I’m about 3/4 through Dan Brown’sThe Da Vinci Code . It’s far from the best novel I’ve ever read- think “Scooby Doo and the Case of the Holy Grail”- but it does have me looking at every close-up of THE LAST SUPPER that I can see. In your opinion, IS the person drawn on Jesus’ right in The Last Supper a man or a woman? And where is the “M” mentioned in the text?
I just finished the book two days ago. I don’t think that it’s supposed to be who Teabing says it is (trying to prevent spoilers) for two reasons. First, where is the replaced disciple? I don’t see why Da Vinci would purposely replace a disciple with a woman, as everyone would just take it as a man with long hair. And in fact, everyone in the last 500 years has took it that way, except for conspiracy theorists like the folks in the book. Second, look at the guy three away from Jesus. He’s standing and has his hands to his heart. He looks just as feminine as the guy to Jesus’s left.
I also don’t get the “M”; I’m sure you could find letters in any ordinary picture if you wanted to. I don’t find this spectacular or a sign that Da Vinci planted the woman on purpose. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t be suprised if Da Vinci (an athiest) left subtleties in his religious paintings, but I find this one doubtful.
I took this as another nutball conspiracy theory- one that isn’t true. The book makes the Priory’s history so crystal clear, for example. I read a piece online and it seems to be far from that. I’m doubtfull that it has really been around (or at least continuously) since 1099.
I finished reading the book last week, myself. Defintely not one of the best books I’ve ever read either–I was far more interested in the legend of the Priory and the Holy Grail than in the actual storyline of the book.
I went searching for photos of the Last Supper as well. To me, the figure does look rather feminine-- “she” seems to be a few shades paler than the other figures around her and the facial features could certainly pass as feminine.
I have to say if I were shown the painting with absolutely no prior knowledge of the subject matter I’d think that the figure was indeed a woman.
Oh, and forgot to add–I don’t see the big “M” either. I suppose if I squinted really hard and turned my head juuust the right angle I could maybe make out the shape of an M. But otherwise, nope. Nowhere near as obvious as the book makes it out to be.
[slight hijack]
Is it just me or does anyone else hear Eddie Izzard saying in his Jesus voice, “Look, we can’t all do big arms! I’ll do big arms and you just look at me and go, ‘Ooh, he’s doing big arms!’” every time you look at the Last Supper?
[/slight hijack]
I assumed that DaVinci left out Judas, who had gone to collect the guards for the confrontation at Gethsemene.
When you get right down to it, Jesus looks pretty femme himself in that painting. Why isn’t there a wild conspiracy theory book out about Jessa the Daughter of God and the great cover-up?
I thought this book was fiction. Is this book supposed to be based on real research and stuff?
The womanlike figure is the apostle John. Here’s some more art from the period where John looks feminine:
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/zgothic/gothic/6/11g_1500.html
http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?56669+0+0
http://cts.canberra.edu.au/special/art/details/st-john.html
http://cts.canberra.edu.au/special/art/images/zurbaran-p.jpg
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
The womanlike figure is the apostle John. Here’s some more art from the period where John looks feminine:
http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?56669+0+0
[QUOTE]
That’s spooky- Barroci painted a portrait of Helena Bonham Carter more than 4 1/2 centuries before she was born…
Ah, there’s the fun part. Is it? Isn’t it?
Just finished it last night. I’ll admit to being underwhelmed, but if no one had raised my expectations, I’d have said “Hmmm… good read.”
According to the tin-foil hat brigade*, this is all true dammit! and the fact that you’ve never heard of any of the stuff in the “non-fiction” books that DaVinci Code is based on is because of a massive coverup involving tens of thousands of people (all of whom can keep a secret) covering up something as massive as this for about two thousand years, killing if necessary to keep the secret, without a single slip until, just now, suddenly a half-dozen people figured it out and published a bunch of books on the topic and these incredibly powerful people, the conspirators who kill without hesitation, have vast tentacles of influence (certainly enough to make an editor toss a manuscript back into the slush pile, you’d think) and enough money and power to easily shut the author up can’t stop it. :rolleyes:
Fenris
*Art Bell, George Norry and their ilk
I agree, with no prior knowlege it looks like a woman.
I’m a doofus. I never counted and just always thought it was a woman. It never occured to me that it was a guy.
St. John the Evangelist is always depicted youthful, beardless, and often a bit effeminate, as Captain Amazing’s links demonstrate.
In fact, the disputed figure in Leonardo’s painting follows all the standard iconography for John–not only is he youthful, he is also at Christ’s side, in accordance with his identification as “the disciple whom Christ loved,” and he looks like he’s asleep–an artistic convention derived from the description of John as leaning upon Christ’s breast at the Last Supper, which makes him look like he’s asleep (see John 13:25 and 21:20). This was a well-established tradition by Leonardo’s time (see Duccio’s version from the 14th century).
There is no reason to believe that Christ’s beloved disciple is Mary Magdalene instead of John.
By the way, in Leonardo’s version, Judas is the third apostle to the left of Christ. In traditional Last Suppers (e.g., Ghirlandaio’s, Judas is on the opposite side of the table from Christ, and usually sans halo. Leonardo doesn’t give any of the apostles (or even Christ) a halo, but he does cast Judas into shadow as a means to distinguish him from the other apostles (and to suggest that the devil had entered Judas, as the Gospels say).
It’s not much of an “M”. Look here.