Last Supper or Sacred Bride’s Feast
“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”—Matthew 4:4
I again take up the subject of the latest Da Vinci discovery to expand on my blog post, Engraving Reveals the Mysterious Underworld of Da Vinci’s Last Supper in order to further my inquiry and interpretation of this intriguing composition that will probably take another 500 years to decipher and understand. It will be important to read my previous posts to better familiarize yourself with the discovery and the topic of Da Vinci’s secret narrative of the Last Supper.
I turn to the elements on the Last Supper table, both hidden through the use of optics and those visible to the untrained eye. They were more than mere decorative props, meant to bring interest and balance to the composition. They were meaningful elements conveying Leonardo’s very personal narrative, putting forth his own ideas, ruminations and what the Church would have interpreted as heretical beliefs—including the belief Mary Magdalene was the bride of Christ.
In examining and taking an inventory of the props on the table of the composition of the metal cut of the Last Supper, we notice Leonardo seems to have purposely omitted the main course of the meal. From where I sit, all the plates, platters and dishes appear empty. The only food on the table is bread. This fact may lead some Da Vinci experts to conclude that the engraving was not produced by the Leonardo’s hand but rather by old master engraver at a later date, because as we know the mural had deteriorated so far that the food disappeared and, therefore, artists copying it would have not seen the food. But I am even firmer in my conviction that this composition and engraving was produced by Leonardo and suspect he used it as his guide when painting the Last Supper mural.
What is a traditional Passover meal without lamb being served or for that matter any meat? Only bread?
In contrast to the engraving, the mural painting of the Last Supper was discovered to have included a feast. In the mural, post restoration, although the majority of the individual plates (including the plate in front Jesus) are empty, those platters at the left and right of the table do appear to have a presentation of food. During the 1999 restoration, it was discovered that the table also held a platter of sliced eel garnished with pieces of orange. And a platter of fish and another platter heaped with food convey a feast fitting for some occasion. Why did Da Vinci stray from his original composition? Was the food added during one of the restorations or was it that Leonardo, who was known to work from dawn to dusk on the mural without breaking for food, decided he would need to include a main course to satisfy his own hunger? What is more likely is that his patron, Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan, requested or insisted that he add food to the table as not to suggest a pauper’s meal for what was to be the centerpiece of his family mausoleum.
I approached my interpretation of the composition of the metal cut of the Last Supper as if it was a scene in a dream. I considered every element and prop as well as any missing elements one would expect to be included and allowed my intuition guide me. I posed questions to consider such as:
What is the meaning of an empty plate or platter? What does the Pascal lamb represent? Why was salt included when there was no meat? And why would Leonardo not want meat served? What are the many meanings of bread and its association to the Last Supper? Are there any other symbols that add meaning to the bread?
Saltcellars and Salt but not meat
Without the presence of meat whether Pascal Lamb, fish or eel, one might wonder what was the need of saltcellars and spilled salt on the table? This incongruence might escape most but Leonardo would not have inadvertently made this kind of mistake. And perhaps it did not go unnoticed, which would also explain why he might have been asked to add a presentation of food to the mural painting.
With the bread, saltcellars and salt he chose symbolism over the realism most would expect from Leonardo in portraying the Last Supper. The spilled salt next to Judas is a dramatic element adding some intrigue and, more importantly, meaning to the composition; and perhaps was added to dramatically mention Judas impending betrayal. In this case, Leonardo was referencing the New Testament passage from Matthew 5:13: “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.” (NKJV) This passage is one from the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus is directly speaking to and about his disciples. The entire passage reads:
Matthew 5:10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 “Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. 13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.”(NKJV)
The spilled salt therefore, would suggest that Judas was about to loose his worth and righteous status by betraying not only Jesus but also his brotherhood and the mission. In the Old Testament, salt is a binding agent of friendship. (Numbers 18:19.) Known as the Salt Covenant, it was an irrevocable pledge and promise of loyalty. Those who have taken salt together would rather die before they would break their covenant. The subject of the betrayal as portrayed in Da Vinci’s narrative is central to the composition. And although, one would assume that Leonardo was merely following the Synoptic narrative of the Last Supper, I suspect the subtext was about a more personal betrayal by a friend, namely his patron Ludovico Sforza. But I will take this topic up in a future blog post.
Bread as the Main Course
“Why only bread?” is the most important question and the answer begins to turn the subject of the composition into something altogether different than the Christian mythology of the event presented in the Synoptic Gospels in which Jesus performs the ritual that would later be adopted as the Eucharist by the Church, "This is my body which is given for you". Nor is Leonardo’s table set as a Passover Seder in which the Pascal lamb and unleavened breaded would have been served along with wine. Leonardo strays from both and has created his own unique and perplexing narrative about the Last Supper.
My first thought was that Leonardo was referencing Matthew 4:4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” If this the case, could Leonardo have been chuckling under his breath as he produced a feast serving bread alone? I discussed his defiant ego and disdain for the doctrine of the Church in my previous blog post and certainly we could conclude this is just another example, like the teapot, with which he was making a mockery of Christian symbols and doctrine associated with the wine. He now was turning his attention to the bread to make another blasphemous statement. But Leonardo also includes his own more mystical symbolic elements with esoteric meaning to the engraving, clues to his own pictorial narrative of an alternative Christian mythology.
Symbolically, bread is life, that which sustains, nurtures and feeds not only the body but also the spirit in most ancient traditions. In Christianity, Jesus is the key to immortality and his body compared to the bread. “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.” (John 6:50-71) In John’s discourse on the Bread of Life, immediately following the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus does not merely provide the bread from heaven: he becomes the bread from heaven. But is the bread in Da Vinci’s composition meant to support this Christology? I don’t believe so. Instead, the bread is connected to the goddess in the Last Supper, Mary Magdalene, who as I pointed out holds her baby close to her chest. What is even more significant than the baby is that the sublayer of the engraving also reveals an illusionistic wheat bundle in front of Mary. Wheat bundles are a longstanding symbol of fertility, bounty and nurturing associated with the feminine principle. Wheat is the staff of life and the bread produced from wheat is the prepared food and the sustenance of life. Is Leonardo saying, "Mary is the bread from heaven while Jesus is possessed by a hellhound and toad?" By serving only bread, Leonardo appears to have turned the mythology of the Last Supper into the Sacred Bride’s feast.
Details of Jesus and Mary Magdalene in Last Supper Engraving
The Table Cloth
In the engraving, the tablecloth that covers the trestle dining table at which the disciples are seated can be appreciated for its beautiful details including a design of stripes. Vasari in his 1568 biography of Da Vinci mentions this tablecloth was “so cunningly depicted that the linen itself could not look more realistic. ” Unfortunately the fine visual details had all but disappeared in the mural by the time he was writing. The panel stripe motif is of particular interest because it is composed of a series of X’s. This cross that has both a right and a left is the “X” (oblique cross) and it appears the Valentinians understood it to represent the mystical marriage, the unification of opposites— masculine and feminine—taking place in the Bridal Chamber. In the Gospel of Philip, a text of Valentinian gnostic apocrypha, the writer goes on to mention the cross, identifying the cross amongst a number of spiritual gifts given by the Father to one who is about to be anointed in the Bridal Chamber.
“He who has been anointed possesses everything. He possesses the resurrection, the light, the cross, the Holy Spirit. The Father gave him this in the bridal chamber; he merely accepted (the gift). The Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father. This is the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Although the symbol was later reassigned to St. Andrew by the Church, the symbol X (oblique cross) continued to be used by Gnostics during the Middle Ages and can be found in many religious works of art of that period. It became emblematic for the Gnostic Church, the underground stream of Christianity, and was used to identify works of art pertaining to that tradition by Gnostic artists such as Da Vinci.
The mystical marriage of the Bridal Chamber, in which god and goddess are united, may also have been symbolized with the knots found on both sides of the table of the engraving. Leonardo tied an Isis knot at the bottom right hand corner of the tablecloth. Art historians suggest the knot to represent a cryptic artist’s signature because in Latin, the word for a knot is vincium. However, that does not explain why the knot is fashioned in the style of an inverted Isis knot. In the novel, The Secret Supper, Javier Sierra explains the “gratuitous knot” in the corner of tablecloth had a hidden meaning and symbolized that a painting was dedicated to Mary Magdalene.
Known as a tiet or Isis Knot, its style has associations with the Egyptian goddess Isis and her priestesses. Also called the Blood of Isis, it has been suggested that to the ancient Egyptians it symbolized the power of the female genitalia because of the shape and resemblance to a menstruation cloth. In its connection to the womb of the goddess, Isis, it was considered to have magical properties and protective powers. The attribution of magical powers to the tiet can be traced to the 156th spell in the Book of the Dead:
"You possess your blood, Isis, you possess your power, Isis, you possess your magic, Isis. The amulet is a protection for this Great One, which will drive off anyone who would perform a criminal act against him."
In addition to being tied on garments, the shape was often fashioned into an amulet by ancient Egyptians to be worn as protection. These amulets were placed around the necks of the deceased, for instance, to protect them on their journey into the afterlife. Other meanings assigned to the Isis knot are “life”, “welfare” and “resurrection”.
The knot tied on the opposite side of the Last Supper table is only included in the engraving and not present in the mural painting. It appears to be a standard overhand knot. Why Da Vinci chose not to tie the knot on the left side in the mural painting, we may never know. However, knots are also symbolic of the bonds of matrimony as in “tying the knot” a phrase whose origins are rooted in the Celtic handfasting wedding ceremony. The knots at both ends of the table we now understand were not only decorative but were meant to signify the mystical marriage and the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, conflated with the mythology of Isis.
Related articles:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150806006487/en/#.VcTWC4uFbdk
http://davincirevelation.blogspot.com
http://www.deism.com/davinci.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment