Talk:The Last Supper (Leonardo)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2021

I propose a change in the part: Subject.

no it doesnt ied by their names, using a manuscript[11][12] found in the 19th century."

The identity of the individual apostles in The Last Supper is not confirmed by The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci. It is rather based on Giuseppe Bossi’s discovery of the name labelled copy of Leonardo’s Cenacolo in the parish church of Ponte Capriasca. This fresco is of uncertain origin. (Leo Steinberg: Leonardo’s Incessant Last Supper; 2001).

So I propose a new form: "The Last Supper portrays the reaction given by each apostle when Jesus said one of them would betray him. All twelve apostles have different reactions to the news, with various degrees of anger and shock. The apostles were identified by their names, using an unsigned, mid-sixteenth-century fresco copy of Leonardo's Cenacolo[xyz]."

[xyz] Steinberg 2001; p. 75.

     (Leo Steinberg: Leonardo’s Incessant Last Supper; Chapter IV - The Twelve; 2001)

People should have possibility to discuss and move further, to interpret master Leonardo's Last Supper based on his manuscript as the primary source.

(For example I have already tried, to put it very simple: Simon the Zealot is clearly interchanged - I expect with Jude Thaddeus. And also James the Alphaeus might be interchanged with Philip, as James the Less, being the first bishop of Jerusalem, would be “the tallest” figure in the picture. And the gesture of Philip stays “asking one” - in the Study contacting Matthew and in the final contacting Andrew and Peter by referencing to: “Philip went and gave word of it to Andrew; and Andrew went with Philip to Jesus.” – John 12:22.) Leonars (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Leonars: I boldfaced the text that it appears you want to change. Are you suggesting removal of the existing [11][12]] citations? They are not used anywhere else and it would be nice to retain them. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Until there is a special paragraph on its own, I feel the best place for these citations would be in the History section by complementing the study for The Last Supper description as follows: A study for The Last Supper[b] from Leonardo's notebooks[12] shows twelve apostles, nine of which are identified by names written above their heads.[13] Leonars (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: If these two citations are kept as proposed, I can agree with the boldfaced selection in this form for the change. Regarding the [11] citation: its link works slower, but credits a proper author of the text as in https://www.hellomilano.it/hm/sights/the-last-supper/ webpage. Leonars (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Leonars:  Done. I have made the change as you originally suggested, added an ISBN to the book you cited, moved the orphaned citation to the image caption as you suggested later, and reformatted the appendices according to Wikipedia's layout guidelines. I am not sure what to do with that last link you provided. In any case, one you have 10 edits (you have three so far), you will be able to overcome the article protection and make changes yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code

Just out of curiosity why is the Da Vinci Code not mentioned at all? Yes it was a movie so why is it not mentioned under Films? tom950 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom950 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The painting was mentioned in the film, but it did not center around it or parody it at all. Furthermore, the book/film are already mentioned in the "Other speculation" section ItzLarz (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

False representation

This is a nice piece of art, but it is a false representation of the true last supper. The art shows a rectangular table with Jesus and the Disciples seated in chairs at the table. It has probably has been brought to your attention, but the scene is not true Jewish culture. When Jews ate, it was at a round table about a few inches above the ground level and the participants were lying down on their side with their head toward the table and feet pointed away and Honoree was at the designated position with participants lying in order of seniority from the Honoree's left circling around the table from left to right.

Frmr248 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC) References: Instructors, Dallas Theological Seminary

Do you have any way of verifying what was said at Dallas Theological Seminary? --- Mullafacation {talk page|user page} 11:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene at the table

The disciple to the right of Peter and left of Jesus in Da Vincis, Last Supper is strikingly feminine in appearance compared to the other disciples. John states clearly in 21:20 Peter turned and saw the disciple 'whom Jesus loved', a phrase which is used 6 times in the Gospel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved Mary Magdalene is referenced as being present at the last supper and therefore it is plausible that this female-looking figure is in fact Mary. The other subjective points are: for John to reference himself as the one Jesus loved would change the perspective of the writing and author, that John would single himself out as the one whom Jesus loved. A weak argument that Da Vincis employer would not risk a depiction which could surmount to heresy is refuted by the accounts of the life of humanist tutored Duke of Milan Ludovico Sforza, who fought many times, demonstrated strong values and morals and was an advocate for artists. As the question continues over who in fact wrote the Gospel of John, and it is suggested that Mary Magdalene in fact did as the accurate accounts and style were not representative of John's poor education, there is much debate over the representation. Lilithisback (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, it is still Mary depicted by Leonardo, also it is unlikely that she wrote a Gospel of John.

It is a well-known book called Metamorphoses! – and the name fits the Leonardo da Vinci painting like a glove.

They are not the innocent metamorphoses like those described by Ovid ­– turning Arcadia’s King Lycaon into a wolf for his transgressions. Those are metamorphoses of a different kind. Here is the list of metamorphoses, left to right, in what was known as “The Last Supper.”

Disciple Bartholomew was transformed into John the Baptist, the unscrupulous and cynical cult leader, actor, playwright and director who initiated abuse of Jesus as a vulnerable adult, but eventually got what was coming to him. He is wearing his “wilderness” clothing.

Disciple James the Minor (or lesser) was transformed into the wife of Pontius Pilate who wrote to him during the court procedures on behalf of Jesus.

Disciple Andrew was transformed into Pontius Pilate himself with his just-washed hands outstretched. A ruthless ruler and uncanny politician who curiously had a soft side of being a wife-pleaser, but only if convenient.

Disciple Peter was transformed into a dutiful swordsman serving the cult leader and facilitating the continued abuse of Jesus. Dishonest and opportunistic to the core, he was nicknamed a Satan by Jesus himself. Also implicated in the abuse of the corpse.

Disciple Judas Iscariot was transformed into yet another swordsman, a devoted friend of Jesus and beloved disciple. The first person who paid with his life for his believing John the Baptist and Jesus.

Disciple John was transformed into Mary Magdalene, field and logistics officer, possible interim chief of security for John the Baptist section. And, just like Peter, she, too, was implicated in both the abuse of the vulnerable adult and abuse of the corpse.

Jesus was transformed from the Son of God into a talented actor and untreated neurological patient humbled by life misadventures who endured abuse by John the Baptist section that led to his demise.

Disciple of James the Greater (Major) was transformed into James the Just, opportunistic brother of Jesus, who was instrumental to his abuse by John the Baptist and his accomplices.

The transformed Disciple Thomas stands for the Gospel of John – containing, among other things, the collection of true bits and pieces about Jesus that were dead giveaways about his illness.

The transformed Disciple Phillip stands for the Gospel of Mark (depicted as a younger man), the first and, in many ways, most realistic description of Jesus, without an agenda bearing inclusions that plagued later Gospels.

The transformed Disciple Matthew stands for the Gospel of Matthew (depicted as a mature man) that was inspired by the need to alleviate the perceived antagonism between Jesus and traditional Judaism that inadvertently came out in Mark. Meant to reduce tensions with Temple authorities and religious radicals, it mostly failed to accomplish its goals.

The transformed Disciple Jude (Thaddeus) stands for the Gospel of Luke (depicted as an old man, as the movement of Jesus has now existed for a long time) that was adopted for the spread of the new religion among Gentiles, and did not mind antagonizing the Jews in the process, as they became a much less important demographics when it came to recruiting new believers.

The transformed Disciple Simon Zealot (on the right), was transformed into a symbolic figure for traditional Judaism that is the opposite of the John the Baptist (depicted on the left) and his section. He is also facing off with “Luke” in the Roman Empire elsewhere in the aftermath of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Characteristically, Leonardo da Vinci depicted him as a toothless and bald miscreant whose appearance is a giveaway of his unsavory life and past transgressions, but wearing the priestly robe.

As Igor was working on the metamorphoses by Leonardo da Vinci, he decided to look for some additional support for his hypothesis. He remembered that in a book by Walter Isaacson, Leonardo described owning a number of books, remarkable for a man who was not a landed gentry, and did not own a large house or a castle with a library. As the son of a notary, Leonardo dutifully wrote a detailed will and listed all his possessions, including books, sketches and pictures. Professional art historians have pored over that list for centuries. There is only one book in existence that has a proven provenance (and handwritten notes) from the collection of Leonardo da Vinci. It is a museum exhibit now. But what is most significant is that one of the books owned by Leonardo was a manuscript of the Metamorphoses by Ovid. Igor smiled at discovering further collaboration of his hunch. He also smiled as he imagined that every manuscript of Metamorphoses known to exist would now be turned upside down to see if it had ever been owned by Leonardo da Vinci, who had clearly put it to good use. 98.114.178.159 (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Tempera versus Oil

In the introduction, the page states that the last supper is pained in tempera. Later in the Medium section it states: "Leonardo, as a painter, favoured oil painting, a medium which allows the artist to work slowly and make changes with ease."

The issue here is that tempera isn't a form of oil painting, it is pigment mixed with egg yolk.

So the sections are inconsistent. 86.151.229.98 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You’re missing the point a little bit. It could be phrased better, but his favoring of slow work with frequent changes (via oil painting) is why he mixed the pigment with egg yolk (to get a consistency that would allow for the same use of slow work and frequent changes) Aza24 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have made a few changes, and I hope that it is clearer.

If it is not, then please leave me a message.

I hink that one of the problems Leonardo faced was that he was not trained in the method of painting in fresco. It was not a speciality of the Verrocchio workshop, unlike that of the Ghirlandaios where Michelangelo was trained. Only in recent years has a fresco been uncovered may be the work of Verrocchio's workshop. I don't know if there is a concensus of opinion on this fresco yet.

Anyway, regardless of what else Leonardo could or could not do, he doesn't seem to have been a very good chemist

Amandajm (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

James and John in places of honour

Leonardo has placed James and John (brothers and sons of Zeberdee) in the places of honour at the right and left hand side of Jesus. This seems to be a reference to Mark 10:35-45 '35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” 36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked. 37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.'

The request also appears in Matthew (although their mother makes it): Matthew 20:20-21 NLT Then the mother of James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Jesus with her sons. She knelt respectfully to ask a favor. “What is your request?” he asked. She replied, “In your Kingdom, please let my two sons sit in places of honor next to you, one on your right and the other on your left.” Interestingly Jesus denies their request in both gospels, but Leonardo has granted it. No other disciples makes this request.

I think it would be interesting to note this in the article. Mascot1234 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Missing Chalices?

I was really shocked when I discovered there are no chalices in the painting (Mandela Effect?). I'm a Roman Catholic and The Last Supper is inconceivable to me without at least one chalice of wine, and bread (just look it up in the Catholic Bible). The painting contains neither. Shouldn't the Church back in the day have opposed the painting as heretic? This is really weirding me out. 2003:C8:BF06:7D18:C59A:98F5:C8E:81BD (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)