What secrets did Leonardo da Vinci encrypt in his “Last Supper. Fresco "The Last Supper" Fresco the Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci

"The Last Supper" - the story of one painting

In the most beautiful city of Milan - named by UNESCO as the city of Leonardo da Vinci, in the ancient red brick church, Santa Maria della Grazia, there is one of the most famous fresco paintings in the whole world, the ancient fresco of the mid-15th century “The Last Supper”.

Leonardo da Vinci, "The Last Supper", 1495-1498.(before restoration).

The classic image, known to all art lovers around the world, used to look so deplorable.

"Last Supper"(after restoration).

I came to Milan in October 2013, but was not able to see it with my own eyes, since I had to register in an electronic queue on a special website 2 weeks in advance, which, quite naturally, I did not know about.

I had to be content with photographs of the church and square itself, and get all the information from local websites and from local newspapers and magazines, from books and catalogs on art and the great Internet.

I saw a reproduction of this fresco in early childhood and since I was a “home” child, who was taught from the cradle to beauty, and especially to classical art, so I formed a certain image that I carried in my memory to this day, but the new edition of this image frankly pleased me.

The appearance of the fresco has become clearer and the colors are brighter, but no changes in the images or obvious additions are noticeable. The style has not changed, but the fresco has become “freshened and prettier.” This is one of the best restorations, in my opinion.

There are many copies of this work, since it was rapidly deteriorating and I wanted to preserve it for posterity, at least in the form of a copy.

“The Last Supper” is a copy of Giacomo Rafaeli from the early 19th century.

The most famous copy of "The Last Supper" by an unknown artist of the 17th century is considered the most accurate.

The size of the fresco is approximately 460 x 880 cm, it is located in the refectory of the monastery, on the back wall. The theme is traditional for this type of premises. The opposite wall of the refectory is covered with a fresco by another master; Leonardo also put his hand to it. Years of creation 1495-1498.

The painting was commissioned by Leonardo from his patron, Duke Ludovico Sforza and his wife Beatrice d'Este.

The painting in the church began in 1495 (preliminary sketches were made over several years) and completed in 1498; the work proceeded with interruptions for other orders of the master. The start date of work is not exact, since “the monastery’s archives were destroyed.”

Leonardo wrote “The Last Supper” on a dry wall, and not on wet plaster, so the painting is not a fresco in the true meaning of the word.

The fresco cannot be altered during the work, and Leonardo decided to cover the stone wall with a layer of resin, plaster and mastic, and then paint over this layer with tempera. Due to the chosen method, the painting began to deteriorate just a few years after the completion of the work.

Fresco restoration

Already in 1517, the paint of the painting began to peel off due to moisture. In 1556, biographer Leonardo Vasari described the painting as being badly damaged and so deteriorated that the figures were almost unrecognizable.

In 1652, a doorway was made through the painting, later blocked with bricks; it can still be seen in the middle of the base of the painting. Early copies suggest that Jesus' feet were in a position symbolizing his impending crucifixion.

In 1668, a curtain was hung over the painting for protection; instead, it blocked the evaporation of moisture from the surface, and when the curtain was pulled back, it scratched the peeling paint from the fresco.

The first restoration was undertaken in 1726 by Michelangelo Belotti, who filled in the missing places oil paint, and then covered the fresco varnish.

This restoration did not last long, and another was undertaken in 1770 by Giuseppe Mazza.

Mazza cleaned up Belotti's work and then thoroughly rewrote the mural: he copied all the faces except three, and then had to stop work due to public outrage.

In 1796, French troops used the refectory as an armory; they threw stones at the paintings and climbed ladders to scratch out the apostles' eyes.

The refectory was then used as a prison.

In 1821 Stefano Barezzi, known for his ability to remove frescoes from walls with extreme care, was invited to move the painting to a safer place; he seriously damaged the central section before realizing that Leonardo's work was not a fresco. Barezzi attempted to reattach the damaged areas with glue. From 1901 to 1908, Luigi Cavenaghi carried out the first thorough study of the structure of the painting, and then Cavenaghi began clearing it. In 1924, Oreste Silvestri carried out further clearing and stabilized some parts with plaster.

During World War II, on August 15, 1943, the refectory was bombed. Sandbags prevented bomb fragments from entering the painting, but vibration could have had a harmful effect.

In 1951-1954, Mauro Pelliccoli carried out another restoration with clearing and stabilization.

By the end of the Second World War, “The Last Supper” had fallen into such a disastrous state that it seemed that both the paint and the primer were about to turn into dust.

The Italian Ministry of Fine Arts made a last attempt to save painting, realizing that it had nothing to lose if it failed and much to gain if it succeeded.

Restoration master Mauro Pelliccoli embarked on an eight-year risky undertaking that required uncannily precise and delicate work. To begin with, Pelliccoli secured the painting layer to the wall using a newly invented shellac, absolutely pure wax.

Many experts in this field did not expect such success.

From 1978 to 1999, under the leadership of Pinin Brambilla Barchilon, a large-scale restoration project was carried out, the goal of which was to permanently stabilize the painting and get rid of the damage caused by dirt, pollution and improper restorations of the 18th and 19th centuries. The restoration took 21 years.

A group of restorers led by Signora Barchilon set themselves two goals. The first was quite traditional - to do everything possible to prevent further destruction of the Last Supper. The second was to clear the fresco from numerous layers of different eras, leaving on the wall of the former refectory of the monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie only what was written by Leonardo da Vinci himself.

Before the actual restoration work began, the fresco was subjected to a thorough examination using the most modern technologies. The brickwork of the wall was also subjected to the same thorough examination. Using super-powerful microscopes, X-ray machines and infrared reflectoscopy technology, every millimeter of Leonardo da Vinci's masterpiece was thoroughly studied.

“The Last Supper” was also scrupulously studied using modern chemical analysis methods in order to determine the composition of the paints and varnishes that made up the pictorial layer of the fresco.

Restoration work was carried out extremely carefully. In her book, Signora Barchilon recalled that the result of the work of her group In one day, sometimes the result was that they could clear a fragment of a fresco the size of a postage stamp.

Signor Barchilon's working group confirmed the conclusion of Mauro Pelliccoli that at most 30% remained of Leonardo's work on the wall of the former refectory of the monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie.

And if you leave everything as it is, then the fresco will look like a kind of patchwork quilt with a mass of empty fragments, the original painting of which has been completely lost over the past centuries.

In the end, the following decision was made: the fragments of the fresco that could not be restored should be rewritten in watercolors of more muted colors, thereby not misleading the audience to let them know that these, the darker fragments are not original work by Leonardo da Vinci.

When the mural was opened for inspection by visitors on May 28, 1999, naturally, fierce debate immediately broke out over the strong change in colors, tones, and even the ovals of the faces of a number of figures depicted in the fresco.

