Da Vinci Metal Cut II: Most Holy Mary Magdalene and Unholy Jesus

 “He who does not oppose evil......commands it to be done.”

― Leonardo da Vinci

Most Holy Mary Magdalene and Unholy Jesus 

Interpreting the religious art of Leonardo Da Vinci requires some curiosity and putting aside naïve interpretations from art historians who seem to be blind to the fact that with Leonardo:  All is not what it seems. The ambiguity in Leonardo’s portrayals, such as the gender of the disciple sitting next to Jesus in the Last Supper, forces one to take a second look and to sometimes revise first impressions and interpretations. A classic comparative interpretation of a religious theme is often turned upside down when considering some of the incongruent and hidden elements in Leonardo’s works. And hidden dimensions, such as those found in the recently discovered metal cut of the Last Supper, only add another layer of symbolic material to mull over and understand. 

First one must take in the entire composition in as a whole and then draw out each element of what the artist set before the audience’s eyes, each and every single detail. Not to dissect but to merely take into account both the observable and the elusive.  Intuition drives the process and with a bit of research one can interpret the elements to understand the subject of the composition’s narrative.

Of course there is always the chance of over analysis and interpretations because of biases, assumptions, projections, and faulty analysis. A case in point was Sigmund Freud’s interpretation of Da Vinci’s The Virgin and Child with St. Ann. Freud “imagined” a vulture in the Virgin’s garment when the painting was viewed sideways. He associated the vulture with Leonardo’s earliest childhood memory of a bird flapping its tail at his mouth. From this, Freud postulated Leonardo manifested a "passive homosexual" childhood fantasy caused by the memory of sucking on his mother’s nipple (the vulture tail flapping at his mouth). Much to Freud’s dismay however, the word “vulture” was a mistranslation by the German translator and, in fact, the bird in Leonardo’s memory was a kite.  In truth, the kite or falcon was an animal ally that came into his dream to announce he was developmentally ready for speech.  The kite’s tail was a coaxing device fluttering at his mouth to get the toddler to open his mouth to utter his first word. 

With the composition of the Last Supper engraving, Leonardo’s first attempt to render a Gnostic narrative of the Last Supper and from which he would paint the mural at Santa Maria delle Grazie Church sometime later, Leonardo had a great deal on his mind that undoubtedly weighed heavily on his heart. First and foremost, the Duke of Milan, Ludovici Sforza, had commissioned him to paint a scene from a Gospel narrative that he did not believe. He was in conflict with the ideology of the Church whose mythology and doctrine went against the grain of his spiritual knowledge. In his mind Jesus was no more God incarnate and the Savior of the World than you or I and to paint a composition in accordance with the doctrine of Orthodoxy we might imagine was in conflict with Leonardo’s enlightened soul. To remedy his discomfort, turmoil and the spiritual tension, he devised a way out:  hide the truth and secrets through the use of optics, omission, and the inclusion of ambiguous symbolic elements.  In this way, he could makepeace himself, and quell the feeling that he was betraying his own knowledge and wisdom.  If he were going to be censored by the Church, he would still have his say. 

What did Leonardo believe?  

In the first edition of Lives of the Artists which includes a biography of Leonardo written in 1550, Giorgio Vasari's wrote that Leonardo's "cast of mind was so heretical that he did not adhere to any religion, thinking perhaps that it was better to be a philosopher than a Christian."  We might imagine that Vasari had reviewed some of Leonardo’s notes and that he too had noticed the ambiguity in Leonardo’s paintings including the depiction of a Jesus partnered with very female complement sitting adjacent to him at the Last Supper table. 

Sublayer image close-up Jesus and Mary Magdalene

Had he seen the sublayer of the Last Supper engraving and what I am about to describe, he would perhaps have had a great more to say about Leonardo’s heretical views. 

From Leonardo’s depictions of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, when placed side-by-side, we recognize the theme of good versus evil. Notice the demon dog complements the baby in that its placement is almost in the identical position.  The same can be said of the toad and the wheat staffs.  Leonardo is offering a disturbing contrast that needs further explanation to fully understand. 

As I discussed in my first blog article introducing the topic of the engraving, the demon dog or hellhound is an mythological archetype connected to the underworld of Hades and by legend was considered it a harbinger of death. My first thought was that Leonardo might have used it to symbolically to represent Jesus’ precognition of betrayal and death. However, perhaps we just need to simplify the symbolic meaning to represent merely a demon, a negative symbol denoting someone possessed by evil.  Did Leonardo really believe Jesus was evil and where would he get such a notion? 

Unholy Jesus

The less than flattering image of Jesus may have been derived from Leonardo’s studies in Mandaean Gnosticism. The Mandaeans were a Gnostic sect from the Northern part of Mesopotamia, who migrated there from Judea and whose name is derived from the Aramaic root, “manda”, meaning: “knowledge.” They claimed to hold the secret laws of God and believed that John the Baptist was superior to Jesus. They rejected Jesus Christ as the Son of God, maintaining he corrupted John’s teachings and instead held up John as the representative of their faith. To the Mandeans, Jesus was a false prophet and messenger and some went so far as to consider him an evil representative of the demiurge, who according to their cosmology was the craftsman and controller of the world who is not God.  

Leonardo’s painting of John the Baptist mentions John’s superior knowledge. John’s gesture, as rendered in the portrait John the Baptist, doesn’t seem to be born out of arrogant superiority, but is instead a simple yet meaningful proclamation: “There is only one God.” The index finger in the air pointing up coupled with his other hand at his heart, reminds us that the one God in heaven is in our hearts. 

The heretical debate over who was the legitimate Lamb of God was introduced by Leonardo in Virgin of the Rocks in which the angel Uriel all-knowingly points back to John the Baptist while John reverently bows in prayer before the Christ Child. This allegorical debate within the composition represents a controversial stance about who in the artist’s mind is the legitimate bearer of the title, Lamb of God. For Da Vinci, at least for a time, it was John the Baptist who he venerated. 

Virgin and Child with St. Elizabeth, John the Baptist and Michael, unknown artist- 16th century

This same debate is spelled out in a 16^th Century painting from an unknown artist who was probably one of Da Vinci’s contemporaries or students. Titled, Virgin and Child with Saints Elizabeth John and Michael (Uriel), the painting depicts John the Baptist perched next his mother Elizabeth holding onto a lamb and the Christ child on the Virgin’s lap with his hand in the bowl of a balance scale held by Archangel Michael. Interpreted, Michael is determining the measure or worth of Christ’s soul, presumably to determine if he is the legitimate Messiah as prophesized in Isaiah 53:1-12.  It appears that whomever the artist was, he was clarifying the debate that Leonardo hinted at in Virgin on the Rocks by painting a more detailed pictorial narrative.  If this is the case, the title might be inaccurate because the angel would not be Michael, but Uriel.  In Christian apocryphal gospels Uriel plays a role in rescuing John the Baptist from the Massacre of the Innocents ordered by King Herod. He carries John and his mother Elizabeth to join the Holy Family after the Flight to Egypt. This reunion is depicted in Virgin of the Rocks.

Virgin of the Rocks  National Gallery London

Leonardo painted two versions of Virgin on the Rocks, the one thought to be the prime version hangs at the Louvre.  The second, housed at the National Gallery in London, is of particular interest in that Uriel no longer points to John the Baptist and that all members of the Holy Family are adorned with halos.  However, the most outstanding element transfers attention from the hand of Uriel to the hand of the Virgin.  

Outstretched hand in Virgin of the Rocks National Gallery London

One interpretation from an art critic is that the outstretched hand represents the Virgin’s blessing.  Another describes it in combination with the outstretch cloak associated with her role as the iconic Madonna della Misericordia (Madonna of Mercy), help in time of strife or plague.  However, neither of those interpretations are what I suspect Leonardo had in mind.  Notice the hand neither appears to be a blessing hand nor a sheltering hand.  It is a cursing hand. From where I sit, the fingers are serpents about to snatch the halo off the Christ child’s head as if he is being cursed by his own mother or under the spell or the shelter of Satan.  In contrast, the Virgin adoringly favors John the Baptist for his humility (praying hands) because her sheltering clock of mercy covers only him. This evil hand imagery associated with the Christ child, like that of the demon dog and toad in the Last Supper engraving, is quite telling.  It suggests Leonardo held disdain for Jesus Christ.  My intuition tells me more than his Mandean beliefs, Leonardo with all his knowledge and wisdom perhaps viewed himself superior spiritually and intellectually. Perhaps, he was a bit envious of the Son of God, feeling he deserved as much glory, appreciation and to sit at the right hand of God as his Son. 

By reviewing the collection of paintings attributed to Leonardo Da Vinci, we notice John the Baptist is a frequent subject. Some have suggested that his painting John the Baptist, like the Mona Lisa, possesses transgender or androgynous features. Others, including myself, have gone so far as to conclude that John the Baptist was in fact a self-portrait. Da Vinci may have painted himself as John the Baptist because he strongly identified with John as the archetype of the mystic preacher who had not received his due recognition. He painted John the Baptist in a darkened background perhaps to reference the description of St. John in the Bible as 'a light that shineth in the darkness'. Perhaps, Da Vinci himself wished to be hailed: a bright shining light in the world.  

St. John the Baptist- Leonardo Da Vinci- 1513-1516

 

Sugar and spice and everything nice

In contrast, Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ complement and marriage partner, is treated with reverence and adoration at the Last Supper table. She is everything holy while Jesus seems to have been assigned everything unholy, “snips and snails and puppy dog tails.” She is depicted as possessing symbols of spiritual goodness: maternal qualities (baby at her chest) and before her an offering of her fertility, that which sustains life—staffs of wheat.  And as I thoroughly explain in my another blog post, Last Supper or Bride’s Feast, she is the “heavenly bread”, the “manna from heaven”— made in the image of God the Mother.  In this way, Leonardo transferred the meaning of the holy sacrament of the bread at the Last Supper from Jesus to Mary Magdalene. 

The dualism expressed in rending of Jesus and Mary as divided, forming the V, not only mentions the split soul, the division and separation between divine masculine and the divine feminine intelligences, only unified through the mystical marriage, but the division between good and evil, light and dark and life and death.  The Mandeans believed Adam, the first man was created by bad beings, Lords of Darkness, but his “animating essence” is derived from the World of Light. This “substance of light” in Adam is called “inner (hidden) Adam”, which must be saved or rescued from the dark, evil body and the world by heavenly beings of light. Interestingly, in one of the versions of Adam and Eve’s creation, the wife of Adam, Eve, is created separate from him according to the heavenly “cloud of light” and she figures as the wife of the heavenly or “great Adam”.  It could be argued that Leonardo drew from Mandean cosmology and creation myths to construct his ideology, however what is more likely is that he strongly identified with the maternal anima, admiring his own more feminine qualities over the masculine.  His own mother Caterina whom historians believe was an Arab slave and from whom he was separated at an early age, may have been an inspiration.  Perhaps because of early childhood memories of his mother, he sought to acknowledge the power of her feminine soul, elevating her status through the image of Mary Magdalene, who also had a tainted history. 

There is some evidence that Leonardo sorted out his problem with Jesus as he spiritually transformed and matured.  Later works like Salvator Mundi and the yet to be authenticated Magdalene/Madonna and Christ Child with John the Baptist, portray Jesus in a more positive light.  In Salvator Mundi, Jesus is the Gnostic Jesus, a mystical teacher with a crystal ball instead of the orbus crucifix denoting his status as Savior of the World.  I will take up this painting in a future post. 

