that isn't the only "v" found in this painting. Can you see the other one?
See it? Yep.. that's right. There are TWO "v's" in this painting - at least two quite obvious ones. Was Leonardo just making more symbols for women? Could be. But it sort of takes away from the claim that Leonardo was referring to the figure to the right of Jesus as a female based on the fact that he body forms a "v" with Jesus's.
One of the next claims that the book makes is that the figure seems to have a feminine bosom, feminine facial features, and a graceful/womanly posture. Look at the painting closely. Do you see a feminine bosom? If you do.. please let me know: I can't seem to detect one at all. I do admit, however, that the figure has feminine facial features, and probably a womanly posture. The figure is said to be "swooning" by some, and this works. Keep in mind the actual seen being depicted in this painting: Jesus just told the disciples that one of them would betray Him. They're all shocked/angry/upset. It would then be logical to think that the "swooning" being seen here by the figure in question is just a result of the shock that someone will betray Him, this person they had left their lives behind for. Still not convinced? Also keep in mind that the apostle here - John - was the youngest of the apostles and the most devoted to Jusus and was therefore often portrayed as more feminine in nature, in order to distinguish him from the others. Doesn't it at least seem logicalal idea that this figure, who was often more femininely drawn, may then "swoon" when told someone would betray your Teacher?
Okay, but for arguments sake, let's assume that this person is indeed more feminine, for other reasons. Let's not forget the many paintings we have all seen at one time or another in which men were painted feminine. I'm sure you've all seen them in your history classes back in high school, or at an art museum or somewhere. And if that's not enough, take a look at a couple other figures in the painting...
If you ask me, they look every bit as feminine as the figure to Jesus's right. They almost look as if they could have been sisters to the figure on Jesus's right.
Another aspect that I want to touch on from the book is the fact that the figure on Jesus's right is wearing clothes which are an inverse of Jesus. Jesus is wearing a red shirt and blue shawl (may be termed something else, but I don't know the right terminology) while the figure to His right is wearing a blue shirt and a pink/red shawl. This is pointed to, in order to show that they are indeed a pair. However, if we are to take this as true, it would mean that the same figures I pointed to above would also have to be pairs to Jesus - they also are wearing inverses of Jesus's clothing! The one the right is easy to see, pink/red shawl and blue shirt. The one on the left is harder to see, but if you look closely at his arm, you see a bit of blue fabric, which points to the concept of a blue shirt, and a red shawl. Do you see it? Granted, Jesus and the figure's clothing are more obvious, because the clothes are nearly identical looking, except in color... however if you are going to use the color as a reason you have to include the other figures who also have inverse colors of Jesus.
And last but not least... The figure on the right of Jesus and Jesus seem to form the letter "m" to mean "matrimony" or "Mary" however, I find this conclusion a little funny. It is so easy to find something when you are indeed looking for it. And, even if Leonardo meant for it to be an "m", that means nothing. After all, "m" could also stand for Mindy or Maryland or marshmallow.
There are other arguments as well. There's the fact that all the names of the figures in the paintings were written out by Leonardo himself and is agreed on by art historians. If it was Mary, why wouldn't he tell us? And, where was the other disciple? After all, if Mary took the place of one of the disciples, we're one person short in the painting. Where did the other one go? Someone would have noticed, and said something. There has been reports of a "floating" hand with a knife, which seems to belong to no one, but it actually does belong to a figure that we see, it simply is an uncomfortable position. If you can't find it/see it in the picture, let me know and I'll post a picture pointing to it. As you look to the left side of the table, you should see it.
To sum it up, I don't personally believe that Leonardo painted Mary in his depiction of the Last Supper. Leonardo chose realistictc approach to the painting of the scene..Therere wasn't one large chalice drawn, because realistically they probably didn't actually have one large chalice, and if they did it wouldn't have been the gold/diamond encrusted one that we all generally picture. And if Leonardo really did paint Mary, and if he really believed they were married and had a child, it doesn't prove anything, besides one person's thoughts/beliefs/ideas. It's important to look at the historical facts and contexts of thing, before we just blindly believe them. The same goes for this little (big) article, don't believe me: go find out for yourself. I merely have compiled several different arguments and ideas that I have come across lately into one article on the topic. The links are below, go check them out yourselves. Go to the library, check out books on the topics. And, leave me a comment, let me know what you think! :)
Resources:
The follwing resources were used in this article. I tried not plagiarize anyone, merely to put all the info I have found/heard into one place. Please, go check out the sites!