American art critic Geoffrey Morsburgh puzzled the public with the question: “Today we can only guess what Leonardo’s work originally looked like. Yes, through the efforts of Signora Brambilla and her colleagues, the fresco was cleared of the results of all previous restoration efforts. Signora Brambilla says that during the restoration work it turned out that of the paintings preserved on the wall of the monastery, only 30% belongs to the hand of Leonardo. But the question is: what does she mean by this thirty percent? 30% of the total area of ​​the paint layer before the restoration began, or 30% of what remained on the wall after clearing the painting? But in any case, it is a fact that Signora Brambilla found only a faint trace of the master’s hand on some fragments of the fresco.”

If we are guided by Morsburgh’s second consideration, it turns out that from the original plan of Leonardo da Vinci, in today’s “Last Supper”, after numerous rewrites, corrections and restorations, it is completely There could only be... 9% of the paint layer left.

And here the question arises: what, in fact, was Leonardo’s masterpiece?

Although the overall impression of the restoration is very positive, if you look closely, there is some excessive care in the drawing or finishing of details.

Of course, it is clear that the restoration could not have been more accurate, and not only from the previous numerous restorations, but also from the fact that, together with Leonardo, the details of the fresco were painted by his students, and the master himself, as in other works, painted faces and hands, Therefore, now it is difficult to say what part of the master’s work has been preserved and has come to us in its original form.

I personally think that the restoration and reconstruction were done too literally, revealing what the artist had written more softly and tenderly. I believe that even the color palette of the picture is disturbed; the clothes of the apostles and Christ himself have changed their color. Everything began to look like a modern lithograph, a kind of fake of an ancient work.

But local restorers insist that they are right, saying that due to damp ancient plaster and putrefactive fungus, soot from candles and poor ventilation of the church premises, the paint layer was completely destroyed.

The fresco, roughly speaking, “floated”, became blurred, and would have been completely lost to Humanity if it had not been completely restored.

The colors changed over time due to putrefactive processes in the paint layer, and the clarity of the lines disappeared due to moisture and fumes...

Most likely, this is all true, but I believe that the reconstruction of the fresco should have been softer.

Although, maybe this is my subjective opinion and the restorers are absolutely right...

But this is a matter of taste and perception individually for each person, and the essence of my story about the fresco is not at all...

Characters

The apostles are depicted in groups of three, located around the figure of Christ sitting in the center.

Groups of apostles, from left to right: Bartholomew, Jacob Alpheus and Andrew; Judas Iscariot (with a dark face and wearing blue-green clothes in the original, and in blue and brown clothes in the new version), Peter and John (John, according to an unconventional version, is Mary Magdalene, the wife and disciple of Jesus), Thomas (Judas Thaddeus), James Zebedee and Philip, Matthew, Judas Thaddeus (Thomas) and Simon.

In the 19th century, notebooks by Leonardo da Vinci with the names of the apostles were found; previously only Judas, Peter, John and Christ had been identified with certainty. Anyone who has stood in the refectory before the Last Supper can confirm that it looks like an illusory continuation of real space.

HEAD OF THE APOSTLE BARTHOLOMEW. 1495-1497.

In the preparatory drawing of the head of the Apostle Bartholomew (in the Gospel of John - Nathanael) similarities are found with Leonardo’s self-portraits. There is an opinion, however, that Leonardo depicted the Apostle Matthew here.

It is quite obvious that other faces and characters were “copied” from life. Indirect evidence can serve as the words of Leonardo, recorded by his contemporary, who saw the fresco, the fame of which spread throughout the world, and talked with the artist in Amboise in 1517: “Its characters are real portraits of most of the people of the Court of that time, as well as Milanese of various positions.” .

Leonardo, apparently, did not leave a single self-portrait that could be unambiguously attributed to him. Scientists have long doubted that the famous self-portrait of Leonardo's sanguine (traditionally dated to -1515), depicting him in old age, depicts him.

It is believed that perhaps this is just a study of the head of the Apostle Judas Thaddeus (or Thomas) for the Last Supper. However, Leonardo himself did not repeat in any detail the plans of either his predecessors or contemporaries.

APOSTLES JUDAS (THADDEAS), SIMON THE ZILOTES. Fragment of the fresco “The Last Supper”.

The image of Leonardo still causes controversy and interest among scientists around the world.

What this artist and great inventor, unique for his time, actually looked like, a mysterious freemason - master of a secret society and the greatest engineer of that time, no one knows, and exhuming and studying the remains of this man is a mystery not resolved by the government of France, on whose territory he lived the last years of his life and died, and where his crypt is located.

The same “self-portrait” superimposed in mirror on the image of Mona Lisa. 100% match. The miracles and secrets of the master have never been solved.

The fresco is believed to depict the moment when Jesus utters the words that one of the apostles will betray him (“while they were eating, he said, “Truly I say to you, one of you will betray me”*), and the reaction of each of them to his words.

As in other depictions of the Last Supper of the time, Leonardo places those sitting at the table on one side so that the viewer can see their faces.

Judas clutches a small pouch in his hand, perhaps representing the 30 coins he received for betraying Jesus, or the purse is an allusion to his role among the twelve apostles as their treasurer.

He was the only one with his elbow on the table. The knife in Peter's hand, pointing away from Christ, perhaps refers the viewer to the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane during the detention of Christ by the Roman guards.

Jesus' gesture can be interpreted in two ways. According to the Bible, Jesus predicts that his betrayer will reach out to the food at the same time as him.

We see that Judas reaches for the dish, not noticing that Jesus is also stretching out his right hand to him. At the same time, Jesus points to bread and wine, which symbolize the sinless body and shed blood respectively.

Traditional reading of characters based on their family ties and historical truth.

The figure of Jesus is positioned and illuminated in such a way that the viewer's attention is concentrated primarily on him.

The head of Jesus is at a vanishing point for all lines of perspective.

The painting contains repeated references to the number three: the apostles sit in groups of three; behind Jesus there are three windows; the contours of the figure of Christ resemble a triangle.

The light illuminating the entire scene does not come from the windows painted behind, but comes from the left, like the real light from the window on the left wall.

The golden ratio runs through many places in the painting; for example, where Jesus and John, who is on his right, put their hands, the canvas is divided in this ratio.

John or Mary Magdalene

Only he himself testifies that the Savior’s favorite disciple was the young apostle John; no other historical evidence has survived. But about the love of Jesus for Mary Magdalene he himself testifies John(in the image of Mary of Bethany) and herself Maria, And Philip(in his apocryphal gospels).

And it says that he loved her more than all the apostles combined, which openly angered all the disciples, and especially Peter.

Mary accompanied Jesus constantly. Being “possessed,” as this condition was called then, and still not an established or confirmed mental disorder, she constantly needed his protection and help, which he provided to her, “casting out demons.” I can only assume, but I do not claim, that Mary could have been a nymphomaniac, which is where the opinion of her as a “harlot” came from, but of course there can be no evidence of this.

