The Last Supper - DaVinci Code

original pic here

Eden could you tell me which label represents John? I don’t see any label over John (circled), Jesus or Judas. John is Giovanni in Italian?


[edit on 18/5/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

Yes, Giovanni is an Italian form of John. Also, I was always made to understand with this sketch that John was represented on the bottom right, number nine in your depiction. If I am wrong, I apologize. Do you have any sources that name off the diciples that ARE labeled? This is only to weed out those that are already depicted with a name. Also, why would John be doubled over on the table, when in the last supper he sat erect and without qualms?

I asked the same question on page 2, to which JJ answered “John 13:23.”

Although there is still a bit of a debate on who was “the most loved”. (ie Mary or John)

It appears John is a known sloucher...




[edit on 18/5/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

Well, what else can be said? If you take the image that I placed in the last page of this forum



you can clearly see how Leo saw John, at least in an artistic sense. This painting is entitled, "John the Baptist". Compare this to the fact that John was a known sloucher and was often depicted in artistic renderings as such(above post), then we can now surmise that it was JOHN that Leo had depicted in his preliminary sketch. And now class, all together, what was the name of the painting created from that preliminary sketch? "The Last Supper". These things pretty much put the big picture into better perspective. For me at least, this chapter is closed. To Jesus' right is John.





[edit on 18-5-2006 by EdenKaia]

I'm just visiting for a second here. For one, I'm sure theres a lot more sketches to the last supper(I found a couple more in the book too after looking through it some), I just provided what the book had at the time. and in the sketches, each of the Apostles positions may be different from that of the last supper because Leonardo was trying to see what worked I'm guessing. And another thing I just thought of(don't know if its been mentioned already), Leonardo seemed to paint or sketch a lot of men in an elegant way, depending on there qualities. I think I remember even(maybe I'm mistaken too) that a lot of men, usually nobbles, back in the medieval days, were painted with elegant qualities(which I'm sure many men back in the day looked like that too), which some might confuse with feminism qualities. Thats all I can think of for now I guess. bye bye.

In the SciFi special "Breaking the Da Vinci Code" the art historians state that he looks female because he was draw using the "student achetype" in which a male figure is drawn as being beloved of the teacher and is hairless and has long hair.
ANd he's drawn as slouching because of a line in the bible about him being cradled or resting on christ's busom(or some thing to that effect).

ummm, are you aware that john the baptist was NOT one of jesus's disciples but rather a 'rival' preacher & was the one who baptised jesus after first refusing to do so. he was eventually beheaded.

www.themystica.com...

he is most definately NOT depicted in the last supper

It is also written that John the Baptist was the one chosen to proclaim the coming of Jesus. If Revelations was written by apostle John, as is generally thought, then John the disciple spoke highly of the other John. John the beloved disciple, may have been misconstrued as being a man, by later writers. The bible has more than one place where a female John would make more sense. In the depictions of the crucifixion, John is the sole male up close with the women. In the begats in Luke, one of Josephs forebears is called Joanna, son of ... (in the KJAV), and at the empty tomb, Mary Magdalene is accompanied by a Joanna. Giovanni, Giovanna, John, Joanna, Johanne, Johanna... the two names are very similar. The gospel of John is considered unique, and has been noticeably different than the other three. It is the sole gospel to record the wedding at Canaa, for example.
Maybe Giovanni was Giovanna, a high ranking, close, member of Jesus' circle.

I think you are missing the point that Leonardo frequently painted men who looked rather feminine. The fact that this figure is not in the Last Supper is an example of that, but clearly this figure is labeled as a male.

You guys do know that DaVinci was officially charged with sodomy when he was in his late teens or early twenties? --held pending legal action for about 2 months--after which he was released due to lack of witnesses (as if there would be witnesses! ). A couple of other guys were also charged in the same incident.

I'm not saying he was definitely a homosexual - it remains officially undetermined and no one ever really said for sure, all through history. But his relationships, liasons, and even the nature of his artwork seem to show quite a bit of support for the possibility.

Also, in the time he lived, artists were absolutely forbidden to use women as models--nudes or not. So all women that were painted by the likes of DaVinci, Michaelangelo, and Raphael, were actually structured upon the sketches of their nude male models, then draped with clothing and made into females in the finished creation. That's why the women (especially in the sistine chapel) are usually quite robust farm-healthy looking girls (often called 'rubenesque').

Trying to figure out the gender of the subjects painted in this masterpiece and how it might relate to various religious convictions - by analyzing a work of art created in Renaissance Italy by an enigmatic and eccentric genius that was very likely a homosexual is definitely a futile approach to getting to the bottom of this issue (if there is indeed a bottom).

There are many more sketches available online, along with his notations, that can solve this question without too much sleuthing. As well as provide insight into the motives of his art which might bring a new understanding to the mix.

Leonardo clearly depicted the figure to Jesus' right in the last supper as being, at the very least, an extremely effeminate man. I have a great deal of respect for Leonardo, and whether he was gay or not does not matter to me. In my view, he was not a man who did anything haphazardly or without a purpose. When I look at the painting of the last supper, I see a woman to Jesus' right. If it was intended to be a man, then I would say that that is the one time where Leonardo missed the mark. Unless I was shown somewhere that he explained why this figure was painted to look like a woman but was actually portraying a man, I will continue to feel that what I see is what was intended by this master portrait artist, a woman.

In my opinion, the depiction in the Last Supper is in fact John and not Mary, I posted all my proof and my technique in this thread here:
My thread on the Last Supper

Here is the final product of my touching up of the figure of John in DaVinci's original:

Edit for typos

[edit on 6-6-2006 by Shadowflux]

Da Vinci was also a master Anatomist. He was also very adept at drawing the differences of male and female. Beyond the fact that this is the only work in which
the two figures are shown in mirrored clothing (as far as I know). There is one singular
feature that so far as I know has never been mentioned. It can be seen clearly in
any high resolution image. I first noticed it in one of the history channel programs.
On Tv you can see it if you look fast. It is in a pan shot as they zoom in on Jesus and Mary. It is probably less than 3 sec in length. I had to watch it several times then
look at Pics I have up close to verify it.

I prefer to reason this out by reading Leonardo's own notes.

I do not know if this topic has any chance of revival but...here goes.
(BTW what is with letting a post die and making the whole collaboration in vein ?!)

In reference to the figure on Jesus right. I do believe 'it' looks like a female and I would like to state that at that time period that it was fashionable to dress like a woman; something someone would get laughed at today for.
[I have not yet located the evidence I once had for this remark, but from reading earlier posts apparently some of us do not need evidence. Either way I will attempt to locate it]


I myself love Da Vinci work and I am a practicing artist [Nothing big, Do Not get the wrong idea]. I am not sure if anyone here has had a read through any of his manuscripts but here is one related quote written in relation to depicting gender -

'Women must be represented in modest attitudes, their legs close together, their arms closely folded, their heads inclined and somewhat on one side'

In the published version of the last supper I have the figure in question has a gold necklace w/ amulet round his/her neck. But as I said looking like women was fashionable though I do not know how far this was pushed when I came to jewellery.

I have know idea whether or not the figure is male or female [Much too Catholic corruption and alterations of his work/s].
I would like to add is that Da Vinci really only has a few works in comparison to a lot of other artists and would not in any situation be so careless or lazy as to properly depict his subject matter and obviously could not go in and paint on the roof of the church 'THEIR LYING TO YOU' [If in fact he was].


[edit on 10-12-2007 by ButterBricks]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by ButterBricks]

Does anyone know the significance of the man pointing his finger straight up?




This seems to be common in a few art pieces.





[edit on 11-12-2007 by Raphael]

Do you mean in Renaissance Italy or Palestine during the reign of the Herods?



Yes I do. But definitely both he and Michelangelo found variously clever ways of speaking out against the establishment of their day - one which both of them had no regard for other than what was necessary for their personal survival. They may not have gotten along but they were playing for the same team, so to speak!

Yes sorry about that, I meant during the renaissance.


As for the upturned hand pointing at the roof; I heard somewhere it was a sign of John the Baptist.
I do no now how accurate that is I always thought it was referring to God or he was stating a point in an argument or something..

That's what I thought but I try never to assume. And yes, it does seem to be the case.

Although I must tell you that indeed the one sitting at Jesus' right hand is his wife. Wives always sit at the right hand of their husband. At least, that is, when the partnership is perfect in its intended function. And theirs was, indeed.

This I know.

At the same time, however, John the Divine and the Magdalene played together, on the spiritual plane, as a sort of tag-team. And so it was Mary on the outside, John on the inside, in later incarnations.

Magdala means tower - so figuratively speaking, John is the watchman stationed in the tower.



John the Baptist...the son of man?
He was also Elijah, in another lifetime. And remember that Elijah didn't die but was taken up in the fiery chariot, witnessed by Elisha.

Unfortunately I do not know how to quote properly. . .

“ Although I must tell you that indeed the one sitting at Jesus' right hand is his wife. Wives always sit at the right hand of their husband. At least, that is, when the partnership is perfect in its intended function. And theirs was, indeed.

This I know. ”


I just do not agree that that connection alone would be enough to make that statement.
[I am not 'For' or 'Against' here]

---------------------------------------------

“ John the Baptist...the son of man?
He was also Elijah, in another lifetime. And remember that Elijah didn't die but was taken up in the fiery chariot, witnessed by Elisha.”


…What ?