1. A lecture on The Davinci Code and the Bible, by a visitor professor for biblical studies from the University in Munich.
2. Wikipedia article on "The Last Supper". Website: click here.
3. A website on the Davinci Code. Website: click here.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to devote to this as I would like. I would love to do a full blown research paper complete with books by various experts who talk on both sides of the issue and everything.. however I simply do not have the time right now. That is why I stress, please don't believe me... go find out for yourself. I simply feel as though I should share some of what I have learned. I don't know how many of you have wondered if what Dan Brown says is really true.. I know I did until recently. Anyways, there will be more in this series, let me know if there are any specific topics that interest you all!
This piece of artwork, as many of you already know, is none other than The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci. The original painting itself measures 460 à 880 cm (15 feet à 29 feet) and can be seen in the convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan. Leonardo created the painting over a four year time period (1495 to 1498), although it was not worked on continuously during that time period. Though often referred to as a fresco (and reportedly done so in The Davinci Code itself) the painting was actually created on dry wall, and cannot be called a true fresco. It is due to this fact that the painting has not withstood time very well, and has gone through a variety of renovations since it was completed.
According to the book, the Holy Grail (said to be the chalice/cup that was used for the wine of the last supper) was never really a chalice, but rather a metaphor for a person - Mary Magdalene. Leigh Teabing, the character who explains this in the book, goes on to show that Leonardo da Vinci knew this, and that is why there isn't one chalice in Leonardo's The Last Supper. He goes on to say that not only is there no real chalice/cup, but the person who is really the Holy Grail is in fact in the painting and is sitting to Jesus's right hand. History says that this person is really the apostle John. That however, is not true..According to the book. The book argues that Leonardo da Vinci put hidden symbols in the painting in order to secretly show the world the truth about Jesus and Mary. It is these symbols that I want to look at a little closer. I have included pictures of the painting which will draw your attention to the details I want to focus on, however if you click here you'll find a link to a full screen, high quality version of the painting, which you can zoom in and out of wonderfully. I suggest using it, in order to take a better look at the painting as you read.
One of the first thing that the book points to is the appearance of a "v" which is said to be the symbol of woman or a feminine symbol (I'm not sure the exact term used by the book). It is pointed out that this "v" shape is created in the painting by Jesus and the figure to his right, as seen below.
Now, as you can see, this is a legitimate claim. The painting really does form a "v" shape. However, as was pointed out to me in a recent lecture I attended on the topic, that isn't the only "v" found in this painting. Can you see the other one?
See it? Yep.. that's right. There are TWO "v's" in this painting - at least two quite obvious ones. Was Leonardo just making more symbols for women? Could be. But it sort of takes away from the claim that Leonardo was referring to the figure to the right of Jesus as a female based on the fact that he body forms a "v" with Jesus's.One of the next claims that the book makes is that the figure seems to have a feminine bosom, feminine facial features, and a graceful/womanly posture. Look at the painting closely. Do you see a feminine bosom? If you do.. please let me know: I can't seem to detect one at all. I do admit, however, that the figure has feminine facial features, and probably a womanly posture. The figure is said to be "swooning" by some, and this works. Keep in mind the actual seen being depicted in this painting: Jesus just told the disciples that one of them would betray Him. They're all shocked/angry/upset. It would then be logical to think that the "swooning" being seen here by the figure in question is just a result of the shock that someone will betray Him, this person they had left their lives behind for. Still not convinced? Also keep in mind that the apostle here - John - was the youngest of the apostles and the most devoted to Jusus and was therefore often portrayed as more feminine in nature, in order to distinguish him from the others. Doesn't it at least seem logicalal idea that this figure, who was often more femininely drawn, may then "swoon" when told someone would betray your Teacher?
Okay, but for arguments sake, let's assume that this person is indeed more feminine, for other reasons. Let's not forget the many paintings we have all seen at one time or another in which men were painted feminine. I'm sure you've all seen them in your history classes back in high school, or at an art museum or somewhere. And if that's not enough, take a look at a couple other figures in the painting...
