The Last Supper

[glee]

@Isosleepy

Of course the amazing thing is the multitude of people who feel that because some italian dude painted a scene occuring over a dozen centuries before, it is proof of anything at all.
If Davinci had painted all the disciples throwing darts, that would not then constitude proof that the last supper took place in a U.S. college town fake English Pub, now would it?

Now look here. It would have been a REAL English Pubbe, because America wasn’t invented till well after Da Vinci.

What we need is a photograph of the Last Supper. I’ve looked on Google, but haven’t found anything yet…

[JRDelirious]

@Polycarp

John is traditionally regarded as being in his mid- to late teens, the youngest of the Twelve, with what historical validity I don’t know.

Probably because John bar Zebedee is reputed to have lived into the late AD90s (at least long enough to have met and worked with St. Polycarp (b. AD69) when the latter was a young man) so they figured he would have been very young around AD30.

@Isosleepy

Of course the amazing thing is the multitude of people who feel that because some italian dude painted a scene occuring over a dozen centuries before, it is proof of anything at all.
If Davinci had painted all the disciples throwing darts, that would not then constitude proof that the last supper took place in a U.S. college town fake English Pub, now would it?

[Python]
“I take it you didn’t like the kangaroo?”
[/Python]

[moriah]

1. If the person seated next to Jesus is MM, then where’s the twelfth Apostle?

2. Scripture refers to the people at the Last Supper as disciples as well as Apostles and the Twelve, meaning that there was probably a larger number than 13 present, including woman.

3. Aha, women were at the Last Supper, you say, therefore that could be Mary Magdalene at Da Vinci’s Last Supper, for we know she was in town, for she was at the crucifixion. But so were other women at the crucifixion, including Mary, the mother of Jesus. If Mary Magdalene was to be inserted into the ‘picture’ because she was at the crucifixion, then so, too, would have Mary Nazarene.

4. As Polycarp mentioned, scripture has John seated next to Jesus, even reclining against his chest to ask Peter’s question. Jn 21:20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) To put MM there in John’s place is a complete abandonment of what scripture says about who was there.

5. Yes, I said recline. Not only did they not sit on the same side of the table, they didn’t sit at table at all, they reclined at table, with it being on the ground in typical Ancient Near Eastern fashion. Lk 22:14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.

6. Youthfulness of John: Not only for the reasons of tradion that JRDelirious gave above, but Mark’s Gospel has an unnamed youth following close behind when Jesus was apprehended in Jerusalem while the other Apostles fled. Mk 14:51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. This is often presumed (rightly or wrongly) to be John, who, in John’s Gospel, the unnamed ‘disciple whom he [Jesus] loved’ is John himself.

Also, in John’s Gospel, Jesus, while on the the cross, gives Mary and John to each other as mother and son, again, implying a younger age to John. John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Peace.

[yBeayf]

Anyway, the point is that if you look at the painting, you’ll see someone who, to your 21st-century eyes, looks like a pretty girl. But to a Renaissance painter, it’s a young man.

Er, maybe it’s just me, but that painting doesn’t look anything like a girl. The face is clearly male.

[FriarTed]

@moriah

4. As Polycarp mentioned, scripture has John seated next to Jesus, even reclining against his chest to ask Peter’s question. Jn 21:20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) To put MM there in John’s place is a complete abandonment of what scripture says about who was there.

5. Youthfulness of John: Not only for the reasons of tradion that JRDelirious gave above, but Mark’s Gospel has an unnamed youth following close behind when Jesus was apprehended in Jerusalem while the other Apostles fled. Mk 14:51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. This is often presumed (rightly or wrongly) to be John, who, in John’s Gospel, the unnamed ‘disciple whom he [Jesus] loved’ is John himself.

Just to throw in some totally unhelpful commentary-

there are some fringe theories about that while John’s name was put to the Fourth Gospel, “the disciple whom Jesus loved most” was indeed MM or at least her (assuming MM is also Mary of Bethany, tho I doubt that) brother Lazarus. I think MM & Laz definitely contributed to it tho John compiled it.

The young man in Mark’s Gospel I’ve always heard was thought to be a cameo by (John) Mark himself, whose family is attributed by lore to have provided the Upper Room.

[moriah]

@FriarTed

there are some fringe theories about that while John’s name was put to the Fourth Gospel, “the disciple whom Jesus loved most” was indeed MM or at least her (assuming MM is also Mary of Bethany, tho I doubt that) brother Lazarus. I think MM & Laz definitely contributed to it tho John compiled it.

The problem with that theory (and the reason why it’s ‘fringe’) is that in John’s Gospel, Mary Magdalene is referred to by name. Why would the author suddenly use the circumlocution ‘the disciple whom he loved’ for Mary Magdalene when the author is naming her outright elsewhere. If MM and ‘the disciple’ were the same person, the following quote would cause much difficulty:

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

PEace.

[APB]

@dangermom

And the Renaissance ideal of male youth is, to our eyes at least, quite feminine. Long ripply hair, soulful eyes, and so on. But that wasn’t unmasculine to people back in the 1500’s; we’re imposing our cultural definitions of masculinity and femininity on the painting when we say John looks feminine, so it must be Mary. And the cultural definitions have changed in the last 500 years. A woman would have looked different; I’m no expert, but her hair would be bound up and her dress would be different. That figure perfectly illustrates the Renaissance ideal of a young male student, and if you look at the Leonardo painting titled John the Beloved, you will see exactly the same sort of image.

Exactly, with the perfect example of the fashionable man-about-town who wore his hair well below his shoulders being Leonardo himself. Several pieces of evidence, most obviously including the various supposed portraits (which, if they are of him, do admittedly show him in old age) but, more importantly, also including the description of him in the so-called Anonimo Gaddiano, indicate that he wore his hair especially long.

