John Whitehead's Commentary
Is There a Da Vinci Code?
The enigmatic genius Leonardo da Vinci was a Renaissance painter and an engineer. He constructed his paintings and drawings to engineering standards, as one might build a bridge. Besides being a great painter and sculptor, he was also an architect, inventor, musician and botanist, among other things. And virtually everything Da Vinci did was done with mathematical precision--including his works of art. Most assuredly, this was true of one of his most famous paintings, The Last Supper. The painting, which depicts Jesus' last supper with his disciples, is at the heart of Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, which has now been made into a movie.
Badly deteriorated, The Last Supper underwent a 20-year restoration before being unveiled in 1999. Having been stripped of layers of paint that were applied in earlier restoration attempts, only about 20% of the original painting now remains.
However, in 1994, five years before the restored The Last Supper was displayed, speculation arose about the identity of the apostle depicted on Jesus' right. Traditionally accepted as the Apostle John, the appearance is somewhat feminine. Thus, it was suggested that the figure, which appeared to be wearing a necklace of some sort, had the semblance of a slight bosom, was of slighter build and had longer hair than the other apostles, might be Mary Magdalene. Although unlikely, it was an intriguing concept at the time.
"In opposition to this speculation, a valid scenario posed from the outset was that if it is possible in a substantially deteriorated, 500 year-old painting to discover that one of the characters is not a man, but a woman," writes scholar and art historian Laurence Gardner in The Magdalene Legacy (2005), "then this would clearly have been most apparent when the painting was in its prime, and would have become part of the painting's history."
However, we now know that the 1994 Mary Magdalene hypothesis was based on an image that had been substantially painted over by other artists in earlier restoration attempts. And following this last restoration, we can now view the figure as originally painted by Da Vinci.
When planning The Last Supper, Da Vinci made numerous notes and some preparatory drawings. He split his apostles into four groups of three at the table, with Jesus in the center and six apostles on either side. Da Vinci described the individual apostles of The Last Supper in detail when preparing for the work. And in determining how to portray the younger characters (such as the brothers James and John) as distinct from the older, more swarthy men with beards, Da Vinci wrote: "Therefore make the hair on the head play in the wind around youthful faces, and gracefully adorn them with many cascades of curls."
As Gardner points out: "Although not described as being especially young in the New Testament, it became an artistic tradition to portray James, John and Philip as younger men than the others. John in particular is a mere youth in a good many Last Supper portrayals, and is even a young boy in a number of them."
In the world of fine art, there are various depictions of the Last Supper. Da Vinci elected to portray the moment in John 13:21, where Jesus announces that one of the apostles would betray him. The apostles then look at one another, wondering about whom Jesus spoke. Peter consulted another disciple (generally thought to be John) and "motioned to him to ask who it was of whom He spoke" (John 13:24).
Da Vinci's painting shows Peter asking this question. There is no sign of any menace between him and his neighbor, and the Apostle John leans toward him, listening. In The Da Vinci Code, one of the book's characters explains that the figure of John is really Mary Magdalene. He then draws attention to the fact that Peter (sitting adjacent) is slicing his blade-like hand across Mary's neck. However, in Da Vinci's portrayal, there is no blade-like cutting by Peter's hand, which is simply resting gently on the apostle's shoulder.
In The Da Vinci Code, a "disembodied" hand "wielding a dagger" is mentioned. It appears in the painting between Andrew and Judas. Before the 1999 restoration, it was difficult to determine to whom it belonged. Now it is clear that it is Peter's hand holding a knife, not a dagger--presumably used during the meal. "Fortunately, there were a number of individual copies of the painting made by students of Leonardo within the first 30 years of its life, before the decay set in," writes Gardner. "They each make it plain that Peter has his right arm twisted awkwardly as he leans behind Judas to speak to John. It was Peter who subsequently drew his sword and cut off Malchus' ear when Jesus was arrested at Gethsemane (John 18:10), and Leonardo's painting paves the way for this event." The scenario is that Peter conceals the knife behind him while asking John the name of Jesus' betrayer. The irony is that Judas is the man who sits between them and turns to listen to their conversation.
These same early copies (made around 1520) serve to identify Peter's left hand resting gently on John's shoulder. They also depict Jesus' drinking vessel. The Da Vinci Code makes the point that Jesus should have had a Grail chalice for his wine, as suggested in the Bible. But the Bible makes no such claim.
In fact, when related to this painting, The Da Vinci Code relies on an out-of-date premise that was posited before the 1999 restoration, when the previous overpaintings had been removed and Da Vinci's original work could be seen. But The Da Vinci Code takes no account of this, while perpetuating an old Magdalene theory. Yet perhaps that is precisely the point of The Da Vinci Code. It is a novel. So why all the hubbub over a piece of fiction?
Badly deteriorated, The Last Supper underwent a 20-year restoration before being unveiled in 1999. Having been stripped of layers of paint that were applied in earlier restoration attempts, only about 20% of the original painting now remains.
However, in 1994, five years before the restored The Last Supper was displayed, speculation arose about the identity of the apostle depicted on Jesus' right. Traditionally accepted as the Apostle John, the appearance is somewhat feminine. Thus, it was suggested that the figure, which appeared to be wearing a necklace of some sort, had the semblance of a slight bosom, was of slighter build and had longer hair than the other apostles, might be Mary Magdalene. Although unlikely, it was an intriguing concept at the time.
"In opposition to this speculation, a valid scenario posed from the outset was that if it is possible in a substantially deteriorated, 500 year-old painting to discover that one of the characters is not a man, but a woman," writes scholar and art historian Laurence Gardner in The Magdalene Legacy (2005), "then this would clearly have been most apparent when the painting was in its prime, and would have become part of the painting's history."
However, we now know that the 1994 Mary Magdalene hypothesis was based on an image that had been substantially painted over by other artists in earlier restoration attempts. And following this last restoration, we can now view the figure as originally painted by Da Vinci.
When planning The Last Supper, Da Vinci made numerous notes and some preparatory drawings. He split his apostles into four groups of three at the table, with Jesus in the center and six apostles on either side. Da Vinci described the individual apostles of The Last Supper in detail when preparing for the work. And in determining how to portray the younger characters (such as the brothers James and John) as distinct from the older, more swarthy men with beards, Da Vinci wrote: "Therefore make the hair on the head play in the wind around youthful faces, and gracefully adorn them with many cascades of curls."
As Gardner points out: "Although not described as being especially young in the New Testament, it became an artistic tradition to portray James, John and Philip as younger men than the others. John in particular is a mere youth in a good many Last Supper portrayals, and is even a young boy in a number of them."
In the world of fine art, there are various depictions of the Last Supper. Da Vinci elected to portray the moment in John 13:21, where Jesus announces that one of the apostles would betray him. The apostles then look at one another, wondering about whom Jesus spoke. Peter consulted another disciple (generally thought to be John) and "motioned to him to ask who it was of whom He spoke" (John 13:24).
Da Vinci's painting shows Peter asking this question. There is no sign of any menace between him and his neighbor, and the Apostle John leans toward him, listening. In The Da Vinci Code, one of the book's characters explains that the figure of John is really Mary Magdalene. He then draws attention to the fact that Peter (sitting adjacent) is slicing his blade-like hand across Mary's neck. However, in Da Vinci's portrayal, there is no blade-like cutting by Peter's hand, which is simply resting gently on the apostle's shoulder.
In The Da Vinci Code, a "disembodied" hand "wielding a dagger" is mentioned. It appears in the painting between Andrew and Judas. Before the 1999 restoration, it was difficult to determine to whom it belonged. Now it is clear that it is Peter's hand holding a knife, not a dagger--presumably used during the meal. "Fortunately, there were a number of individual copies of the painting made by students of Leonardo within the first 30 years of its life, before the decay set in," writes Gardner. "They each make it plain that Peter has his right arm twisted awkwardly as he leans behind Judas to speak to John. It was Peter who subsequently drew his sword and cut off Malchus' ear when Jesus was arrested at Gethsemane (John 18:10), and Leonardo's painting paves the way for this event." The scenario is that Peter conceals the knife behind him while asking John the name of Jesus' betrayer. The irony is that Judas is the man who sits between them and turns to listen to their conversation.
These same early copies (made around 1520) serve to identify Peter's left hand resting gently on John's shoulder. They also depict Jesus' drinking vessel. The Da Vinci Code makes the point that Jesus should have had a Grail chalice for his wine, as suggested in the Bible. But the Bible makes no such claim.
In fact, when related to this painting, The Da Vinci Code relies on an out-of-date premise that was posited before the 1999 restoration, when the previous overpaintings had been removed and Da Vinci's original work could be seen. But The Da Vinci Code takes no account of this, while perpetuating an old Magdalene theory. Yet perhaps that is precisely the point of The Da Vinci Code. It is a novel. So why all the hubbub over a piece of fiction?
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
