La Shawn Barber is calling on all Christians to blog about the upcoming Da Vinci Code movie. Sounds like fun! The assertions and innuendos made by Dan Brown in his novel have been chewed up and spat out by people far more qualified than I, however even this two-bit artist/ history buff is willing to take a few good whacks at the soggy pinata.

To confess, I didn’t read his book when it first hit the shelves and all the critics began lauding it as an “edge of your seat” masterpiece. I didn’t even read it when a bezillion people wrote books debunking the thing. (by the way, for the bilingual among us; there is an Arabic translation of the DVC available. Also Spanish, Portuguese, Italien, French and others. ;o)

I didn’t read it until a very close ex-Catholic friend of mine mentioned during a phone conversation with me that she thought that Mr. Brown “had something” there. I should mention that my friend has had a bitter history with The Church. I don’t know if she doesn’t believe in God (she likes to say “thank the goddess” to try to rile me up. ;o), or if she’s simply angry at Him and refuses to acknowledge Him anymore. It’s not uncommon for her to look for reasons to ’stick it to The Man’ as far as God goes. So I wasn’t too surprised when she brought up the book and started making these bizarre claims about a conspiracy and a cover up and Jesus had kids, etc, etc. That’s when I decided to read the book, because, quite frankly, she sounded like a loon and I thought the book would be amusing.

I’m assuming now, that if you care enough to read this, you’ve probably read the book. Humor me a bit as I recap an area of the book I want to focus on for the moment. Brown’s imaginative story revolves around Leonardo Da Vinci, and one of his works in particular- The Last Supper. In the book we are lead to believe that the figure to the left of Jesus was not, in fact, the disciple John, but Mary Magdalen! (or “of Magdala”, kinda like how Leonardo was “of Vinci”)

I’ll admit it’s possible that Da Vinci painted John to be more effeminate than the other followers of Christ, after all, this was the dude who supposedly painted a portrait of himself as a young lady and then carried it around for years. (yes I realize how farfetched that idea is- still- it’s amusing to speculate.) At any rate, feminine looking men were common in Leonardo’s work, and there are valid reasons to believe that John (along with his brother, James) were young teenagers at the time. (contrary to Easter story plays where everyone wears bathrobes and have hairy legs.) However, claiming that Leonardo painted John as a woman in this particular work is sheer absurdity.

Putting aside the obvious disdain the author has for Catholicism in particular, a couple of things stuck out at me as an artist almost immediately. The first being that Brown calls the Last Supper a “fresco”. It was nothing of the sort. If it were a fresco we wouldn’t even be having this conversation about whether or not the person seated to the left of Jesus had the proper anatomy to be considered a man or woman. Frescoes were used often during the Italien Renaissance (see Michaelangelo) to afix a painting to a wall or ceiling. Watercolor pigment is mixed with wet plaster and then applied. The result is bright- long lasting color that dries extremely quickly. Leonardo’s style was to make very careful, slow precise strokes. He despised working with the wet plaster because it dried too quickly. Instead he decided to use a new form of painting which was quite revolutionary at the time- over dry plaster he would paint pingere a tempera. The result was very detailed and extremely beautiful at that time, I’m sure. Unfortunately over the years it has suffered from severe abuse, vandalization, humidity and even “restorations” among other things. (including a bomb blast during WWII)

The restorations are what I want to focus on right now. And the reason this is such a key point is this- during the last “restoration”, the painting was not, in fact, “restored” strictly speaking. It was painted over in water colors that approximated what artist, Pinin Brambilla Barcilon, believed was Leonardo’s original intended painting. Now, years of decay and misguided attempts at restoring the painting had left it with huge holes and gaps in the image. Barcilon’s job was to “connect the dots” as it were, by meticulous study and careful analyzation of the painting. The process began in 1979 and took 20 years to complete. (five times as long as it took Leonardo to paint it the first time.) At times, when not enough information was available to make a conclusive brush stroke, Brambilla used a dull color and his own discretion to fill in the missing imagery. This was used heavily in the face of Christ and- you guessed it- John, aka Mary Magdalen.

The resulting painting has recieved a boatload of condemnation in the art world. Many historians criticize the restoration saying that The Last Supper as originally painted now no longer exists. In Barcilon’s defense, there was so much damage done in previous 18th and 19th century restoration jobs that a huge part of Leonardo’s work may never be seen again. The problem, however, does not arise from the restored parts of the painting, but the areas of the painting that were given an image that may or may not have resembled anything that Leonardo originally created.

Let’s look at the image of Christ before the last restoration as an example:

and now after:

Any area that Panin Barcilon could not conclusively restore what Leonardo Da Vinci had originally painted was painted over in numerous shades of a dull, sandy color. This include’s a large part of Christ’s head and robe. You might understand now why Professor James Beck, of Columbia University in New York, is one of the restoration’s biggest critics, calling the resulting work 18 to 20 percent Leonardo, and 80% Barcilon.

With that in mind, lets now look at the images of John/ Mary.

John before:

Okee dokee… Now let’s peek at John after the restoration. Keep on the look out for those sandy shades again!

Jolly tamales! As you can see, there is quite a bit that could not be saved from the original artwork. The general outlines of Peter (that would be the guy whispering to John) and John are emphasized with the assumption that previous artists painted over exactly where Leonardo had painted. However, the shading, coloring, and hair detailing is not included since no basis for Leonardo’s original work could be made.

Plainly, the idea that Leonardo painted Mary in John’s stead was invented by Brown for his own purposes, chiefly among those being for entertainment. What his motivations are for calling his idea “history” and claims it is based in fact are anyone’s guess. I have my own theories. Bind the John is Mary in men’s garb plot with the other delusions in Brown’s book, sprinkle liberally with diverting cryptology puzzles, and you’ve got yourself a best selling novel! It’s certainly nothing to take seriously, but a fun diversion none the less.

below the fold: interesting stuff

Here is the Bible passage that speaks about the Last Supper. Please note that the superscript relates to notes I’ve made below- and not verses. (verses are not noted)

Book of John 13: 18-30 (NIV)

“I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: ‘He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel to me.’¹

“What you are about to do, do quickly,” Jesus told him, but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.

1} Jesus is referring to Psalm 41:9. The disciples would have recognized the verse immediately, as most children by the age of 10 had all of the Torah memorized by then. The passage reads:

Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.

I highly recommend you read the rest.

2}John was talking about himself.

3}This is the very moment that Leonardo painted. Notice Peter gesturing to John, whispering to him. The other disciples looking around wide eyed. Judas reaching for a piece of bread, a bag of (presumably) 30 pieces of silver in his other hand.

4}Other disciples also talk about what they remember about Jesus talking about His betrayal in the book of Matthew 26:21-24, the book of Mark 14: 18-21, and the Book of Luke 22: 21-23.

Links:

The Last Supper Images, history, stuff about the restorations, etc.

Gallery Zoomable, high resolution image of the Last Supper

Lisa Shea’s Commentary on the painting. She also has some opinions on the DVC.

site for book by Pinin Brambilla Barcilon and Pietro C. Marani about the restoration of the Last Supper

Wikipedia listing

About John:

John, son of Zebedee

Brief biography

Gospel of John: Introduction, Argument, Outline