Related articles:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150625006287/en/Art-Scholar-Discovers-500-year-old-Metalcut-Da#.VcY2Y4uFbdk

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150806006487/en/#.VcTWC4uFbdk

https://youtu.be/FKbuxKi5z4s

http://davincirevelation.blogspot.com

http://www.deism.com/davinci.htm

Available on Amazon

Da Vinci Metalcut III: Last Supper or Sacred Brides Feast

 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/20150625006287/en/Art-Scholar-Discovers-500-year-old-Metalcut-Da#.VcY2Y4uFbdk

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150806006487/en/#.VcTWC4uFbdk

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/unique-match-between-last-supper-200000787.html;_ylt=A0LEVya48K5VdXoAVzNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyb2FzczlrBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQjAwMjhfMQRzZWMDc2M-

https://youtu.be/FKbuxKi5z4s

http://davincirevelation.blogspot.com

http://www.deism.com/davinci.htm

Available on Amazon

 

 

 

DaVinci's Last Supper Metalcut

 Engraving Reveals The Mysterious Underworld of Da Vinci’s Last Supper

 

"Those who try to censor knowledge do harm to both knowledge and love, because love is the offspring of knowledge, and the passion of love grows in proportion to the certainty of knowledge.”--Leonardo Da Vinci 

 

 

For those who have been anticipating the next Leonardo Da Vinci masterpiece to be discovered, this metal plate of the Last Supper could be hailed the most mysterious and perplexing work by the Master unveiled thus far. The discovery of this authentic Leonardo Da Vinci metal cut, circa 1520, was kept under wraps for 8 years.  That is until July 17, 2015 when a short press release was published on business wire and picked up by only a small number of secondary news sources. Coming on the heels of the 2012 discovery in Scotland of the yet be authenticated Da Vinci painting of Madonna and Christ with John the Baptist, the climate for this discovery may be a bit cool because of the fact that particular painting received little support from the art world for its authenticity. There also are apt to be critics who come forward to challenge this engraving’s authenticity in the coming weeks and months until the more hidden details are officially unveiled and the scientific data is accepted.  The details I unveil here should prove once and for all that Leonardo Da Vinci hid many elements in his painting and engravings, encoded clues to his secret heretical beliefs, inner world and wildest thoughts.  The most controversial is his unstated assertion that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' Divine Complement and the mother of his children.

 

I was first made aware of the discovery of this engraving almost two years ago when art-scholar and collector James Constable contacted me asking for my expert interpretation and analysis of the hidden elements and symbols within the engraving, of which there were numerous. James had read my 2012 analysis and interpretation of the unauthenticated Da Vinci painting of the Madonna and Christ with John the Baptist, belonging to Fiona McLaren of Scotland.  At this point in time, that painting is only attributed to the Da Vinci School but should be authenticated as produced by Leonardo’s own hand in the coming years. In my paper, “Da Vinci’s Last Testament”, I examine and interpret illusionistic images that permeate that particular painting and I make a strong case that the painting was indeed painted by Leonardo himself. James agreed and was convinced I would see what he and a few others had seen hidden in the sublayers of the engraving metal plate and be able to add a great deal to his interpretations.

 

Authenticity of the Plate

With certainty, the metal cut represents the earliest version and possibly only original version that has been preserved of Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Last Supper."

James tells us, “Metal cuts are a rare form of relief printing that date to the 15th century. They are created by engraving lines that serve as sublayers of the final masterpiece.  Through eight years of research, extensive chemical testing at The McCrone Group and additional analysis, the metalcut features unique designs, images and chemicals that are often attributed to Da Vinci.

 

Some of the conclusive findings that are indicative of Da Vinci’s work include:

1.  The symbol of Lodovico Sforza, Duke of Milan, who commissioned Da Vinci’s “Last Supper,” is found on the metal cut;

 

2.  The decorations on the sides and top of the metal cut are mirrored in the architecture of the Santa Maria delle Grazie Church in Milan, home of the “Last Supper” and where Da Vinci served as architect and artist;

 

3. The inclusion of secondary hatching and advanced engraving techniques, drapery formation and design – that were exclusive to Da Vinci who was left handed – suggest the metal cut was made contemporaneously with the creation of the “Last Supper” painting;

 

4. Signature Da Vinci monogram symbols are found in the metal cut - including Da Vinci’s personal signature;

 

5.  The metal cut’s 500-year-old casting and refining techniques, along with the presence of alunite, a sulfate mineral mined near Allumiere, Italy where Da Vinci worked, are all present and indicative of Da Vinci’s work.

 

6.  The earliest version of the “Last Supper” depicts Jesus’ right sleeve not resting on the table, as seen in the above metal cut, proving this was made before 1520 in the lifetime of Da Vinci;"

 

In addition, the masterful use of optics concealing symbolic clues is characteristic of Da Vinci’s style and tendency to include hidden elements.

 

 

Sublayers reveal a host of hidden clues confirming the Beloved Disciple was Mary Magdalene:

At first glance, the composition of the engraving is identical to the painting of the Last Supper at Santa Maria delle Grazie Church in Milan.  The twelve disciples seated or standing in groups of three with Christ at the center all mirror the painting that graces the wall of the rectory that took Leonardo three years to complete.  The composition is thought to portray the moment in which Jesus says to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.” However, the engraving offers many details that the painting doesn’t, including countless optical illusions.

Since the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown popularized the research of authors like Lincoln, Baigent, and Leigh and Picknett and Prince, who presented the theory that it was not the Apostle John but Mary Magdalene seated adjacent to Jesus to form the infamous “V” symbolizing the Grail, there has been much added to substantiate the theory and even more added to the rebuttal.  Because there had been little proof of what was on Leonardo’s mind in his portrayal of the Last Supper, advocates of the traditional Christian view proclaim the theory of encoded clues a stretch of the imagination. But the argument that Leonardo coded the Last Supper with symbolic clues to set forth his heretical beliefs persists. Did Da Vinci really intimate that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ divine complement in the Last Supper?  And was he replacing the Apostle John with Mary as the Beloved Disciple?

 

Close up of Mary Magdalene Last Supper Engraving Sublayer

 

Interestingly, the engraving reveals details in the form of optic illusionistic images (hidden faces and objects) that were intended as symbolic clues revealing the real identity of the disciple who complements Jesus' attire, position and posture.  If we examine the close up photo of the sublayer of the engraving and hone in on who is traditionally thought to be an effeminate looking Apostle John, we notice staffs of wheat fanning out on the table in front of him. They emerge out of the folds of the arms of his robe.  And if we look at John’s upper chest at the heart, adjusting our eyes a couple of times by blinking, we perceive an optic phenomenon that produces something elusive that at first goes unnoticed. We see an infant’s face and torso resting there.  And the Apostle Peter’s index finger points to the area, alluding to something concealed there. Granted it takes most a few minutes to perceive the optical illusions in the engraving but without a doubt an infant is there as well as the bouquet of wheat staffs.  Why would the Apostle John be holding an infant at the Passover meal?  He wouldn’t be.  And there is nothing to associate John with staffs of wheat.  Wheat is most often associated with the feminine as with the mother Goddess Demeter, a goddess of agriculture who in her ancient depictions is often carrying a bundle of wheat. The staff of wheat would signify a woman’s fertility and maternal nurturing qualities.  As the staff of life, wheat bundles are a longstanding symbol of fertility, bounty and nurturing associated with the feminine principle.

 

The conclusion?  As suggested by Dan Brown and a number of other authors on the topic, it is not John placed at the table to complement Jesus as the "Beloved Disciple", after all—It is Mary Magdalene and her child.

 

Interestingly, another child, a toddler, emerges to the left of Mary Magdalene interfacing with the figure of the Apostle Peter.  Again this figure is also concealed through the use of optics.  From where I sit, it appears that Mary is leaning towards this child, which explains the expression of maternal affection on her face that until now was assumed to be directed towards Peter. As I present in my book, Jesus Mary Joseph, Jesus and Mary Magdalene did have two children, a girl Sara and a boy, Josephe.  

 

The Key and the Pathway of the Heart.  

Another symbol hidden in the field of the composition is a key held in the hand of Matthew.  It is held up in front of Philip’s heart while Philip clutches his chest with both hands, a gesture conveying compassion, sincerity, love, appreciation and reverence.  Philip’s emotional appeal contrasts the demeanor of the other disciples who appear to be grappling with Jesus' announcement of an impending betrayal by one of the disciples. This portrayal could signify Philip's importance to Da Vinci as the disciple who possessed superior knowledge or a more enlightened view.  If the key represents wisdom or knowledge, the meaning most often assigned to the symbol, then Matthew is also a wise man pointing to the wisdom of the heart, gnosis cardias, a tenet of Valentinian Gnosticism.

 

Close-up Apostle Philip and Matthew holding key

 

There is reason to believe the Leonardo was a proponent of Valentinian Gnosticism and chose for himself a path of self-knowledge versus the faith driven doctrine of the Church of Rome.  He like Caravaggio belonged to an unorthodox group of Christians who venerated Mary Magdalene above the Virgin and who also viewed John the Baptist as the legitimate Lamb of God. This underground stream of Gnostic Christianity considered the Apostles Phillip and John, not Peter, the patriarchs of their Church. Therefore, the key of authority traditionally assigned to Saint Peter by the Orthodox faith, in Da Vinci’s mind belonged to Philip.

 

The Valentinian Gnostics studied and adhered to the more mystical teachings of Jesus, and held a gospel attributed to Philip, the Gospel of Phillip, in high esteem.  In his painting Salvator Mundi, Leonardo portrays Jesus as a mystic holding a crystal ball instead the corpus crucifix, the traditional symbol associated with the Savior of the World motif. This suggests Leonardo did not believe in the doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ, but rather that Jesus was merely a wisdom teacher.  In that painting, the bodice of Jesus’ gown features the letter X (oblique cross) an insignia of the Gnostic Church during the Middle Ages. And his paintings John the Baptist and Virgin on the Rocks both convey the debate over who was the prophesied Messiah (Lamb of God), Jesus or John the Baptist.  The belief that John the Baptist was the authentic Lamb of God was held by Mandean Gnostics who venerated John the Baptist above Jesus and suggested Jesus had stolen John’s teachings.

 

Above:   Da Vinci’s John the Baptist.

Below:  Close-up Last Supper Thomas, James and Philip

 

An interesting similarity exists between The Last Supper and Da Vinci’s portrait of John the Baptist that sheds light on Leonardo’s spiritual beliefs and his problem with the Orthodox view that Jesus was God incarnate.  In the Last Supper, Thomas, the doubter of John’s Gospel, holds up his finger to proclaim:   “One God in Heaven” while Philip points to his heart, to mention gnosis cardias, the knowledge of the heart.  In the portrait John the Baptist, Da Vinci combines both gestures by depicting John holding up his finger to point to God in heaven while the other hand rests at his own heart. Leonardo is communicating the exact same message in both paintings, “Love for One God” or  “One God whose mystery is contained in the heart.”  Like the biblical Thomas who in the Gospel of John is portrayed as doubting Jesus’ resurrection and reappearance to the disciples (John 20: 24-29), Da Vinci doubted the Christology of Jesus as the resurrected savior.

 

Teatime Eucharist

Up until now, Da Vinci’s Last Supper was thought to strictly adhere to the Gospel narratives depicting the events of the Passover meal prior to Jesus arrest including the announcement of the impending betrayal and the covenant Jesus made to his disciples through the Last Supper sacrament.  …”And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.  "But I 

 

 

Close-up Servant carrying teapot.

 

say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.”… Matthew 26: 27-29

 

The absence of the grail cup or wine glasses in his painting of the Last Supper has spawned numerous theories. The most popular theory, one introduced to the mainstream by Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, is that the “V” created by the positions of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was meant to replace an actual grail cup because in Da Vinci’s mind Mary Magdalene represented the vessel and the carrier of the bloodline, Sang Graal.