Sketch for John. Salai model.

John the Baptist. Salai model.

Judging by the clear texts of the remainder of her gospel, as well as many fragments of the gospel of John, in the writing of which she is believed to have taken an active part, everything was in order with Mary's head.

But her sexual need, apparently, was constantly unsatisfied. This is exactly what made her at one time harlot. During this period, she apparently led a luxurious lifestyle, which is confirmed by her incense, the value of which in only one vessel she carried was equal to annual salary worker or hired warrior.

Jesus found control over her “demons,” but always only for a while time. This is yet another evidence of the sexual nature of Mary’s “possession.”

"... the companion of the Son is Mary Magdalene. Lord loved Mary more than all the disciples, And He often kissed her lips". (Philip, 55).

Is there any doubt then that at the table(when they managed to hit him) Maria always sat next to with Jesus himself?

They were normal loving couple, which both the mother of Jesus and his aunt Mary of Cleophas knew about. (Otherwise Magdalene would not have been able to be in the circle of their family at the time of Christ’s crucifixion and burial, which means she lived with them or at least “was considered part of the family”).

All this, of course, was known to Leonardo da Vinci. And in his painting he boldly places Mary Magdalene in the place of honor at the table - in the center, next to Jesus, on his right hand.

How could a young, almost boyish John of Zebedee, achieve such an honor?

Perhaps only a blind person could fail to see that the so-called (officially) John has pure feminine, beautiful and shy face, moderately idealized by the artist:

On a later copy of the painting Giacomo Rafaeli instead of the young man John, a middle-aged “blooming woman” is depicted.

Pay special attention to the woman's face and the brooch on the collar, the rich decoration of the collar and the white delicate skin, this is a mature blonde woman.

The disproportionately elongated arms of Mary are probably explained by the fact that they were drawn by one of Leonardo’s students (who, moreover, believed that he was depicting the hands of a young man).

Mary's clearly cropped left shoulder apparently acquired this appearance after one of the previous restorations.

Seated next to Maria Matthew And Philip they find themselves here at the most opportune time. It was they who subsequently helped Mary in her confrontation with some of the apostles after the crucifixion of Christ and his ascension to heaven.

There is a quote from Matthew’s address to Peter: “... if the Savior considered her worthy, who are you to reject her?)

Models for the Apostles and Christ

We can’t possibly name all the models today, but some of them are quite recognizable.

Salai(Salaino; Italian Salai, Il Salaino - “little devil”; years of life 1480-19 January 1524), real name Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno (Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno) - student of Leonardo da Vinci, his favorite model, who was a model for both female and young male characters, since he had a unique androgenic appearance.

The second of two young men, in addition to Francesco Melzi, with whom the artist had a long-term - more than 25 years - and possibly intimate relationship, judging by the master’s sketches, where he clearly indicated his “rebellious” manhood.

There is a marginal version that Salai, dressed in a woman's dress, was the model for the Mona Lisa, but there is also a version that it was the master himself.

This face looks out from many of the master’s paintings.

Salai was also the model for the Apostle Philip.

Most likely Szalai posed for the image of John (Mary Magdalene).

According to unverified data, the master himself depicted himself as an old man - an apostle, penultimate to the left of Christ or, if you look at the picture, penultimate to the right.

Images of Jesus and Judas.

When Leonardo da Vinci wrote The Last Supper, he attached particular importance to two figures: Christ and Judas.

He spent a very long time looking for models for them. Finally, he managed to find a model for the image of Christ among the young choristers of the Duomo Cathedral in Milan.

Sketch for a fresco.

HEAD OF CHRIST. Fragment of the fresco “The Last Supper”.

Leonardo was unable to find a sitter for Judas for three to four years. But one day he came across a drunkard on the street who was lying in a gutter. He was a young man with a very characteristic vicious face, who was aged by continuous drunkenness.

Leonardo was struck by his appearance, and he invited the drunkard to a tavern, where he immediately began to paint Judas from him. When the drunkard came to his senses, he told the artist that he had already posed for him once. It was several years ago, when he was young and handsome, and sang in the church choir, Leonardo painted Christ from him.

Sketches of Judas.

I don’t know what the master felt then, but he painted that image of Judas from him, and it turned out that the same person embodied the image of both the traitor and the victim. Allegorically, he became the personification of both the Universal Light and the Universal Darkness.

No matter how many years pass, the theme of Good and Evil, self-denial and betrayal will always exist on Earth until our souls learn perfection and love for others, as Jesus taught.

culture art literature prose prose The Last Supper

Truly, there is no secret in the world that would not someday become obvious, for manuscripts do not burn. And we continue to debunk one of the most unscrupulous historical myths regarding the name defamed by the Christian Church Mary Magdalene. Recently, coverage of this topic has become of fundamental importance for us, because Rigden Djappo himself speaks with great respect about her and her “great feat”, which we will definitely come to later, as evidenced by those presented in the book “ Sensei 4. Primordial Shambhala"materials describing the completely unknown history of this mysterious and beautiful woman. Very soon in the "Primordial Knowledge" section we will post the detailed content of this, in our opinion, priceless literary work.

In the meantime, following the article “One of the secrets of Mary Magdalene, the beloved disciple of Jesus Christ,” we continue the search for an inconvenient truth for the official Church, trying to figure out what and why they hid from us - ordinary people - for thousands of years, what can you do, we have to to speak directly, the so-called “clergy”. Having received the keys of Knowledge, “doors and eyes open” for any person, he begins to see the surrounding reality from a radically different angle, and first of all, it becomes unclear to him why these people call themselves “clergy” and hide so many secrets? If people knew the truth, a lot in this world could change, and we are convinced, for the better for people.

Today we turn to the monumental painting of Leonardo da Vinci" Last Supper", depicting the scene of the last supper of Jesus Christ with his disciples. It was written in the years 1495-1498 in the Dominican monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan. The reason for our conversion in it? Like many unbiased biblical scholars, we became very interested, why is it clear that there is a woman next to Jesus , while the Church for thousands of years has been urging people to believe in the version about a certain Apostle John, from whose pen the fourth, one of the canonical Gospels “of John the Theologian” came out, the “beloved disciple” of the Savior.

So, let's look at the original first:

Location

Church of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, Italy.

"Last Supper" (official information, according to Wikipedia)

General information

The dimensions of the image are approximately 460x880 cm, it is located in the refectory of the monastery, on the back wall. The theme is traditional for this type of premises. The opposite wall of the refectory is covered with a fresco by another master; Leonardo also put his hand to it.

Technique

He painted “The Last Supper” on a dry wall, and not on wet plaster, so the painting is not a fresco in the true sense of the word. The fresco cannot be altered during the work, and Leonardo decided to cover the stone wall with a layer of resin, gabs and mastic, and then paint over this layer with tempera. Due to the chosen method, the painting began to deteriorate just a few years after the completion of the work.