There is one other aspect of Dan Brown’s interpretation that ignores a vital detail which most of his readers could not be expected to know. Brown/Teabing argues that the figure is Mary Magdalene because he/she wears a red cloak over a blue robe, whereas Jesus wears a blue cloak over a red robe, which is therefore interpreted as meaning that they are meant to mirror each other. What he doesn’t mention is that red was often used by artists as one of John’s identifying attributes, either in the form of a red cloak or for all his clothes. In contrast, the preferred colour for a cloak worn by Mary Magdalene tended to be blue. Neither of these conventions was ever so fixed that it makes this an infallible method of identification, but, added to the mix, they are further reasons why art historians find Brown’s interpretation so remarkably unpersuasive.

If you still think that it must be a woman, try finding just one example of a young man in a Leonardo painting who doesn’t look a bit ambiguous.

[Rube_E.Tewesday]

@APB

There is one other aspect of Dan Brown’s interpretation that ignores a vital detail which most of his readers could not be expected to know. Brown/Teabing argues that the figure is Mary Magdalene because he/she wears a red cloak over a blue robe, whereas Jesus wears a blue cloak over a red robe, which is therefore interpreted as meaning that they are meant to mirror each other. What he doesn’t mention is that red was often used by artists as one of John’s identifying attributes, either in the form of a red cloak or for all his clothes. In contrast, the preferred colour for a cloak worn by Mary Magdalene tended to be blue. Neither of these conventions was ever so fixed that it makes this an infallible method of identification, but, added to the mix, they are further reasons why art historians find Brown’s interpretation so remarkably unpersuasive.

If you still think that it must be a woman, try finding just one example of a young man in a Leonardo painting who doesn’t look a bit ambiguous.

Wasn’t there also a convention that Mary Magdalene be shown wearing as little as possible? Or am I mixing her up with someone?

[Gaudere]

Wasn’t there also a convention that Mary Magdalene be shown wearing as little as possible?

Yes. Also, when MM “retired”, she lived as naked hermit, and her long hair grew to cover her (in certain scultptures she looks rather like she is wearing a furry bodysuit).

[Moirai]

OMG, one of my favorite sculptures ever is the Mary in the Duomo Museum in Florence! She is indeed wearing her hair!

[Spavined_Gelding]

Can we figure out what we are talking about here? Is it:

Was there a woman present at the Last Supper and if so was it Mary Magdalene?

Or is it:

Did Leonardo portray a woman at the table in his Last Supper in Milan and if so was that woman Mary Magdalene?

If the first question the answer has to be that the scriptures give us no idea. If it is the second question the answer has to be that your guess is as good and anybody else’s. Leonardo doesn’t tell us. It is sort of a Rorschach Test – here is a figure in a deteriorating, 500 year old painting, what do you see.

It is probable that the image we see today has little in common with the painting Leonardo executed in 1498 (six years after Columbus sailed the ocean blue). The thing is tempera on plaster. Leonardo was trying to develop a new method of doing frescos. Usually they were done with water soluble paint on wet plaster. The pigment bonded with the plaster and lasted as long as the plaster did – see Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling and alter wall. In Milan, Leonardo tried to do it with an egg white medium on dry plaster. It didn’t work and the paint started flaking off during Leonardo’s life time. In addition the damps got to the plaster and it started to disintegrate. The thing has been retouched, repainted, repaired and skillfully and unskillfully restored God knows how often. It didn’t help any that the refectory of the convent where it is was used by Bonaparte’s notoriously anti-clerical troops as a cavalry stable during his Italian campaigns --while some supposed art is horse shit, horse shit and horse piss and the general funge of a stable does not go well with a deteriorating fresco.

Brown’s analysis of Leonardo’s Milan fresco is special pleading. That’s OK if the reader appreciates that the book is a work of fiction (and not even a good one, IMHO).

[dangermom]

If it is the second question the answer has to be that your guess is as good and anybody else’s. Leonardo doesn’t tell us.

It turns out, after a little more reading on my part, that he does tell us, sort of. Leonardo’s notes for The last supper contain some references to John, his posture, etc., but do not mention Mary M. or any woman.

[Moirai]

I thought the major cause of the paining’s early deterioration was that the wall it is painted on is the back wall of the kitchen, and was subjected to intense heat and humidity.

But I could be wrong.

[randwill]

What about the extra hand weilding the knife? Any good theories on why Da Vinci put that in there?

[Captain_Amazing]

@randwill

What about the extra hand weilding the knife? Any good theories on why Da Vinci put that in there?

There’s no extra hand. That’s Peter’s right hand. If you look at Peter, he’s sort of karate chopping/putting his left hand on John’s shoulder, and holding a knife in his right.

[capybara]

It’s a boy, damn it. John the beloved disciple is always portrayed young, he has the conventional appearance of a young attractive Italian of the time (cf Botticelli’s portraits) and none of attractive young women, and certainly no common attributes of Magdalene.
That is not an extra hand with the knife-- it’s Peter’s-- the gray-hair behind Judas and John. He has one arm bent with his hand on John’s shoulder, and his other (his right) arm akimbo with his wrist flipped back where it touches his hip (on preview, what Cptn Amazing said). It’s probably flaking because L used a technique of true fresco with a layer of fresco secco but done experimentally with a mixture of tempera and oils (!) oils as a finishing layer-- he was into the new oil stuff and wanted that kind of color and detail, but so sad, bad idea.
This is going to be like playing art historical whack-a-mole for a year, isn’t it?
Dr Capybara, PhD, Reniassance art history.