 

But the engraving reveals that no fruit of the vine was poured out at all, only tea.  Morphing out of and adjacent to Philip emerges another figure, adding to the number of participants present at the Passover Feast or Last Supper. This person, probably a servant appears to be serving tea because a teapot or similar vessel has been brought to the table on his arm. By introducing this element, Leonardo is making a mockery of the events at the Last Supper as well as the Eucharist ritual, which was and still is the most celebrated sacrament of the Church. The only thing I can conclude is that Leonardo was taking great liberties to expound on his disdain for Christianity, knowing full well that no one could see the hidden elements of the engraving and therefore his heretical beliefs could remain his own without any danger of being hauled before a tribunal.  So why not say all that he was thinking about the Christian faith and Jesus Christ.

 

Close-up Man with Knife

                                                                      

The Man with the Knife, Bear and Demon Dog

One of most puzzling and obvious illusionistic figures hidden within the composition emerges on the table between Judas and Andrew.  As nonsensical as it sounds, at first glance, he looks like a Chinaman wielding the infamous knife, the curved tip fisherman’s knife, belonging to Peter.  The knife seems directed at Andrew whose arms and hands go up in a defensive posture. The inclusion of the knife in the Last Supper was previously thought to reference the arrest scene from the narratives in all four Gospels in which Peter cut off the right ear of a high priest’s servant (John 18: 10-12).  The hand with the knife has been a major topic of discussion amongst those interpreting the Last Supper because it appears not to belong to any of the disciples (disembodied hand). However, some point out Peter’s twisted arm posture suggests it is in his hand.  But does the presence of this mystery man suggest Leonardo had something else in mind entirely?  And who is this mysterious stranger who looks like he is about to betray Andrew? Because of the close proximity to Judas, the mystery man may have represented the archetype of the betrayer, symbolically present to represent Judas betrayal of Jesus and his brotherhood.  Andrew in this case as the "first chosen" disciple would have represented the bonds of discipleship and brotherhood that were betrayed that night.

 

If you continue to look in the vicinity of the mystery man you notice another illusionistic figure appears resting against his back and facing in the opposite direction adjacent to Judas.  It is a docile bear dressed in similar attire as the mystery man and, therefore, it could be assumed that its identity is tied to this stranger. The Christian symbolic meaning for the bear has its origins in the prophesies of Daniel.  In Chapter 7 of the Book of Daniel, Daniel describes a vision and revelation connected to the four kingdoms that will precede the “end-time” and the "Kingdom of God".  The second kingdom is that of Medes and Persia and is represented by the bear who holds human ribs between its teeth: “And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.”  Because the bear in the composition appears docile it could Judas' animal nature that at any given moment could turn from docile bear to beast.

Close-up of the Hellhound at Jesus' Throat

 

Judas is not the only Passover participant in the Last Supper composition to possess animalistic tendencies. In fact, Jesus himself appears to have been endowed with an animal archetype. There are several layers of illusionistic imagery to the Christ figure at the center of the composition and with an open eye one begins to witness the shapeshifting of Jesus' image, even with his attire.  However, the most fascinating image that emerges is at Jesus' throat. It appears to be a snarling demonic-faced hound.  It is the most outlandish element in the composition and turns this seemingly pious religious masterpiece into a Dante's Inferno-like underworld of dark and light imagery.  In actuality, Leonardo may have inserted this archetype to represent the hellhound, the legendary animal that guarded the gates of Hades and hunted out lost souls.  By legend, to see one or to hear its howl meant eminent death. Therefore, the hellhound was probably inserted to be symbolic for Jesus' precognition of his betrayal and death by 

Crucifixion.