Figures depicted

The apostles are depicted in groups of three, located around the figure of Christ sitting in the center. Groups of apostles, from left to right:

Bartholomew, Jacob Alfeev and Andrey;
Judas Iscariot (wearing green and blue clothes) , Peter and John (?);
Thomas, James Zebedee and Philip;
Matthew, Judas Thaddeus and Simon.

In the 19th century, notebooks by Leonardo da Vinci with the names of the apostles were found; previously only Judas, Peter, John and Christ had been identified with certainty.

Analysis of the picture

The work is believed to depict the moment when Jesus utters the words that one of the apostles will betray him (“and while they were eating, he said, “Truly I say to you, one of you will betray Me”), and the reaction of each of them. As in other depictions of the Last Supper of the time, Leonardo places those sitting at the table on one side so that the viewer can see their faces. Most previous writings on the subject excluded Judas, placing him alone at the opposite end of the table from where the other eleven apostles and Jesus sat, or depicting all the apostles except Judas with a halo. Judas clutches a small pouch, perhaps representing the silver he received for betraying Jesus, or an allusion to his role among the twelve apostles as treasurer. He was the only one with his elbow on the table. The knife in Peter's hand, pointing away from Christ, perhaps refers the viewer to the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane during the arrest of Christ. Jesus' gesture can be interpreted in two ways. According to the Bible, Jesus predicts that his betrayer will reach out to eat at the same time he does. Judas reaches for the dish, not noticing that Jesus is also extending his right hand to him. At the same time, Jesus points to bread and wine, which symbolize the sinless body and shed blood respectively.
The figure of Jesus is positioned and illuminated in such a way that the viewer's attention is drawn primarily to him. The head of Jesus is at a vanishing point for all lines of perspective.
The painting contains repeated references to the number three:

The apostles sit in groups of three;
behind Jesus there are three windows;
the contours of the figure of Christ resemble a triangle.

The light illuminating the entire scene does not come from the windows painted behind, but comes from the left, like the real light from the window on the left wall. In many places in the picture there is a golden ratio; for example, where Jesus and John, who is on his right, put their hands, the canvas is divided in this ratio.

"The Last Supper. Mary Magdalene sits next to Christ!" (Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince. "Leonardo da Vinci and the Brotherhood of Zion")

(a book worth reading for its analytical perspective)

There is one of the most famous - immortal - works of art in the world. Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper fresco is the only surviving painting in the refectory of the monastery of Santa Maria del Grazia. It is made on a wall that remained standing after the entire building was reduced to rubble as a result of Allied bombing during World War II. Although other remarkable artists have presented their versions of this biblical scene to the world - Nicolas Poussin and even such an idiosyncratic author as Salvador Dali - it is Leonardo’s creation that, for some reason, amazes the imagination more than any other painting. Variations on this theme can be seen everywhere, and they cover the entire spectrum of attitudes towards the topic: from admiration to ridicule.

Sometimes an image looks so familiar that it is practically not examined in detail, although it is open to the gaze of any viewer and requires more careful consideration: its true, deep meaning remains a closed book, and the viewer glances only at its cover.

It was this work of Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) - the suffering genius of Renaissance Italy - that showed us the path that led to discoveries so exciting in their consequences that at first they seemed incredible. It is impossible to understand why entire generations of scientists did not notice what was available to our astonished gaze, why such explosive information patiently waited all this time for writers like us, remained outside the mainstream of historical or religious research and was not discovered.

To be consistent, we must return to the Last Supper and look at it with fresh, unbiased eyes. This is not the time to consider it in the light of familiar ideas about history and art. Now the moment has come when the view of a person who is completely unfamiliar with this so famous scene will be more appropriate - let the veil of bias fall from our eyes, let us allow ourselves to look at the picture in a new way.

The central figure, of course, is Jesus, whom Leonardo, in his notes relating to this work, calls the Savior. He thoughtfully looks down and slightly to his left, his hands are stretched out on the table in front of him, as if offering the viewer the gifts of the Last Supper. Since it was then, according to the New Testament, that Jesus introduced the sacrament of Communion, offering bread and wine to the disciples as his “flesh” and “blood,” the viewer has the right to expect that there should be a cup or goblet of wine on the table in front of him in order for the gesture to appear justified . Ultimately, for Christians, this supper immediately precedes the passion of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, where he fervently prays “let this cup pass from me...” - another association with the image of wine - blood - and also the holy blood shed before the Crucifixion for the atonement of sins of all humanity. Nevertheless, there is no wine before Jesus (and not even a symbolic amount of it on the entire table). Could these outstretched hands mean what in the vocabulary of artists is called an empty gesture?

Given the absence of wine, it is perhaps no coincidence that of all the bread on the table, very few are “broken.” Since Jesus himself associated with his flesh the bread to be broken in the supreme sacrament, is there not a subtle hint sent to us of the true nature of Jesus' suffering?

However, all this is just the tip of the iceberg of heresy reflected in this picture. According to the Gospel, the Apostle John the Theologian was physically so close to Jesus during this Supper that he leaned “to his chest.” However, in Leonardo this young man occupies a position completely different from that required by the “stage instructions” of the Gospel, but, on the contrary, exaggeratedly deviated from the Savior, bowing his head to the right. An unbiased viewer can be forgiven if he notices only these curious features in relation to a single image - the image of the Apostle John. But, although the artist, due to his own preferences, of course, was inclined towards the ideal of male beauty of a somewhat feminine type, there can be no other interpretations: at the moment we are looking at a woman. Everything about him is strikingly feminine. No matter how old and faded the image may be due to the age of the fresco, one cannot help but notice the tiny, graceful hands, delicate facial features, clearly female breasts and a gold necklace. This is a woman, precisely a woman, which is marked by attire that especially distinguishes her. The clothes on her are a mirror image of the clothes of the Savior: if he is wearing a blue chiton and a red cloak, then she is wearing a red chiton and a blue cloak. No one at the table wears clothing that is a mirror image of Jesus' clothing. And there are no other women at the table.

Central to the composition is the huge, widened letter “M”, which is formed by the figures of Jesus and this woman taken together. They seem to be literally connected at the hips, but they suffer because they diverge or even grow from one point in different directions. As far as we know, none of the academicians ever referred to this image other than “St. John”; they also did not notice the compositional form in the form of the letter “M”. Leonardo, as we have established in our research, was a magnificent psychologist who laughed at presenting to his patrons, who commissioned him a traditional biblical image, highly unorthodox images, knowing that people would calmly and unperturbedly look at the most monstrous heresy, since they usually only see what they want to see. If you have been called upon to write a Christian scene, and you have presented to the public something which at first sight is similar and responsive to their wishes, people will never look for ambiguous symbolism.