If you ask me, they look every bit as feminine as the figure to Jesus's right. They almost look as if they could have been sisters to the figure on Jesus's right.
Another aspect that I want to touch on from the book is the fact that the figure on Jesus's right is wearing clothes which are an inverse of Jesus. Jesus is wearing a red shirt and blue shawl (may be termed something else, but I don't know the right terminology) while the figure to His right is wearing a blue shirt and a pink/red shawl. This is pointed to, in order to show that they are indeed a pair. However, if we are to take this as true, it would mean that the same figures I pointed to above would also have to be pairs to Jesus - they also are wearing inverses of Jesus's clothing! The one the right is easy to see, pink/red shawl and blue shirt. The one on the left is harder to see, but if you look closely at his arm, you see a bit of blue fabric, which points to the concept of a blue shirt, and a red shawl. Do you see it? Granted, Jesus and the figure's clothing are more obvious, because the clothes are nearly identical looking, except in color... however if you are going to use the color as a reason you have to include the other figures who also have inverse colors of Jesus.
And last but not least... The figure on the right of Jesus and Jesus seem to form the letter "m" to mean "matrimony" or "Mary" however, I find this conclusion a little funny. It is so easy to find something when you are indeed looking for it. And, even if Leonardo meant for it to be an "m", that means nothing. After all, "m" could also stand for Mindy or Maryland or marshmallow.
There are other arguments as well. There's the fact that all the names of the figures in the paintings were written out by Leonardo himself and is agreed on by art historians. If it was Mary, why wouldn't he tell us? And, where was the other disciple? After all, if Mary took the place of one of the disciples, we're one person short in the painting. Where did the other one go? Someone would have noticed, and said something. There has been reports of a "floating" hand with a knife, which seems to belong to no one, but it actually does belong to a figure that we see, it simply is an uncomfortable position. If you can't find it/see it in the picture, let me know and I'll post a picture pointing to it. As you look to the left side of the table, you should see it.
To sum it up, I don't personally believe that Leonardo painted Mary in his depiction of the Last Supper. Leonardo chose realistictc approach to the painting of the scene..Therere wasn't one large chalice drawn, because realistically they probably didn't actually have one large chalice, and if they did it wouldn't have been the gold/diamond encrusted one that we all generally picture. And if Leonardo really did paint Mary, and if he really believed they were married and had a child, it doesn't prove anything, besides one person's thoughts/beliefs/ideas. It's important to look at the historical facts and contexts of thing, before we just blindly believe them. The same goes for this little (big) article, don't believe me: go find out for yourself. I merely have compiled several different arguments and ideas that I have come across lately into one article on the topic. The links are below, go check them out yourselves. Go to the library, check out books on the topics. And, leave me a comment, let me know what you think! :)
Resources:
The follwing resources were used in this article. I tried not plagiarize anyone, merely to put all the info I have found/heard into one place. Please, go check out the sites!
1. A lecture on The Davinci Code and the Bible, by a visitor professor for biblical studies from the University in Munich.
2. Wikipedia article on "The Last Supper". Website: click here.
3. A website on the Davinci Code. Website: click here.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to devote to this as I would like. I would love to do a full blown research paper complete with books by various experts who talk on both sides of the issue and everything.. however I simply do not have the time right now. That is why I stress, please don't believe me... go find out for yourself. I simply feel as though I should share some of what I have learned. I don't know how many of you have wondered if what Dan Brown says is really true.. I know I did until recently. Anyways, there will be more in this series, let me know if there are any specific topics that interest you all!
posted by Mindy @ 9:19 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Just FYI, your link to the picture of the painting doesn't lead anywhere. I guess the website disappeared.
lololololololol did u forget 2 take ur medication son
For starters, the painting was done thousands of years after the actual event & is only how the painter wished it to be viewed, an artist's interpretation.
Secondly, the book was one of fiction, & in no way historical, even though, it was a good read, but that dose not make the book or latter movie factual.
Get a grip people, reality is calling.
In replicas the artists always put a chalice in front while the original never depicted one. But that's because it was always there in the original just not on the table but on the wall to the left.
Post a Comment
<< Home