 

 

Sublayer photo of Engraving

 

The Multitude of Confusing Symbols, Archetypes, Items and Figures 

When James Constable mentioned to me how many symbols, animal archetypes, mysterious objects and human figures he had catalogued, all drawn out of the field of the engraving’s composition, I was astonished and perplexed. They include: animals such a bear and dove, a spider, snake, toad; historical figures from Da Vinci’s own era; soldiers emerging from the center of the border frame flowers; and items like a teapot, key, chain and intricately decorated glassware with tiny Romanesque scenes micro-engraved on them. Did all these illusionistic elements hidden with the use of optics have a specific meaning to Leonardo, meant to represent a meaningful dialogue about Christ’s legacy, specifically the Last Supper?   Not necessarily.  Certainly, elements such as the wheat staffs, infant and toddler all associated with Mary Magdalene did have a very specific and significant meaning that can be tied to Leonardo’s heretical beliefs and a Gnostic tradition that venerated Mary Magdalene.  But other figures and objects included on, above, and below the table make for a very confusing sublayer of symbolic imagery.  In fact, there are several demonic faces included that render the composition absurd and hideously irreverent.

 

On the other hand, the inclusion of animals may have mentioned Leonardo's fondness for the animal kingdom and appreciation and reverence for nature.  In his fables, modeled after Aesop's fables, animal archetypes take on human characteristics and attributes to speak about moral dilemmas.  The toad resting on Jesus' forearm in this engraving of Last Supper, for instance, would have had symbolic significance in Da Vinci's mind.  Interestingly, The Miser, one of Leonardo's fables, is about a toad that eats mouthfuls of earth and never gets his fill.  When asked by "aladybird" why he does not eat until full?  He answers, "Because one day," replied the miser, "even the earth might come to an end."  However, Leonardo probably included the symbol of the toad for its generally accepted meaning:  The toad or frog is as a symbol of transformation, transition and resurrection. 

This symbolism would be fitting in light of Jesus' eminent death and resurrection.  Amongst Da Vinci's drawings are many drawings of animals, the majority of which appear in the engraving's sublayer.  A recently authenticated engraving depicts a Leonardo look-alike in flowing robes serenading a bear with a “lira da braccio.”  A dog sits next to him scratching his neck.

 

 

James Constable also points out, "This plate may also contain one of the earliest engraved self-portraits of the artist, Leonardo Da Vinci." 

 

Was Leonardo merely curious as to how many optical illusions he could cram into one composition?  In that case, the engraving would represent a master’s experiment in the application of optic theory.  Was he, in fact, merely doodling and letting his imagination and defiant ego go wild?  Perhaps, he was harboring hatred for the Church and its doctrine and sought an artistic way to include his thoughts and Gnostic beliefs in the composition.  We must remember that artists were prohibited from exercising freedom of interpretation and expression in their works by decree of the Council of Trent in the 13th century:  “No image shall be set up which is suggestive of false doctrine or which may furnish an occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated”.  As a result, Leonardo was very careful not to make his more heretical beliefs obvious.

 

Or then again, had Da Vinci become a "Beautiful Mind" like John Nash, fallen off the deep end and swallowed up by an ocean of subconscious imagery including demons?  I do not have a list of all the catalogued elements and illusionistic images, but of the thirty or more that I drew out of the composition, I suspect Leonardo had digressed into some darker self at least temporality until he could gather his senses and return to his normal state of genius.  In a state not unlike a manic or psychotic episode, Leonardo perhaps became compelled and even obsessed to create and make sense of the imagery that was flooding his mind, imagery previous embedded in the depths of his subconscious.  Whatever this episode was about or what induced it, we will never know.  But those on a path of spiritual enlightenment sometimes experience periods of psychological dismemberment before becoming enlightened to the divine. With his paintings Salvator Mundi and Magdalene/Madonna and Christ with John the Baptist, Leonardo seems to have re-embraced Christ again later in life.

 

Related articles:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150625006287/en/Art-Scholar-Discovers-500-year-old-Metalcut-Da#.VcY2Y4uFbdk

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150806006487/en/#.VcTWC4uFbdk

http://davincirevelation.blogspot.com

http://www.deism.com/davinci.htm

Available on Amazon