At the same time, Leonardo had to hope that perhaps there were others who shared his unusual interpretation of the New Testament, who would recognize secret symbolism in the painting. Or someone someday, some objective observer will one day understand the image of the mysterious woman associated with the letter “M”, and ask questions that clearly follow from this. Who was this “M” and why is she so important? Why did Leonardo risk his reputation—even his life, in those days when heretics were burning at the stake everywhere—to include her in a fundamental Christian scene? Whoever she is, her fate cannot but cause alarm as the outstretched hand cuts her gracefully arched neck. The threat contained in this gesture cannot be doubted.

The index finger of the other hand, raised right in front of the Savior’s face, threatens him with obvious passion. But both Jesus and “M” look like people who do not notice the threat, each of them is completely immersed in the world of their thoughts, each in their own manner is serene and calm. But all together it looks as if the secret symbols were used not only to warn Jesus and the woman sitting next to him (?), but also to inform (or perhaps remind) the observer of some information that would be dangerous to make public in any other way. Did Leonardo use his creation to promulgate some special beliefs that would be simply madness to proclaim in the usual way? And could these beliefs be a message addressed to a much wider circle, and not just to his inner circle? Maybe they were intended for us, for the people of our time?

Young Apostle John or Mary Magdalene?

Let's get back to looking at this amazing creation. In the fresco on the right, from the observer's point of view, a tall bearded man is bent almost double, telling something to a student sitting at the edge of the table. At the same time, he almost completely turned his back to the Savior. The model for the image of this disciple - Saint Thaddeus or Saint Jude - was Leonardo himself. Note that images of Renaissance artists were usually either accidental or were made when the artist was a beautiful model. In this case, we are dealing with an example of the use of an image by an adherent of double entendre (double meaning). (He was preoccupied with finding the right model for each of the apostles, as can be seen from his rebellious offer to the most irate prior of St. Mary's to serve as a model for Judas.) So why did Leonardo portray himself as so clearly turning his back on Jesus?

Moreover. An unusual hand aims a dagger at the stomach of a student sitting just one person away from "M". This hand cannot belong to anyone sitting at the table, since such a bend is physically impossible for the people next to the image of the hand to hold the dagger in this position. However, what is truly striking is not the very fact of the existence of a hand that does not belong to the body, but the absence of any mention of it in the works about Leonardo that we have read: although this hand is mentioned in a couple of works, the authors do not find anything unusual in it. As in the case of the Apostle John, who looks like a woman, nothing could be more obvious - and nothing more strange - once you pay attention to this circumstance. But this irregularity most often escapes the attention of the observer simply because this fact is extraordinary and outrageous.

We often hear that Leonardo was a devout Christian whose religious paintings reflect the depth of his faith. As we can see, at least one of the paintings contains images that are very dubious from the point of view of an orthodox Christian. Our further research, as we will show, has established that nothing could be so far from the truth as the idea that Leonardo was a true believer - by implication, a believer according to the canons of the generally accepted or at least acceptable form of Christianity. Already from the curious anomalous features of one of his creations we see that he was trying to tell us about another layer of meaning in a familiar biblical scene, about another world of faith hidden in the generally accepted images of wall paintings in Milan.

Whatever the meaning of these heretical irregularities - and the significance of this fact cannot be exaggerated - they were absolutely incompatible with the orthodox tenets of Christianity. This in itself is unlikely to be news to many modern materialists/rationalists, since for them Leonardo was the first true scientist, a man who had no time for any superstitions, a man who was the antithesis of all mysticism and occultism. But they also could not understand what appeared before their eyes. Depicting the Last Supper without wine is tantamount to depicting a coronation scene without a crown: the result is either nonsense, or the picture is filled with other content, and to such an extent that it represents the author as an absolute heretic - a person who has faith, but a faith that contradicts the dogmas of Christianity. Perhaps not just different, but in a state of struggle with the dogmas of Christianity. And in other works of Leonardo we have discovered his own peculiar heretical predilections, expressed in carefully crafted relevant scenes, which he would hardly have written exactly as he was simply an atheist earning his living. There are too many of these deviations and symbols to be interpreted as the mockery of a skeptic forced to work according to an order, nor can they be called simply antics, such as, for example, the image of St. Peter with a red nose. What we see in the Last Supper and other works is the secret code of Leonardo da Vinci, which we believe has a striking connection with our modern world.

One can argue what Leonardo believed or did not believe, but his actions were not just the whim of a man, undoubtedly extraordinary, whose whole life was full of paradoxes. He was reserved, but at the same time the soul and life of society; he despised fortune tellers, but his papers indicate large sums paid to astrologers; he was considered a vegetarian and had a tender love for animals, but his tenderness rarely extended to humanity; he zealously dissected corpses and observed executions with the eyes of an anatomist, was a deep thinker and a master of riddles, tricks and hoaxes.

With such a contradictory inner world, it is likely that Leonardo's religious and philosophical views were unusual, even strange. For this reason alone, it is tempting to dismiss his heretical beliefs as something of no relevance to our modern times. It is generally accepted that Leonardo was an extremely gifted man, but the modern tendency to evaluate everything in terms of "era" leads to a significant underestimation of his achievements. After all, at the time when he was in his creative prime, even printing was a novelty. What can one lone inventor, living in such primitive times, offer to a world that is swimming in an ocean of information through the global network, to a world that, in a matter of seconds, exchanges information through telephone and fax with continents that in his time were not yet discovered?

There are two answers to this question. First: Leonardo was not, let's use the paradox, an ordinary genius. Most educated people know that he designed a flying machine and a primitive tank, but at the same time some of his inventions were so unusual for the time in which he lived that people with an eccentric turn of mind may imagine that he was given the power to foresee the future. His bicycle design, for example, became known only in the late sixties of the twentieth century. Unlike the painful trial-and-error evolution that the Victorian bicycle underwent, Leonardo da Vinci's road eater already had two wheels and a chain drive in its first edition. But what is even more striking is not the design of the mechanism, but the question of the reasons that prompted the invention of the wheel. Man has always wanted to fly like a bird, but the dream of balancing on two wheels and pressing the pedals, taking into account the deplorable state of the roads, already smacks of mysticism. (Remember, by the way, that unlike the dream of flying, it does not appear in any classical story.) Among many other statements about the future, Leonardo also predicted the appearance of the telephone.

Even if Leonardo were an even greater genius than the history books say, the question still remains unanswered: what possible knowledge could he have possessed if what he proposed made sense or became widespread only five centuries after his time. One can, of course, make the argument that the teachings of a first-century preacher would seem to have even less relevance to our time, but the indisputable fact remains: some ideas are universal and eternal, the truth, found or formulated, does not cease to be the truth after the passage of centuries. ..

