When did Leonardo become the judge of things Biblical?
Would all these guys and gals believe him if he’d said that Jesus had blue eyes or painted him with 3 arms or saying “kill all the homosexuals”?
As to the historical or scientific validity of the DaVinci Code. One of the main characters is an albinoOpus Dei monk…well Opus Dei doesn’t have monks, if the guy can’t get his facts straight about a present-day thing…
This is a good and relatively short article on the Da Vinci code
Because most other paintings of the Last Supper painted in Italy and elsewhere in western Europe in the centuries immediately prior to Da Vinci’s version also show John - recognisable because he appears as the youngest and most beautiful of those present - sitting immediately next to Jesus. The reason for showing him in such a prominent position was probably to indicate that he was Jesus’s favourite disciple, although it may also reflect the fact that it was John and Peter who had been asked to organise the venue. Given this, art historians have really very strong iconographic grounds for thinking that the Da Vinci figure is that of John. In contrast, there is absolutely nothing about the figure which indicates that it might be Mary Magdalene. More evidence that Brown knows next to nothing about art history.
No, we all know that Leonardo was painting the picture. Granted, it was probably a pain for the apostles and Jesus to hold that position for the several hours it took.
It would have been nice if Leonardo had provided a captaion, like you see on modern photos with lots of people, to show who is standing, sitting where(From the left, top row:…)
If this wasn’t GQ, I would speculate that John is giving Jesus a “hummer”. After all, it is His last supper. How very convienient that it is only Jesus who you can not see under the table. Hmm…
As previous posters have noted, if it isn’t John the Evangelist–or some other Apostle, then the scene is short an Apostle.
There are other instances of Leonardo painting a man so that, intentionally or not, he came out looking pretty much like a woman. Here’s a WAG: Leonardo wanted to depict St. John as a “pretty”-looking man–though not necessarily effiminate (consider how Tony Curtis looks way better dressed up as a woman than Jack Lemmon in Some Like It Hot), and so used a woman as a model. It is generally acknowledged that some contemporary artists did the reverse from time to time–for instance, it is thought that when Michelangelo painted The Sybil of Delphi for the roof of the Sistine Chapel, he used a man as a model. Some of his more muscular statues of women seem to be based on men as well.
I’m going to have to look at the hand with the knife again; it always looked to me like it didn’t belong to anyone in particular.
Another point of interest is that Leonardo may have used the same model for Jesus and one of the Apostles on the extreme left from the viewer’s perspective. I once read speculation that this is supposed to be one of the Apostles named James, and that Leonardo may have been influenced by speculation that the “brother” of Jesus named James mentioned in The Gospels may have been an Apostle. I have no idea as to whether this particular critic (unfortunately, I don’t remember his name), knew what he was talking about.
Since various people have alluded to such cases, but nobody has provided a link: an obvious case of Leonardo painting what, by current standards, is a fairly effeminate man is the Louvre’s John the Baptist. In this instance, the staff he’s holding unambiguously identifies the saint.
As for Dan Brown, I’m still baffled by the bit where they’re in Temple tube station trying to catch a train to King’s College.
Several hours? Isn’t that a rather drastic lowball on the scenario?
“Okay, resurrection’s done, aaaaaand… Everybody back to the room so we can wait for fifteen centuries. Who’s carrying the body parts? No, no, keep your hood up, we’ll cause serious trouble if anybody sees me after this…”