(to be continued)

"The Da Vinci Code" (scandalous novel by Dan Brown)

Particularly heated debates erupted in the world after the film adaptation of Dan Brown's scandalous novel " The Da Vinci Code", where, among other things, he states that Mary Magdalene was not only the beloved disciple of Jesus, but also the consort, that is, the wife . The book has been translated into 44 languages ​​and published in a total circulation of more than 81 million copies. The Da Vinci Code tops the New York Times bestseller list and is considered by many to be the best book of the decade. The novel, written in the genre of an intellectual detective thriller, was able to awaken widespread interest in the legend of the Holy Grail and the place of Mary Magdalene in the history of Christianity.

However, the Christian world reacted very sharply to the release of the book and film; Dan Brown's version was destroyed with a thousand critical responses and comments. One of the zealous ministers of religion put it most eloquently, even calling for a boycott of the film: “piercingly anti-Christian, full of slander, crimes and historical and theological errors regarding Jesus, the Gospel and a hostile church.” However, putting aside religious narrow-mindedness, one thing can be said for sure: none of the critics was alive then, and cannot know the real history. It may be known to the one whose name is inscribed in the title of our site, and we will return to his words.

SKETCH FOR "THE LAST SUPPER"

Well, now let's look at Leonardo Da Vinci's blank, the surviving sketch for The Last Supper. The second figure from the left, in the top row, feminine outlines, smoother and lighter forms are clearly visible. Who is this if not a woman?

SUMMARY

Everyone sees what they want to see, this is one of the mysterious laws of human consciousness. And if a person’s consciousness believes that white is black, it will confidently prove that it is right. We were not present at the painting of the famous monumental painting by the brilliant artist, just as we were not present at the epoch-making events in the life of Jesus Christ, and therefore it would be fairer to end this article with the statement that we cannot know for sure whether it is John or Mary, but subjectively, in the picture Leonardo Da Vinci is a woman, and therefore none other than the beloved disciple of Jesus - Mary Magdalene. The Church’s opinion that the Apostle John the Theologian is in the picture is of the same degree of subjectivity. 50/50 - no more!!!

Prepared by Dato Gomarteli (Ukraine-Georgia)

PS: another reproduction, photo of the “Last Supper” mosaic from St. Isaac’s Cathedral in St. Petersburg, and again we see a woman:

On the eve of suffering on the cross and death, the Lord Jesus Christ celebrated His last meal with the disciples - the Last Supper. In Jerusalem, in the Zion Upper Room, the Savior and the apostles celebrated the Old Testament Passover, established in memory of the miraculous deliverance of the Jewish people from Egyptian slavery. After eating the Old Testament Jewish Passover, the Savior took bread and, thanking God the Father for all His mercies to the human race, broke it and gave it to the disciples, saying: “This is My Body, which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Then He took a cup of grape wine, also blessed it and gave it to them, saying: “Drink from it, all of you; For this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Having given communion to the apostles, the Lord gave them the commandment to always perform this Sacrament: “Do this in My remembrance.” Since then, the Christian Church has celebrated the Sacrament of the Eucharist at every Divine Liturgy - the greatest sacrament of the union of believers with Christ.

Word for the Gospel reading on Maundy Thursday ( 15.04.93 )

The Supper of Christ is secret. Firstly, because the disciples gather around the Teacher, hated by the world, hated by the Prince of this world, who is in the ring of malice and mortal danger, which reveals the generosity of Christ and demands loyalty from the disciples. This is a requirement violated by the terrible betrayal on the part of Judas and imperfectly fulfilled by the other disciples, who fall into slumber from despondency, from gloomy forebodings, when they should be awake with Christ while praying for the Cup. Peter, in a daze of fear, renounces his Teacher with oaths. All the students run away.

Eucharist. Sofia Kyiv

But the line between fidelity, however imperfect, and completeness remains. This is a terrible line: an irreconcilable clash between His generosity and holiness, between the Kingdom of God, which He proclaims and brings to people, and the kingdom of the Prince of this world. This is so irreconcilable that as we approach the mystery of Christ we are faced with a final choice. After all, we are approaching Christ as close as believers of other religions cannot even imagine. They cannot imagine that it is possible to draw closer to God as we do when we eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood. It’s hard to think about, but what’s it like to say! What was it like for the apostles to hear for the first time the words with which the Lord established the truth! And woe to us if we do not experience at least a small fraction of the awe that should have gripped the apostles then.

The Last Supper is a mystery both because it must be hidden from a hostile world, and because in its essence is the impenetrable mystery of the last condescension of the God-man to people: the King of kings and Lord of lords washes the feet of the disciples with His hands and thus reveals His humility to all of us . How can you beat this? Only one thing: to give yourself up to death. And the Lord does it.

We are weak people. And when our hearts become dead, we want well-being. But while we have a living heart, sinful, but alive, what does a living heart yearn for? That there should be an object of love, infinitely worthy of love, so that one could find such an object of love and serve it without sparing oneself.

All people's dreams are unreasonable, because they are dreams. But they are alive as long as the living heart strives not for well-being, but for sacrificial love, for us to be pleased with ineffable generosity towards us and for us to respond to this with some amount of generosity and faithfully serve the King of kings and the Lord of lords, who is so generous to His servants.

Our Lord, in the person of the apostles, called us his friends. This is more scary to think about than to think about the fact that we are God's servants. A slave can hide his eyes in a bow; a friend cannot avoid meeting the gaze of his friend - reproachful, forgiving, seeing the heart. The mystery of Christianity, in contrast to the imaginary mysteries with which false teachings seduce people, is like the depth of the most transparent water, impenetrable to view, which, however, is so great that we cannot see the bottom; Yes and there is no bottom.

What can you say this evening? Only one thing: that the Holy Gifts that will be brought out and given to us are the very body and blood of Christ that the apostles partook of in an unimaginable shock of their hearts. And this meeting of ours is that same lasting Last Supper. Let us pray that we do not betray God's secret - the secret that unites us with Christ, that we experience this warmth of mystery, that we do not betray it, that we respond to it with at least the most imperfect fidelity.

The Last Supper in icons and paintings

Simon Ushakov Icon “The Last Supper” 1685 The icon was placed above the Royal Doors in the iconostasis of the Assumption Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery

Dirk Bouts
Sacrament of Communion
1464-1467
Altar of Saint Peter's Church in Louvain

Washing the feet (John 13:1 - 20). Miniature from the Gospel and the Apostle, 11th century. Parchment.
Monastery of Dionysiates, Athos (Greece).

Washing the feet; Byzantium; X century; location: Egypt. Sinai, monastery of St. Catherine; 25.9 x 25.6 cm; material: wood, gold (leaf), natural pigments; technique: gilding, egg tempera

Washing the feet. Byzantium, XI century Location: Greece, Phokis, Hosios Loukas monastery

Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld The Last Supper Engraving 1851-1860 From illustrations for the “Bible in Pictures”

Washing the feet. Statue in front of Dallas Baptist University.

A recent spate of books and articles has increasingly suggested that Leonardo da Vinci was the leader of an underground society and that he hid secret codes and messages in his artwork. Is it true? In addition to his role in history as a famous artist, scientist and inventor, was he also the keeper of some great secret that has been passed down through the centuries?

CIPHERS AND ENCRYPTION. LEONARDO DA VINCI'S ENCRYPTION METHOD.

Leonardo was, of course, no stranger to the use of codes and encryption. All his notes are written backwards, mirrored. Why exactly Leonardo did this remains unclear. It has been suggested that he may have felt that some of his military inventions would be too destructive and powerful if they fell into the wrong hands. Therefore, he protected his papers using the write-back method. Other scientists point out that this type of encryption is too simple, because to decipher it you just need to hold the paper up to the mirror. If Leonardo used it for security, he was probably concerned with hiding the contents only from the casual observer.

Other researchers believe that he used backward writing simply because it was easier for him. Leonardo was left-handed, and writing backwards was less difficult for him than for a right-hander.

CRYPTEX

Recently, many people credit Leonardo with inventing a mechanism called the cryptex. A cryptex is a tube that consists of a series of rings with the letters of the alphabet engraved on them. When the rings are turned so that some of the letters line up to form the password to open the cryptex - one of the end caps can be removed and the contents (usually a piece of papyrus wrapped around a glass container of vinegar) can be removed. If someone tries to get the contents by breaking the device, the glass container inside will crack and the vinegar will dissolve what is written on the papyrus.

In his popular book (fiction) The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown credits the invention of the cryptex to Leonardo da Vinci. But there is no real evidence that it was da Vinci who invented and/or designed this device.

SECRETS OF THE MONA LISA PAINTING BY LEONARDO DA VINCI. THE SECRET OF GIOCONDA'S SMILE.

One popular idea is that Leonardo wrote secret symbols or messages in his works. After analyzing his most famous painting, the Mona Lisa, many believe that Leonardo used some tricks when creating the painting. Many people find Mona Lisa's smile particularly haunting. They say that it appears to change even though there is no change in the properties of the paint on the surface of the painting.

Professor Margaret Livingston of Harvard University suggests that Leonardo painted the edges of the portrait's smile so that they appear slightly out of focus. Because of this, they are easier to see in peripheral vision than when looking directly at them. This may explain why some people report that the portrait appears to smile more when they look directly at the smile.

Another theory, proposed by Christopher Tyler and Leonid Kontsevich of the Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, says that smiling appears to change due to variable levels of random noise in the human visual system. If you close your eyes in a dark room, you will notice that everything is not perfectly black. The cells in our eyes create low levels of "background noise" (we see this as tiny dots of light and dark). Our brains usually filter this out, but Tyler and Kontsevich suggested that when looking at the Mona Lisa, these little dots could change the shape of her smile. To prove their theory, they placed several random sets of dots on the Mona Lisa painting and showed it to people. Some of the respondents said that Gioconda’s smile looked more joyful than usual, others thought on the contrary, that the dots darkened the portrait. Tyler and Kontsevich argue that noise, which is inherent in the human visual system, has the same effect. When someone looks at a painting, their visual system adds noise to the image and changes it, making the smile appear to change.

Why does Mona Lisa smile? Over the years, people have speculated: some thought she might have been pregnant, others found the smile sad and suggested she was unhappy in her marriage.

Dr. Lillian Schwartz of the Bell Labs research center has come up with a theory that seems unlikely but intriguing. She thinks that Gioconda is smiling because the artist was playing a joke on the audience. She claims that the picture is not of a smiling young woman, that in fact it is a self-portrait of the artist himself. Schwartz noticed that when she used a computer to identify features in the Mona Lisa portrait and Da Vinci's self-portrait, they matched exactly. However, other experts note that this may be a result of both portraits being painted with the same paints and brushes, by the same artist, and using the same painting techniques.

THE SECRET OF THE PICTURE THE LAST SUPPER BY LEONARDO DA VINCI.

Dan Brown, in his popular thriller The Da Vinci Code, suggests that Leonardo's painting The Last Supper has a number of hidden meanings and symbols. In the fictional story, there is an early church conspiracy to suppress the importance of Mary Magdalene, a follower of Jesus Christ (history records - to the chagrin of many believers - that she was his wife). Allegedly, Leonardo was the head of a secret order of people who knew the truth about Magdalene and tried to preserve it. One way Leonardo did this was to leave clues in his famous work, The Last Supper.

The painting depicts Jesus' last meal with his disciples before his death. Leonardo tries to capture the moment when Jesus announces that he will be betrayed, and that one of the men at the table will be his betrayer. The most significant clue left by Leonardo, according to Brown, is that the disciple identified as John in the painting is in fact Mary Magdalene. Indeed, if you take a quick look at the picture, it seems that this is really the case. The man depicted to the right of Jesus has long hair and smooth skin, which could be seen as feminine characteristics, compared to the rest of the apostles, who look a little rougher and appear older. Brown also points out that Jesus and the figure on his right hand together form the outline of the letter "M". Does this symbolize Mary or perhaps the wife (Matrimony in English for marriage, matrimony)? Are these the keys to secret knowledge left behind by Leonardo?

Despite the first impression that this figure in the picture looks more feminine, the question remains whether this figure also looked feminine to viewers of the era in which Leonardo painted this painting. Probably not. After all, John was considered the youngest of the disciples, and he was often depicted as a beardless youth with soft features and long hair. Today one can regard this person as a female being, but if you go back to Florence, in the fifteenth century, take into account the difference in cultures and expectations, try to delve into the ideas of those times about the feminine and masculine principles - you can no longer be sure that this is actually a woman . Leonardo was not the only artist who depicted John in this way. Domenico Ghirlandaio and Andrea del Castagno wrote John in a similar way in their paintings:

"The Last Supper" by Domenico Ghirlandaio

In his Treatise on Painting, Leonardo explains that characters in a painting should be depicted based on their types. These types can be: "sage" or "crone". Each type has its own characteristics, for example: beard, wrinkles, short or long hair. John, as in the photo, at the Last Supper, represents the student type: a protege who has not yet matured. Artists of the era, including Leonardo, would have depicted this type, the "student", as a very young man with soft features. This is exactly what we see in the picture.

Regarding the outline of the "M" in the picture, this is a result of the way the artist composed the picture. Jesus, at the moment when he announces his betrayal, sits alone in the center of the picture, his body shaped like a pyramid, the disciples arranged in groups on either side of him. Leonardo often used the pyramid shape in the compositions of his works.

PRIORITY OF SION.

There are suggestions that Leonardo was the leader of a secret group called the Priory of Sion. According to the Da Vinci Code, the Priory's mission was to preserve Mary Magdalene's secret about her marriage to Jesus. But The Da Vinci Code is fiction, based on theories from a controversial "non-fiction" book called Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Richard Lee, Michael Baigent and Henry Lincoln, written in the early 1980s.

The book Holy Blood and Holy Grail, as evidence of Leonardo's membership in the Priory of Sion, cites a number of documents that are stored in the National Library of France in Paris. While there is some evidence that an order of monks with this name existed as early as 1116 AD. e., and this medieval group has nothing in common with the Priory of Sion of the 20th century, but the years of da Vinci’s life: 1452 - 1519.

There are indeed documents confirming the existence of the Priory, but it is likely that they are part of a hoax conceived by a man named Pierre Plantard in the 1950s. Plantard and a group of like-minded right-wingers with anti-Semitic tendencies founded the Priory in 1956. By producing false documents, including forged genealogical tables, Plantard apparently hoped to prove that he was a Merovingian descendant and heir to the French throne. A document allegedly indicating that Leonardo, along with such luminaries as Botticelli, Isaac Newton and Hugo, were members of the Priory of Sion organization - with a high probability, may also be fake.

It is unclear whether Pierre Plantard also tried to perpetuate the story of Mary Magdalene. He is known to have claimed that the Priory possessed the treasure. Not a collection of priceless documents, as in the Da Vinci Code, but a list of sacred objects written on a copper scroll, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the 50s. Plantard told interviewers that the Priory would return the treasure to Israel when "the time is right." Experts' opinions on this matter are divided: some believe that there is no scroll, some believe that it is fake, and some that it is real, but does not rightfully belong to the Priory.

The fact that Leonardo da Vinci was not a member of a secret society, as shown in The Da Vinci Code, is not a reason to stop admiring his talent. The inclusion of this historical figure in modern fiction is intriguing, but in no way detracts from his achievements. His artistic works have been an inspiration to millions for centuries and contain subtleties that even the best experts are still trying to unravel. Moreover, his experiments and inventions characterize him as a progressive thinker whose research goes far beyond the scope of his contemporaries. The main secret of Leonardo da Vinci is that he was a genius, but at that time not many people could understand this.

The Last Supper is an event in the last days of the earthly life of Jesus Christ, his last meal with his twelve closest disciples, during which he established the sacrament of the Eucharist and predicted the betrayal of one of the disciples. The Last Supper is the subject of many icons and paintings, but the most famous work is “The Last Supper” by Leonardo da Vinci.

In the center of Milan, next to the Gothic church of Santa Maria della Grazie, is the entrance to the former Dominican monastery, where the famous wall painting by Leonardo da Vinci is located. Created in 1495-97, The Last Supper is the most copied work. Already during the Renaissance, about 20 works with the same theme were written by artists from France, Germany and Spain.

Church of Santa Maria della Grazie

The painter received the order to paint the work from his patron, the Duke of Milan Ludovico Sforza in 1495. Despite the fact that the ruler was famous for his dissolute life, after the death of his wife he did not leave his room for 15 days. And when he came out, the first thing he did was order Leonardo da Vinci to paint a fresco, which his late wife had once asked for, and forever stopped all entertainment at court.

Sketch

"The Last Supper", description

Leonardo's brush depicted Jesus Christ with his apostles during the last supper before his execution, held in Jerusalem, on the eve of his arrest by the Romans. According to the scripture, Jesus said during the meal that one of the apostles would betray him (“and while they were eating, he said, “Truly I say to you, one of you will betray me”). Leonardo da Vinci tried to depict the reaction of each of the students to the prophetic phrase of the teacher. The artist, as is typical for creative people, worked very chaotically. Either he did not look up from his work for whole days, or he applied only a few strokes. He walked around the city, talked to ordinary people, observed the emotions on their faces.

The dimensions of the work are approximately 460x880 cm, it is located in the refectory of the monastery, on the back wall. Although it is often called a fresco, this is not entirely correct. After all, Leonardo da Vinci wrote his work not on wet plaster, but on dry plaster, in order to be able to edit it several times. To do this, the artist applied a thick layer of egg tempera to the wall.

The method of painting with oil paints turned out to be very short-lived. Ten years later, he and his students are trying to carry out the first restoration work. A total of eight restorations were made over the course of 300 years. As a result, new layers of paint were repeatedly applied to the painting, significantly distorting the original.

Today, in order to protect this delicate work from damage, the building maintains a constant temperature and humidity through special filtering devices. Admission at a time is limited to 25 people every 15 minutes, and entrance tickets must be booked in advance.

The iconic work of Da Vinci is surrounded by legends; a number of secrets and guesses are associated with it. We will present some of them.

Leonardo Da Vinci "The Last Supper"

1. It is believed that Leonardo da Vinci had the hardest time writing two characters: Jesus and Judas. The artist spent a long time searching for suitable models to embody the images of good and evil.

Jesus

One day Leonardo saw a young singer in the church choir - so spiritual and pure that there was no doubt: he had found the prototype of Jesus for his “Last Supper”. All that remained was to find Judas.

Judas

The artist spent hours wandering around the hot spots, but he got lucky only after almost 3 years. An absolutely degenerate guy was lying in a ditch, in a state of severe alcoholic intoxication. He was brought to the workshop. And after the image of Judas was painted, the drunkard approached the picture and admitted that he had already seen it before. It turned out that three years ago he was completely different, he led a healthy lifestyle and sang in the church choir. And one day some artist approached him with a proposal to paint Christ from him.

2. The painting contains repeated references to the number three:

The apostles sit in groups of three;

Behind Jesus are three windows;

The contours of the figure of Christ resemble a triangle.

3. The figure of the disciple located at the right hand of Christ remains controversial. It is believed that this is Mary Magdalene and her location indicates the fact that she was the legal wife of Jesus. This fact is allegedly confirmed by the letter “M” (from “Matrimonio” - “marriage”), which is formed by the contours of the couple’s bodies. At the same time, some historians argue with this statement and insist that the signature of Leonardo da Vinci is visible in the picture - the letter “V”.

4. During World War II, on August 15, 1943, the refectory was bombed. The shell that hit the church building destroyed almost everything except the wall on which the fresco was depicted. Sandbags prevented bomb fragments from entering the painting, but vibration could have had a harmful effect.

5. Historians and art historians study in detail not only the apostles, but also the food depicted on the table. For example, the biggest subject of controversy is still the fish in the picture. It is not determined whether what is painted on the fresco is a herring or an eel. Scientists see an encrypted hidden meaning in this. And all because in Italian “eel” is pronounced “aringa”. And “arringa” means instruction. At the same time, the word "herring" is pronounced in northern Italy as "renga", which means "one who denies religion."

There is no doubt that Leonardo da Vinci’s “Last Supper” still conceals many unsolved secrets. And as soon as they are solved, we will certainly write about it.

home » Questions » What secrets did Leonardo da Vinci encrypt in his “Last Supper. Fresco "The Last Supper" Fresco the Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci