Talk:The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Lost Sketches" hoker on Amazon[edit]

Anyone see this?

http://www.amazon.com/Apostle-Magdalene-Sketches-Leonardo-painted/dp/B0007WU146

I suppose this is just a joke? um yea leonardo davinci actually died on 1599 but there is no actuall evidence.


The link from the top photo doesn't work. when you click on the photo it leads to a broken picture.


I think this should be moved to The Last Supper (painting). Disambiguation is generally done in categories (and The Last Supper is not a Leonardo) so that it is consistent and easy to guess how articles are disambiguated. If there are two paintings with the name, it should be at The Last Supper (Leonardo painting) or something similar. Tuf-Kat

It seems to me that a number of works of art are identified by artist, aren't they? - Montréalais

If that's the way it's done in Wikipedia, then I guess it's alright with me. Probably not worth changing anyway. Tuf-Kat

Whoa, why did the last restoration take 22 years? This should be explained. Kent Wang 00:57, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Lengthiness of Most Recent Restoration

Someone has asked for an explanation of why the most recent restoration took over twenty years.

Brambilla was using high tech methods that operated at the micron level. "Using the above technologically advanced techniques for analysis and employing the use of solvents to remove multiple layers, Pinin Brambilla faced an extremely slow and meticulous process. Often, only an area the size of a postage stamp was cleaned each day."

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~lbianco/project/restoration.html#recent

Although I have not read this book which documents the above restoration process, those wanting to know more of the details about it, and in particular, why it may have taken so long, may be interested in this reference:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14227.ctl


Controversy[edit]

This section is redundant and should be removed. 69.248.65.105 06:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I just restored the paragraph about Kern's ad/parody of the painting, since (at least for me) it is an interesting new fact relevant to the article's topic. AxelBoldt 08:29, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who removed the reference. I think it's irrelevant simply because parodies of the Last Supper are so commmon. If Kern's work is worth mention, then so would parodies of the work by American TV shows That 70's Show and Animaniacs should be mentioned as well. Those just happen to be the first two shows that I can think of that had a brief scene in which the characters sat around a table in the same manner as the apostles portrayed in The Last Supper; I'm sure there are many more. Kent Wang 17:37, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
I have removed the paragraph again, pending further discussion here. Kent Wang 17:14, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not fit to do it, but can anyone elaborate on the theory of music being hidden in the work? Some theories hold that the hands, and possibly the loaves of bread, are musical notations. Others say it is just a by-product of a work using harmonic proportions, that music can be found in any painting using those proportions. I'd love to find the 40-second piece of music that is supposedly resultant (which led me here, to no avail.) 66.41.0.174 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Ryan

The reference on CNN.com is [1] --209.221.206.206 04:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we tone down the da vinci code crap and just write things based on actual fact, not some godawful novel? If you saw it in a movie, it doesn't belong here.

Also: academic style means you call people by their last name. It's da Vinci, not Leonardo. I'm ot editing it because it's a big red flag for the parts of the article that need heavy content editing. 68.42.17.202 (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

da Vince wasn't a surname or anyone's surname. It's not a surname at all, it means "of Vinci," which was were he was born. His full name was Leonardo di Ser Piero, da Vinci is to differentiate him from any other Leonardos. He could have been from Parma and been known as Leonard da Parma, but Parma wouldn't have been his last name either. Leonardo doesn't actually have a surname as we have them. He should be referred to as Leonardo throughout the article after his commonly known title "Leonardo da Vinci" has been established in earlier passages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.120.162 (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. And he's routinely referred to as Leonardo in academic publications. The practice of having a surname was not established in the place from which Leonardo came - nor was it exactly a surname system that gave people "last names" like de Medici. The issue of naming in the Renaissance is itself outside the scope of this article - but I can think of many people referred to in academic (juried publications included) that are referred to by first name only.--LeValley 02:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jackson pastiche[edit]

Reference citation for pastiche, while mentioning its existence, does not specify that this pastiche hangs above Jackson's bed as someone here has asserted in the wikipedia article.

There are lots of reference to this [2] Paul B 10:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't contesting the number (many or few) references that might exist, but merely pointing out that the one cited (originally only footnote 4 was cited) did not support all the claims made by that part of the wikipedia article. Your reference (now as footnote 5 in the article) is actually much better, though, as it goes on to describe more than Christ's face having been replaced by Jackson; that the faces of the apostles had also been changed to those of various famous leaders, inventors and entertainers. The original wikipedia mention leaves one to assume a more strictly religious (or sacrilegious) context. This closer association to the sacrilegious may indeed be high on the agenda of editors who headline such articles with "bizarre" (which is not to say there might be plenty else that is genuinely "bizarre" besides this one item.) Your reference, however, describing the pastiche in greater detail (that is, not conveniently skewing the context by omission those details), makes it clear that Jackson has instead placed himself at the center of a gathering of charismatic, humanitarian leaders and great creative minds, which, however immodest this may seem, is something quite different.

Fair point. I've amended the text in accordance with your comments. Paul B 12:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Octagon[edit]

I heard the original room by Leonardo was painted in octagonal shape and the current box-shaped room is a modification from later times.

The room was built as a rectangle, and was supposed to contain more frescos/paintings - but it never did.--LeValley 02:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

speculation removed[edit]

On the other hand, one might argue that of course, Leonardo would not have unambiguously replaced one of the apostles by a female. The feminine features of John's face may thus be seen as a mere hint.

And I suppose every other Christian artist who has portrayed John with youthful and somewhat feminine features (there are hundreds if not thousands) was making the same "mere hint"? Such an appearance is a long-lived convention for depictions of John; it predates Leonardo and has long survived him. —Charles P. (Mirv) 6 July 2005 06:18 (UTC) aaliyah is awesome

I'd like to see some citations/examples, there Charles P. Would be an interesting addition to this article if you can substantiate what you say.--LeValley 02:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Man, just look at the external links of this site! Fulcher (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus and Judas[edit]

When I was a child, I read an article in a Christian storybook that claimed that when Leonardo da Vinci painted The Last Supper he found his "Jesus" right away and painted him. Twenty years later, he found a soon-to-be executed prisoner to be his "Judas." After a few weeks finishing the painting, the model jumped up and revealed that he was the model of Jesus, and had become a criminal and "evil" in the last twenty years. It's clear that this is some kind of folklore, or maybe the book made it up to teach some kind of "morality" tale. Anyways, I don't have the source anymore, and was wondering if this is a common Christian legend or not.--204.248.61.77 19:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hidden Chalice[edit]

There is a "hidden" chalice-like symbol in the left pillar, that doesn't seem to belong there, what is its purpose?

It's not quite clear what this is. It only showed up after the restoration of the work (it was not in evidence before). One Gary Phillips seems to be the first to notice this, and I don't doubt that the silly theory of a missing Holy Grail that Dan Brown did so much to popularize is the cause. If you examine it closely it doesn't look nearly as much like a chalice; in my opinion it more closely resembles Maximilian Sforza's coat of arms, which is visible directly above it. It's also worth wondering what was painted on the other pillars (it's unlikely that they would have been decorated with such asymmetry), but whatever was there has not been restored. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)



the last supper on TV[edit]

The depiction of the last supper in the American television program "That 70's Show" is worth noting. Simply because it has supporting evidence towards the idea that the person seated to right of Jesus could possibly be a women. In the show, when they are in the tableu of the last supper, to the right of the one who is supposed to be Jesus is Donna. A red headed girl just like the one depicted in Da Vinci's last supper. it is beleived that this idea is more well-known than once thought. Some television shows alwyas throw in a religious theme in every episode. However this show is not known for that, a remarkable tableau scene featuring the last supper is a very rare occurance and as a viewer of that show i found it to be suprising. Coincidence that Donna, the red-haired girl is depicting Mary Magadelene, the forgotten diciple of Jesus? Only Da Vinci knows for sure. Until we ever know for sure, It does not appear as if the world is ready for such radical re-thinking of the life of Jesus and his shackled relationship with Mary Magdelene.

Wait a minute. Everyone backup. Let's read this quote again because I can't believe that someone who is capable of learning to read and write actually said this...
"The depiction of the last supper in the American television program "That 70's Show" is worth noting. Simply because it has supporting evidence towards the idea that the person seated to right of Jesus could possibly be a women."
Think about the above quote, several times carefully if you must.--Daniel 04:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It is, of course, part of the modern culture that absolutely everything has to be questioned, doubted, double-checked and verified. That's sad, really. The Gospels say that Jesus Christ shared the last supper with the twelve apostles. They are contemporary or near-contemporary accounts. You do not have to believe them, any more than you have to believe the Talmud or the Qu'ran, but practising Christians do believe them. The book "The Da Vinci code" is fiction, and speculation about Leonard's painting of The last supper is just that - speculation. Why is it that attacking the basic beliefs of Christianity appears to be acceptable, while similar attacks on, for example, Islam, would awaken a hornet's nest of criticism?

It could be that Christians have gotten over killing people who disagree with them. Steve Dufour 04:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The Bible merely reports that the 12 were there - it doesn't say they were the ONLY ones there. The idea of 12 men meeting in an upper room without anyone to cook the food and bring it up seems preposterous to me, based on other accounts of behavior among Aramaic-speaking people of that era. The Bible doesn't mention everything that happened and you can't use it to prove whether or not there were more than 12. If you are a Bible-believer, the most you can say is that the 12 were there. Who else might have been there is not mentioned. We know that Mary, Mother of Jesus, must have been in Jerusalem at about this time- since she's there two days later at the crucifixion, and travel was quite slow back then. If Jesus excluded Mom from the Last Supper, that's interesting - but we'll never know. Maybe Peter's wife made dinner - that's been a common view for some believers. But people take what they wish from the Bible - which also promises that God can reveal more to believers - so it's very difficult to apply literary exegesis, isn't it?--LeValley 02:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of 'who cooked the food'... ya all should get a look in National Lampoon's June '74 Food Issue.. one of the best reality, ah bites re Last Supper. Jesus looks out at us.. face aghast w/ the bill for the meal, in hand. 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:D5C0:610C:B13F:BC0F (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Speculation[edit]

When I saw this article earlier today and saw "The Controversy", the first thought that came into my head was, "Someone's been reading the Da Vinci Code." This book is FICTION, however it is based on one's beliefs, which may or may not be backed up by analysts of this painting. If there are any sources for your "dangerous secret .... campaign launched by the Catholic Church", then by all means, let it remain in the article. If not, however, it can be seen as Original Research and therefore not allowed in wikipedia. WikiTruth 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Its up to you[edit]

Well it is a Fiction book but ther are always people who pick up a book, watch the television etc. and believe anyting that they read/see/ hear. Now, the feminine side of it -for me which I havent read the Da Vinci code but I know what its about- is a female that Da Vinci as put in. Yes, you could argue that John has descriptions that relate to the feminine side, but if you really look at it it a female, a Male can not look like that (joke) unless he goes through a serious plastic surgery. The chalice and the Female ( In Dan Browns Da Vinci code he believes its Mary Magdalene) its a matter of if you wan't to see it or you don't want to see it, but its entirely up to the person (The reader) what you wan't to believe, but it does look like the so called "Holy Grail" and John resembling a Woman. The best thing to do is "LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF" but look at both sides to see what is against what or just ignore it.

I did what you told us here, I looked up for myself and I have compared Leonardo's Last Supper with many other versions of this subject - older and later ones. My impression is that practically all Italian painters showed us a beardless, long haired and very youthful John, who is always sitting next to Jesus. I think many people make the mistake to think that all disciples were adult men. They don't know that John was traditionally believed to be teenage boy, when he and the other disciples came together for the Last Supper. So the "feminine" look you see here is in fact meant o be a youthful one. The question is not: is it a man or a woman, but is it a male youth or not. I don't see a convincing hint to believe that Leonardo decipted Mary Magdalene here. Link: http://home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/st-john.html 89.49.134.59 12:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not just that the figure looks feminine, it's that her pose is demure and similar to women in Leonardo's paintings. This manner of presenting female figures looking shyly away from the viewer, head tilted to the side, was typical of Leonardo and his contemporaries. It was the accepted way to portray an historical female figure and never a man. Go look up any Leonardo painting featuring mythical or historical women and see if you don't find this same pose. The Mona Lisa is a portrait but even she features a "proper" bashful gaze.
I am in no way defending "The Templar Revelation" or "The Da Vinci Code" or any book that attempts to link Da Vinci to secret knowledge of Christ. I'm not sure why anyone would think a Renaissance painter would be more privy to secret information from the time of Christ than we are today. Leonardo Da Vinci lived closer to our time than to the time of Jesus. Nevertheless and for whatever reason, the figure seated next to Christ is a woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.60.8 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There are also many people, who thought that pop singer Bill Kaulitz was female. The younger males are, the bigger the chance they would be mistaken for girls. And why should Leonardo da Vinci, who was considered to be very much attracted to beardless teenage boys himself, be the one, who replaces this apostle with a woman? Makes no sense. Fulcher (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Please revert to version 56928895 since Slathering changed the word 'Jesus' to 'Sam' at line 13

John & the Relationship[edit]

And I suppose every other Christian artist who has portrayed John with youthful and somewhat feminine features (there are hundreds if not thousands) was making the same "mere hint"? Such an appearance is a long-lived convention for depictions of John; it predates Leonardo and has long survived him.

So what are you saying, that it's long been recognized that John is female? I quickly found 20 images of John and in over half of them, especially the ones where he appears feminine, "John" is falling in Jesus' lap, hugging him, or holding his hand. Clearly the artistic record from 1300-1600 supports the idea of a relationship between the two. Broodlinger 16:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

http://home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/st-john.html

The point is that the depiction of this intimate relationship is normal in art of the period, not evidence of some unusual "secret message" on Leonardo's part. Almost every artist - working for the Catholic church - includes this motif, so how can be an anti-Catholic "secret"? It can't be much of a secret can it, if it's known to everyone, including the church? Of course there was a relationship between John and Jesus. John was his disciple. He is referred to as the "beloved disciple" in his own gospel. Depictions of intmacy between men of this kind were considered quite uncontroversial in the Renaissance. The portrayal of John as the most feminine/passive of the disciples is usually contrasted with Peter as the most masculine/aggressive of them. You can see that in the Castagno too. Part of the point of these images is to show that the disciples represent the full range of human psychological types, brought together in harmony by Jesus. Paul B 18:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you made this clearer. If John's "psychological type" is at issue (feminized male character), then Jesus's announcement that John was his preferred disciple is fascinating. Remember how annoyed Peter got, at that one?--LeValley 02:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

jOHN cHAPTER 13 23 One of his disciples, the one whom Jesus loved, was reclining at Jesus' side. 24 So Simon Peter nodded to him to find out whom he meant. 25 He leaned back against Jesus' chest and said to him, "Master, who is it?" -- In the scene depicted here Peter is asking John (pulling John toward him) to find out who Jesus meant would betray Him, many artists show John leaning against Jesus' chest as it says in the Gospel account, though it may seem odd to modern sensabilities.

And this also shows that Leonardo didn't prop a copy of the syntactic gospels up in front of him to govern his work.--LeValley 02:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cypleus motif?[edit]

What on earth is a "cypleus motif"? Is this a typo for clypeus? (Still seems a rather odd motif). -- Securiger 00:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, typo. But that's what the book says, odd or not. Paul B 00:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Peter's Dagger?[edit]

The dagger in the painting cannot possibliy be Peter's. If you follow his arm, you will see it comes right down to the table. For Peter to be holding the dagger, His wrist would have to be broken, spun around in the opposite direction and lifted up approximately 6 to 8 inches. It has always been a mystery as to who was wielding the mysteious dagger. And, St. Andrew is not reacting to Jesus' revelation, but to the dagger, as his gaze is set directly upon it, not Jesus. RandallFlagg July 11, 2006

Look at thye close-up. The pink of the arm can be seen emerging from Peter's sleeve, and then his wrist is bent back. [3] 82.39.83.171 18:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Viisiting Milan a couple of weeks back my wife and I viewed the painting in the refectory. We had previously, of course, seen reproductions and comments in various TV programs. I have not read the dV Code my wife has but didn't make any comment on how that had incorporated the painting in its ill-written fantasy. One particular presentation of the painting was an IBM effort in a major exhibition of dV's works and inventions at London's Hayward gallery some years ago. That last concentrated on explaining how dV affected the perspective. I had not heard in any of these presentations about 'Peter's knife'. When looking at these things I like to use binoculars to get the detail. Doing so I was surprised to see the knife. It did not seem to me to be presented as a threat to anyone. More likely it appeared to be in a hand of which the forearm was resting on the table and the owner was perhaps considering slicing one of the rolls that the Christ has distributed along the table. What seemed to me, and my wife, absolutely clear was that Peter's right hand was firmly grasping the wrist from which the hand springs. We could not work out whose hand held the knife and very, very carefully counted the hands of the six disciples who are on the Christ's right hand. As well as the one holding the knife, there are twelve clearly depicted effecting quite natural gestures, although I couldn't guess why Peter is holding that wrist. I would mention that I enjoyed Veronese's version of the same event much more than this cloudy degraded image. I reckon that dV had painted out some other figure but, like he didn't get around to finishing a lot of things, he didn't finish this.

You're entitled to your opinion. This is such a widespread bullsh*tt opinion (in my view) - but if a bunch of modern people know when something is "finished"- or whether art is ever meant to be "finished" - I'm sure they must be "right." Majority opinion of people outside art history, history, anthropology (etc). is always right. It's amazing to me how many cockamamy things are repeated throughout this discussion page - it's worth an article (not on Wikipedia) all by itself.--LeValley 02:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Knife[edit]

Doesn't it seem like the knife is being pointed at Judas (?), and that Judas seems to recognize it as a threatening action? 24.227.116.226 00:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

He can't see it. It's behind his back.Paul B 00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Knife[edit]

If it indeed is Peter resting his hand on his knee. What is the brown colour? Is it his brown hand, witch is strange because his other hand at St. John/Mary is white? Or is it a part of his jacket, witch is also a wery strange position (almost physically impossible and must be painful) to hold your hand. 22:00, 24 April 2007 84.48.104.249 22:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Einar

The brown colour is caused by deterioration of the pigment used for the tonal modeling. Look at the close-up here [4]. You can see the line around the wrist. He is resting it on his hip, not his knee. Paul B 23:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

one could logically speculate on the presence of a bladed weapon if the abounding philosophy etc was the 'turning of the other cheek'

Thetiesthatbind (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thetiesthatbind, The abounding philosophy of Jesus was "Turn the other cheek". That knife is in the hand of a brawny fisherman, who still had not come to a proper understanding of what Jesus was really on about. About an hour after this, when Jesus was captured, the same Peter cut the ear off the High Priest's servant. Jesus was not pleased at Peter's total failure to get the message. The presence of the knife is one of the signs that this figure represents Peter.
Amandajm (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
What Amandajm says is true; it prefigures Peter's attack on the servant. But there is also a more banal reason he has a knife. They are eating dinner. He's just picked it up from that big plate of herring, presumably to cut the edible flesh from the bones. Paul B (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


haha good point that - when you put it like that it's not a sinister thing to have a knife at a dinner table

Thetiesthatbind (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Charlie Rose[edit]

I remember watching Charlie Rose one night, and he interviewed someone who wrote a fictional book about the painting (NOT THE DA VINCI CODE). He mentioned he wrote Thaddeus was supposed to be a somewhat of a self protrait of Da Vinci, Simon the Zealot was based on Socrates, and Matthew was a portrait of some politician (or philosopher) that was alive during Da Vinci's day. Masa 05:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to Javier Sierra's The Secret Supper. It provides another interesting view of the painting. --SFDan 18:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Tradition of woman to the right of Jesus in Last Supper[edit]

Perhaps it would be worth mentioning the "unorthodox tradition" of depicting a woman in the Last Supper. Such images are quite common, and a very good example is in Arundel Castle, where it is beautifully sculpted in silver. Another is in a church in Banbury. The one I would like to upload and place on this page is the marble altarpiece in a Catholic cathedral in Drogheda, Eire.

Unfortunately, my browser will not upload images to Wiki, for some reason, so I have uploaded the image onto the web Drogheda Last Supper . Is that, or is that not a woman? Please bear in mind that this is the altarpiece for a Catholic cathedral.

I would suggest a text to go with this image of:

  • It should be noted that Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper is not the only Last Supper scene to include a woman on the right-hand side of Jesus, and the sculpture on the altar of St Peter's Catholic Cathedral in Drogheda, Eire, is a good example of this unorthodox genre. Many of these images and sculptures are so obviously feminine, it would be inadvisable to attribute them to a 'youthful St John'.

-- Ralph Ellis 12:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ralph, you are talking as if you had never seen a long haired teenage boy in your whole life. Look here: [5] A woman? No, it's the actor Björn Andresen at the age of 15. Here's a summary of my arguments concerning the Last Supper (I know you won't read it anyway): [6] Fulcher 17:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
"Is that, or is that not a woman?" Erm, it's not a woman. Definitely not. You probably think it looks feminine because the hairstyle is a "page boy bob", which was a popular women's style at various times in the twentieth century, starting in the 1920s. However, as the name suggests, it was originally a style for youths. And more particularly, in either the 1st century AD (which is supposed to be depicted here), or in any phase of European history prior to the twentieth century, it was considered disgraceful for a woman to either wear her hair so short (well, with the exception of nuns who get crew cuts as a sign of humility), or to let it flow loose and uncovered at a gathering for men (this is due, of course, to Paul.) In short, although the hairstyle looks somewhat feminine to modern eyes, it looked definitely and unequivocally masculine to the people who made this sculpture. To the extent that other gender features are visible (which is very little), they are male (cleft chin, slight Adam's apple as one might expect for a youth, and no breasts.) (BTW, I hope you don't mind, I edited your signature above to conform to the Wikipedia standard. You can have that added automatically by putting four tildes, ~~~~, at the end of your post.) -- Securiger 11:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ralph seems to have some unusual theories as evidenced by his website. Paul B 13:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mona Lisa is a self-portrait of Da Vinci himself. This is the reason for the Mona Lisa's knowing smile-that she is not a woman but merely a man (if you look closely enough, that is). ~ Sherry

Monty Python[edit]

Should the Monty Python skit (the one where 'Leonardo' drew 23 disciples, 3 christs, and a kangaroo) be mentioned in the popular culture section? I'd add it, but I can't remember anything else about the skit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.167.39 (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

It was Michelangelo (in the sketch), though actually based on a real incident involving Paolo Veronese. Paul B 08:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article review[edit]

This article is currently at Good Article Review. Teemu08 21:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Article has lost good article status. Most common complaint was that the "in Culture" section is a mere list without other content, and is poorly referenced. -- Securiger 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Are these reviews still available for users to read? 8bitW (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
8bitW, the review can be found here but there's not much to be gained in reading it. GA standards and criteria have probably changed a fair bit since 2007. --Hillbillyholiday talk 20:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hillbillyholiday, thanks for the heads up! Like you said, it's pretty terse, but at least I know what was said now. Thanks again for looking it up. 8bitW (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Bit of a cleanup on 9 Apr 07[edit]

I just made a number of changes, several of them largish, so I thought I'd cover my reasons here:

  1. The article has been repeatedly vandalised recently. While other editors corrected most of these, a few slipped through. To catch them all (at least, I think I have) I had to compare with a number of versions ranging from weeks to from several months ago, because good edits had been interspersed. I then reverted various paragrphs to appropriate older content. Examples of this include changed the dimensions of the mural, subtle misspellings which were formerly correct, changing the release date of a DVD to 1492, etc. (In the process I also reverted someone's gratuitous "corrections" of my Australian English to American English.)
  2. Added a few links (e.g. to mastic, so people don't think it is a gum -- it's a hard resin)
  3. The medium section had been removed and replaced with a condensed version, in a very long parenthesis, right at the start. I reverted this because I think it is poor style. The opening paragraph should be straight to the point and hard hitting, without any distracting details. A three line parenthesis is excessive anywhere, but especially so in the opening sentence. Even apart from that, the condensation to three lines removed significant details. Further, the parenthesis inserted a new claim for the reason why buon fresco was not used (tempera provides more colours?) This does not gibe with what most art historians say, and I will presently add a reference for the conventional explanation.
  4. Corrected usage of "da Vinci" as a personal name to "Leonardo". See first paragraph of Leonardo da Vinci for why.
  5. Restored an interwiki link -- the Farsi one -- that had been blanked (probably unintentionally) after checking the article appears valid (to the extent one can tell from illustrations alone; I can't read Farsi).
  6. I completely removed the paragraph about John sleeping beneath Jesus' feet. I believe this paragraph was being used to present a theory in the guise of admitting there is no evidence for it. Indeed, not only is there no evidence for it, but so far as I can tell no-one has ever even suggested it before (because frankly, it is silly). As such it seems to be a rather clever way to camouflage original research. At any rate, unless someone notable has been espousing this theory there doesn't seem any reason to include it.

-- Securiger 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mary is in there .... wow!!!![edit]

Okay tell me that the person to you'r left of jesus isnt a woman I mean come on really look at it. Dont you see how Leonardo used her as his mirror image hence the same blue and red garments. Plus it seems that they are attatched by the hip because they were one in marriage,and there body makes a "v" shape which is a symbol used by Paigens which means woman's womb and the man is the the "v" upside down which means well you know. Ohh and there is no chalice as in goblet like the Catholics would like you to think only the "V" which is is the womb of a woman hint Mary in the picture. 65.92.54.36 08:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC) J'lann

Dream on. Paul B 09:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The medium?[edit]

The infobox at the top of the article says the painting is "fresco on gesso, pitch and mastic". But the text says:

Leonardo painted The Last Supper on a dry wall rather than on wet plaster, so it is not a true fresco. Because a fresco cannot be modified as the artist works, Leonardo instead chose to seal the stone wall with a layer of pitch, gesso and mastic, then paint onto the sealing layer with tempera.

I believe that the version in the text is correct, and the work simply isn't a fresco, since it was painted onto dry plaster -- hence the deterioration. So shouldn't the infobox be changed to say "tempera on gesso, pitch and mastic"? — Johan the Ghost seance 17:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No naysayers, so I've gone ahead and changed it. — Johan the Ghost seance 01:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture section[edit]

Is anything mentioned there really important? The painting has been around 500 years or so. Will it being mentioned in a movie or TV show make any difference 10 years from now? Steve Dufour 04:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I took the section out and it was put right back in. In my edit summary I mentioned recentism. Most of the references were in the last few years. Steve Dufour 18:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You didn't take out the pop culture sectuion. You took out the whole of the "Last Supper in culture" section, which refers to copies, artistic reworkings, films and other examples. The fact is that this painting has an iconic status way beyond the usual tendency pop culture reference sections, which often add such thrilling facts as "so-and-so had a reproduction of painting X on his bedroom wall in my favourite sitcom". Reuse of the composition has been a significant aspect of the images meaning for many many years. Paul B 07:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. The painting is tremendously important in our culture (that would be Western Culture, I guess). There might have been 1 or 2 notable references in the parts I took out. However most of it was about uses of the image around the year 2007. Well, it was just as important in 1907 and 1957, and will be in 2057 and 2107 -- I expect. So why should the culture section focus mainly on the present time? I'll try taking out the pop culture part (which is tagged trivia) and see what happens. Steve Dufour 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I honestly do not see a valid argument to why a serious encyclopedia website would include dated references to television programs such as South Park and Gilmore Girls. Those programs certainly have their place, but an article regarding one of the world's greatest masterpieces is not one of them (and the section is likely the reason The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci) is now categorized as a "Former Good Article" on this website). --Chimino (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree entirely with the above. I have removed some of the more superfluous entries in this section, particularly in movies and TV, as per usual Wikipedia notability guidelines. I also took out several entries in the modern art section. However, since I'm not an expert in that area, if anyone contests those removals, please discuss them here. 8bitW (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Judas' Arm[edit]

Anyone notice the strange baby-like figure in Judas' left arm?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.41.121 (talkcontribs)

Music notes[edit]

As the entire section on hidden music notes was plagiarised from either this article or this one, I have removed most of the section's text and reworded the one sentence that remains. I've added an expansion tag to the section. --DearPrudence (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ParadiseNowLastSupper.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:ParadiseNowLastSupper.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mirror Image[edit]

Please don't right my off as a conspiracy theorist as I believe that most of the things people are saying about this piece of art is bullspit. However, I did notice, in addition to everything else mentioned in the article, a couple in a lovers' embrace when the image is superimposed on its mirror image. Am I just tricking myself or is this something that could possibly be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.38.60 (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cesare da Sesto copy[edit]

one of best copy konw of Leonardo Last Supper was made by his follower Cesare da sesto

Ultima cena, Copia
Cesare da Sesto - Ultima Cena (copia).jpg
ArtistCesare da Sesto
Year1550
LocationPonte Capriasca

Ultima Cena (copia) - dettaglio.jpg

Great addition to this page - did you take the pictures yourself? It would be great for Wikimedia to have the rights to them and put them into the article itself. (The shadow on the picture makes me assume someone took them as a regular tourist). Still, excellent quality photo.--LeValley 02:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cut and Paste Mary/Jesus[edit]

In the section [and alternative theories] it mention about Mary. I remember in the movie in 2003 that they wen't on about cutting mary out and pasting her next to jesus and it fits better with her head on his. Also, that this 'mary' in the picture looks female. Is this mentioned in the Templar Revelation book?


I'm sorry for adding this info on this persons information and sorry for my incorrect grammar

but the person who posted this information on the main site of the last supper he/she explains the people in groups, first three, and then another three persons but with male names? the 6th person from the left to the right. is a woman? isn't it jezus his wife or something?

sorry if my information is bullsh*t... could some1 of wikipedia self, tell me about it , or anyone else

Leanardo created many fantastic inventions. An example for instance the glider , made of wood. Many hundreds in his time period thought long and hard about Leanardos work. Many people (including his assisstant) were very impresed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.155.254 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

da vinci[edit]

leonardo da vinci painted the last supper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.69.254 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The 12 apostles section[edit]

Is this entirely copied from somewhere else? Surely not Britannica. But from where? It's hard by now to tell who is plagiarizing whom, but this entire text is found on several sites, including Olga's online art museum, where Olga claims to have written it herself. Both Olga and now, this article, have odd explanations for the group immediately to Jesus's left (our right). No one has their "hands in the air." One apostle has one hand with one finger pointed up - hardly "in the air." Another has both arms widespread (not "in the air"), as though to push away the reaction of the two other apostles, or in a gesture of total helplessness (hard to know the meaning of 500 year old gestures). At any rate, this section needs a citation and a rewrite - since neither Olga nor this article seems to actually look closely at the painting right in front of them.--LeValley 20:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a refectory when Leonardo painted it![edit]

This oft-repeated myth about it being a "common theme for a refectory" makes this article lead paragraph really amateurish. Solari designed the church, Sforza hired Bramante to build a mausoleum onto the church - which LATER became a refectory, after the Sforza family's fortunes changed. The monks didn't think twice about cutting a door through the painting - but the original intent, discussed among Bramante, Sforza and Leonardo (there are many references - including the basic tourist information at the church itself) was that it be a mausoleum. Ultimately, Ludovico and Beatrice were buried right next door (in the church choir area). I'll insert one reference, there are many others - but the history of the place is got wrong in the first paragraph!--LeValley 03:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Every source I consulted emphatically states that it was not a refectory when the Sforzas built it as their mausoleum. No Sforza would built a refectory and then plan to be buried in it (or hire Bramante to build a dining room!) I can't find a single reliable source that says it was a refectory when Leonardo painted there - only sources that state it was built specifically to be the Sforza mausoleum, adjacent to the chapel they considered their own.[1]
P.S. Solari, Bramante, Sforza and Leonardo had several documented meetings about this space, how it would be built - and how Leonardo would decorate it. Sforza chose the theme, etc. All of this is missing from the article, and instead the stuff about it already being a refectory was in it. I'd like to see a citation that states it was built as a refectory - or even that "Last Suppers" were common in monks' dining halls (instead, the fact that the painting was there was something of an embarrassment to the ascetic Dominicans). Ludovico was driven out of Milan (tried to come back, died in captivity - but was buried in Santa Maria delle Grazie in the end - but not in the planned mausoleum, which was never finished).--LeValley 03:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Jones' Last Supper[edit]

There was probably some controversy with this painting, with Bugs Bunny representing Jesus and his friends as the Apostles (as well as The Grinch).

File:Bugs-bunny-last-supper.jpg Warren67 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sentence badly written[edit]

  • "Jesus is predicting that his betrayer will take the bread at the same time he does to Saints Thomas and James to his left, who react in horror as Jesus points with his left hand to a piece of bread before them."

Does this sentence make any sense to anyone else? The word 'does' seems wrong, and the whole sentence doesn't really get any information across because of the bad writing. Is he predicting that the betrayer will take the bread at the same time as Thomas and James? Or is he pointing/talking to Thomas and James at the same time he is pointing at the piece of bread in front of him? If so, the sentence is all broken up.

Can someone who is familiar with this fix it? Cause I don't know enough to fix it. AC (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

May be the previous version of the text is better -

Leonardo creates a more dramatic and realistic effect by having Judas lean back into shadow. He also creates a realistic and psychologically engaging means to explain why Judas takes the bread at the same time as Jesus, just after Jesus has predicted that this is what his betrayer will do. Jesus is shown saying this to Saints Thomas and James to his left, who react in horror as Jesus points with his left hand to a piece of bread before them.

Keith D (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Leonardo Davinci was beleived to been a leader in the Priory Son who know whereabouts and location of the holy grail. Leonardo also believed in Pagan Worship. bibiliography: Brown,Dan The Davinci Code —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.164.227.134 (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your "bibliography" is fiction, which means Mr. Brown was inventing things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsin (talkcontribs) 15:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Rumors fiction or non-fiction?[edit]

References to Dan Brown should be removed from this section since his novel is a work of fiction. Fictional accounts are not used to support anything. --Torsin (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, but he gets his infomation from fringe works of pseudo-history. In any case, the section is not about facts. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The 'of course not' suggests you agree with me and in that case Brown's fictional account shouldn't be quoted, but rather the non-fiction pseudo-history sources should be cited. --Torsin (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Dan Brown is significant because his novel and the subsequent film has influenced attitudes to the work in the wider culture. The novel is not being quoted for "facts". It is not "cited" in that way at all. It's just referred to. Paul B (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
So you're saying works of fiction should be used to support topics in an encyclopedia? --Torsin (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Fictional works often have a huge effect on historical fact. Far more people know about Shakespeare's hunchbacked Richard III than they do about the historical man with no physical defects. I would contend that the Dan Brown controversy should at least get a sentence and then redirect to another page. ~ Brother William (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Anachronism?[edit]

The article reports from the website "buzz.com - Intelligent Life on the Web" that Oranges are clearly visible in the painting and art experts have pointed out their presence as a factual error. Historians state that oranges were brought to Europe in the 15th Century A.D. by Dutch sailors from the Indian subcontinent. In comparison to that, the events of the last supper occurred many centuries beforehand.[5] Apart from the fact that there were probably oranges in Sicily well before that, but the last supper didn't take place in Europe!

I think the section should be removed but I'd like to hear the opinion of some other contributor. --Dia^ (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. it should be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.168.119 (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt they had them in Jerusalem either, but I'm sure Jesus could have miracled them over for the event if he'd wanted to. Fruit often has an emblematic role in renaissance art anyway, so the argument is bit literal minded. Paul B (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

bread?[edit]

The last supper was suppose to be Pesach(Passover). I don't understand why people say and see bread for the article, at Pasach Jewish people don't eat bread, I would argue that eggs are on the table and not bread, maybe there could be some nutrality in the article on this argument. Govvy (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Secret Song[edit]

in cracked.com, it says there is a easter egg that scholars believe thats not co incidental, if you take the breads on the painting and draw it like notes, you can make a music out of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Allied Bombing damaged mural[edit]

The article says the refectory and mural were damaged by a WWII bombing without mentioning the responsible party. It was either written to be neutral or written under the guise of being neutral to not mention that it was an allied bombing. Or perhaps there was no reason at all for not mentioning this. It is important to document who was responsible for the bombing, to show that war has a cost and sometimes that cost is irreplaceable art/relics/artifacts of our past in addition to the human and financial cost. Not trying to sound biased and write a political message, the articles about artifacts and Babylonian ruins in Iraq mention that US/NATO damaged them. Same with the article about the ruins in Baalbek, Lebanon damaged by Israel. The uninformed might automatically equate a WWII bombing with Nazis, not realizing they were allied with Fascist Italy (because not everybody pays attention in history class yet forever reason, maybe Dan Brown, is fascinated by such things as da Vinci's Last Supper) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.61.43 (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Milan was bombed by 199 Lancasters of RAF Bomber Command on the night of 15-16 August 1943. This was a follow-up to the much heavier raid by 321 Lancasters and 183 Halifaxes on the night of 12-13 August. A much smaller raid had occurred on the night of 7-8 August. Milan city authorities record that four major factories including the Alfa Romeo works were hit in these raids, as well as the main railway station and La Scala opera house, and 1,174 people were killed. Most of the damage occurred on the night of 12-13 August. See Martin Middlebrook & Chris Everitt, The Bomber Command War Diaries, Midland Publishing, Leicester, 2000, ISBN 1-85780-033-8, pp.417, 421-2. 'Much of the month was taken up with a series of raids which Bomber Command was ordered to carry out against Italian cities in order to hasten the exit of Italy from the war. This policy succeeded and Italy surrendered to the Allies on 8 September, although the Germans remained in Italy and contested the Allied landings in the south which started on 3 September. It should not be forgotten that the bombing of Italian cities was a major factor in forcing this enemy country out of the war.' It is a happy accident that the wall which bears Leonardo's painting -- or rather the successive overpaintings by generations of restorers since the fifteenth century -- survived the hit on the refectory.

The destruction of ancient artefacts in the Middle East is mostly due to Islamist terrorists and not Western coalition forces. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

H9 INSCRIPTION[edit]

The H9 inscription can be found in the painting if you zoom and then view the painting, the inscription H9 or something similar to it is found on several locations on the painting, i will give one location and that is as follows first zoom the painting so you can see it more clearley now go to the tablecloths right knot (which would be jesus left) and next to it you will find the inscription H9 or something similar to it, does anyone know why there exist such an inscription ?--212.181.199.36 (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Its a watermark not made by Leonardo da Vinci but it was made when the painting was photographed for the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.199.36 (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

John is not positively identified[edit]

The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, Complete by da Vinci (published 1888), Plate XLVI, Sketches for "The Last Supper"

This Wikipédia article currently includes the following statements: "The Last Supper specifically 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 are identified from a manuscript4 (The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci p. 232) with their names found in the 19th century. (Before this, only Judas, Peter, John and Jesus were positively identified. [emphasis added])" --- This is in accordance with the source, but the source's statements are false and it can be easily proven. --- The basis for the source comes from the widely transcribed and reproduced edition of The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, Complete translated and annotated by Jean-Paul Richter in 1888, now in public domain. (The source citation links to transcription at Gutenberg.org.) Da Vinci's sketches and notes about The Last Supper appear on pp. 665–668 of his notebooks. --- On 665, da Vinci writes: ... (9) Another speaks into his neighbour's ear and he, as he listens to him, turns towards him to lend an ear (10), while he holds a knife in one hand, and in the other the loaf half cut through by the knife. (13) Another who has turned, holding a knife in his hand, upsets with his hand a glass on the table (14). Richter writes in his notes: [Footnote 665, 666: In the original MS. there is no sketch to accompany these passages [emphasis added], and if we compare them with those drawings made by Leonardo in preparation for the composition of the picture—Pl. XLV, XLVI—, (compare also Pl. LII, 1 and the drawings on p. 297) it is impossible to recognise in them a faithful interpretation of the whole of this text; but, if we compare these passages with the finished picture (see p. 334) we shall see that in many places they coincide. For instance, compare No. 665, 1. 6—8, with the fourth figure on the right hand of Christ. The various actions described in lines 9—10, 13—14 are to be seen in the group of Peter, Judas and John; in the finished picture however it is not a glass but a salt cellar that Judas is upsetting.] --- On p. 668, da Vinci writes the only nine (!) names of the apostles he identifies: Philip, Simon, Matthew, Thomas, James the Greater, Peter, Philip, Andrew, Bartholomew. Richter writes in his notes: Footnote: See PI. XLVI. The names of the disciples are given in the order in which they are written in the original, from right to left, above each head. The original drawing is here slightly reduced in scale; it measures 39 centimetres in length by 26 in breadth. (I have attached this image at right. Please note: Plate XLV and Plate LII contain partial sketches for The Last Supper as well, but they are very rough drafts, without annotations by da Vinci. They may be viewed by clicking the appropriate page numbers here) --- What Richter writes about Plate XLVI is clearly false: Da Vinci does not give the names of each [and every] disciple above its head, nor does the sketch, in fact, show all of the disciples (which is clear in Richter's earlier note). --- The names of the three who are not identified by da Vinci -- Peter, Judas, and John -- are inferred. Judas can be clearly identified with his fingers splayed, appearing shocked, and (ahem) his darker skin. Peter clearly appears as the younger brother to the first apostle of Jesus, Andrew, with a similar (brotherly) gray beard and hairline, skin color, and nose. --- But what to make of the third figure? Tradition makes this person John, but conjecture by Mary Shelly, Dan Brown, and some serious scholars, that this is fact Marie Madeleine (or Mary Magdalene, Madeleine, or whatever translation of her name you prefer) are not as far fetched as they seem; especially, and rather obviously, with this figure's pale skin and the very feminine, Marian downcast eyes typical of a da Vinci female. (I acknowledge arguments to the contrary.) --- The point of my comments are not to start a pointless "Da Vinci Code" argument, especially in this article. They are here only for the sake of the discussion here, on this Talk page. --- I am making my comments only to state that the supposed figure of "John" was not identified as such by da Vinci himself; only nine of the twelve apostles were named by him. And, to state that John is "positively identified", as the article reads now, is wrong. ----- I will await comments before I make any (neutral) changes to the correct this article in a few days hence. I look forward to replies. --- (Note: I am not a native English speaker. Please forgive the errors in my grammar.) Bien amicalement, Charvex (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Judas, Peter, John and Jesus were "positively identified" because the depiction of them conforms to the standard iconography for those individuals. The point is that it was nigh-on impossible to name with certainty the other figures, though reasonable guesses could be made in some cases. No serious scholar has ever identified the figure as Mary Magdalene, which would be completely absurd, because she is not depicted in images of the Last Supper. There are thirteen persons present, as in virtually all examples of the Last Supper and we know who all of those thirteen people are. It's just that we would only be able to personally identify some without the drawing. I don't know why you think Mary Shelley had anything to say on the issue. She provides a brief commentary on the painting in her book Rambles in Germany and Italy. At no point does she say anything about Mary Magdalene. Paul B (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I am not completely disagreeing with you. I am only stating that there is no « standard iconography » related to John in da Vinci's Last Supper painting (i.e. an eagle, or a serpent in a chalice, or a sinister looking poisoned rose, or a book and quill - John's main icons), and da Vinci himself does not actually state it is John in his notebooks, where 9 others are mentioned. It is only deduced (right English word?) that it is him -- logically, I agree -- but deduced none the less, and the article should state as much. with my regards, Charvex (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There are no eagles or poisoned roses in Last Supper paintings. The standard iconography of John is A) sitting next to Jesus, B) boyish-looking C) resting or sleeping. There are many such examples. The versions Leonardo was probably most familiar with were Ghirlandaio's fresco and Castagno's, both in Florence. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank for your reply and the fine comments. I disagree with your point B.) boyish-looking is not an attribute that could identify John the Evangelist from anyone else. Certainly, Thomas is always shown as very youthful. (And, in da Vinci's The Last Supper, Matthew is also shown young, without a beard, which is a bit unusual.) And what of youths in other paintings? --- Your point A.) has minor credibility, but sitting next to Jesus does not qualify as a clear attribute, either; seeing someone next to Jesus in a painting could be anyone without stronger clues. --- Where you have surprised me, and with your fine choices of linked images, has convinced me, is the sleeping figure as John. For some reason, this attributive representation of John is not at all in my memory. I have a few books on iconography in art in French, as well as the English-language work Dictionary of Subjects & Symbols in Art by James Hall, forward by Sir Kenneth Clark (1974), and none of these sources mention an attribute for John as a « sleeping figure », either under references to him or to « sleep » (!), but obviously you are correct. ----- I would very much appreciate it if you would tell me – or give me a source – to explain John's sleep (or drowsiness, as in the da Vinci). I want to know more before I continue to research this interesting subject. --- (Less frequent, non-conclusive attributes for John are a cauldron (of boiling oil, his death), a palm tree (Rev 22:2), the gift of dates with palm fronds (not of martyrdom, but the gift from Virgin Mary to John at her dormition), and the quotes, usually on banners: « Passus sub Pontio Pilato » and « In principio erat verbum » (from the Apostles' Creed), which I did not mention in my discourse but I am stating here for other readers. -- Paul B.: I am sure you know them.) Tchao & best regards, Charvex (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The fact is that he is usually portrayed sitting next to Jesus. Of course anyone could be next to Jesus, but John is usually portrayed in that position in Leonardo's day. That's the point. He's also usually portrayed as boyish, partly becuase he is supposed to have been the youngest of the disciples and partly to signify his child-like innocence. The sleeping or "blissed out" look is intended to signify his unquestioning devotion to Jesus. The imagery all derives from the portrayal of John in gospel of John, in which he is described as the most beloved disciple. hence his physical closeness to Jesus and the rather feminine way he is usually depicted. I haven't got time to hunt for sources, but here's one specifically responding to the Dan Brown claims. [7] John at this time is equated with the "beloved disciple", and thus the portrayals follow John 13 23-25 23: "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?" (KJV) NIV version. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I was aware of all of the fine, salient points about which you have written. (Honestly, I am not interested the Dan Brown stuff.) My surprise really goes to your pointing out the depiction of John by Andrea del Castagno to which you linked in your previous reply. (The "blissed out" looked, as you describe it, looks more to me like someone slipped some Rohypnol or Ambien into John's wine.) This likeness – and others similar to it I have since found – is what closes the argument on John's identity to me. Amicalement, Charvex (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

POV/weasel words[edit]

I notice the phrase "Some fiction writers identify the person to Jesus' right.." (my emphasis). This strikes me as POV, specifically saying fiction writers, which I changed to just "some have identified the person.." This wording specifies neither fiction (clearly POV it seems), nor writers - which might possibly be interpreted as something opposed to "researchers", "amateur/professional historians", etc). However, I'm not one to get my feathers overly ruffled about such things (I tend to think such debates as arguments that people cannot think and consider what they read.. But then, when reading Wikipedia, I tend to stick to mathematics, physics, and low-level biology - none of which are generally subject to "debate", except for the fact that primary sources in biology are just that - primary and perhaps won't hold up in future research..)

edit: for that matter, is there a "title" of some kind for Wikipedians who take great amusement at the sight of pages-long discussions that go about about minutiae of wording, OR, POV, the "citing-absolutely-everything-including-what-the-definition-of-is-is" trend that some see? Jimw338 (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Dali painting[edit]

Da Vinci's Last Supper, not the Last Supper in general, is the subject of this article. Unlike the Warhol and other items mentioned, Dali's painting bears no relation to da Vinci's at all. Discussion of it does not belong in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.119.118 (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I would argue to the contrary. Dali's painting is neither a parody or an imitation. It is a very well-informed and carefully calculated response. Amandajm (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw a postcard that a friend has that says that the painting started in 1494 and not 1495. This is what's printed on back of the postcard. Leonardo da Vinci Ultima Cena Schema del Cenacola 1494-1498 circa. Refettoria domenicano di Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milano ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.156.165 (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Crests above The Last Supper[edit]

I'm confused about the area with crests, above The Last Supper. In 2007, the company HAL9000 created a 16 billion pixel image of The Last Supper, by stitching together 1,677 images. The painting is cited 460cm x 880cm, and other photos of the painting don't include the crest area above. You can see this area at this company's webpage at http://www.haltadefinizione.com/en/gallery-hd-images/leonardo-da-vinci-the-last-supper.html Is this area above actually a flat painting, or is the moulding in the photo around the crest areas real moulding, with the wall areas between painted? Why is the top right just white? Has no restoration been done to that area, or does this photo show the area differently than it now is? Darlingm (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Above the painting is a band of fictive (painted) architectural moulding including the egg-and-dart ornament. Above that are the springings of groin vaults. The painted crests are in the three spandrels framed by the vaults. The white area is where the Renaissance decorated plaster has fallen down and presumably been replaced by undecorated plaster.
During the recent conservation, all earlier restorations were removed. This has left many areas with very little paint attached, and only the barest trace colour. There has been a great deal of disagreement about this. Amandajm (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reason for deleting image[edit]

Editor Rikfriday returned the image that I deleted with the following Edit Summary:

Returned image of da Vinci self portrait and crown approved by Dr. Ross King, Art Historian and da Vinci Expert, deleted in error by previous editor)

Here is my explanation.

  • The image of two overlapped sections of the painting is just one of an infinite number of combinations that might turn up a "interesting" shape, if very selectively created from all the possibilities. In this case a small section of the painting has been overlapped with itself so that the mirrored hands form an apparent "cup" or chalice shape.
  • If any complex image of curvy forms (rather than straight lines) is selectively overlapped then the mirror-image shapes that are formed are likely to include vases, chalices, crowns, butterflies, faces, demons and crustaceans. The fact that by trial and error someone succeeded in overlapping two figures to make a crown and a chalice is not remarkable. It is absolutely predictable.
  • Rikfriday states that the image was "approved by Dr. Ross King, Art Historian and da Vinci expert".
This statement goes beyond the realm of belief. Dr. Ross King has never approved anything quite so stupid. King has strenuously counteracted all such foolishness with regard to Leonardo da Vinci. If King has reproduced this image somewhere then it is certainly not to "approve" it but as a demonstration of the sort of foolish notions that prevail.
  • The caption attached to the picture: A 2nd mirror image reveals a lady's crown held above a simple wooden drinking cup, similar to the Holy Grail as described in Celtic mythology, stretches the role of the picture caption far beyond what is permissible.
The image does not "reveals a lady's crown held above a simple wooden drinking cup, similar to the Holy Grail as described in Celtic mythology.
  1. "lady's crown"? This is someone's personal interpretation. Why is it a crown? Why is it a lady's crown?
  2. "simple wooden drinking cup". In an image of this type, how is anyone to interpret that the cupped-shaped object formed by the superimposition of outstretched hands is wood? What makes this shape wood?
  3. "similar to the Holy Grail as described in Celtic mythology". Celtic Mythology didn't describe the Holy Grail. Celtic Myths concern a magical cauldron, and object used over a fire and therefore essentially metal.
Putting the inaccuracies aside, a caption cannot make a statement that a picture "reveals" things that are only revealed in the interpretation of a viewer. It's a bit like looking a an old photo that has bee double-exposed and saying that it "reveals a ghost" or looking at a night-time film capture of a shooting star and saying that it "reveals a UFO".
  • The only way that the picture can be included is to have a caption that makes it precisely clear who it is that has done the overlapping of images and who has made the ridiculous claim that it reveals a crown and a chalice. This requires a) referencing b) a clear statement that this is a named person's theory, not a fact.
  • Let me put it to you that a careful and direct overlapping e.g. one that alines the architecture/frame of the picture (rather than the head of Jesus) indicates the following:
  1. That Jesus was a pair of dicephalic parapagus conjoined twins
  2. That John the Evangelist had his head on the bosom of Bartholomew, not Jesus as recorded in the Gospel of John
  3. That there is a couple of dead ducks on the table, plucked but not beheaded.
  4. That the disciple at the furthest end had horns on his head. Maybe it was the Devil in disguise, or maybe it was actually Moses
  5. That several figures were two-faced, resembling Janus
  6. That Judas had already left the party, because he becomes invisible.
All this surely means something!

Amandajm (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Pesach - passover[edit]

how comes there isn't any material written about why it's the last supper? Clearly it's the passover meal? Govvy (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it's about the painting, not the story depicted. That's covered in Last Supper. Paul B (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Speculations[edit]

It can probably be argued ad nauseam whether Leonardo sneaked a woman into his depiction of the Passover meal. It should be noted, however, that in fact, a woman would not have been present at the actual meal. Judaism was then, and still is for many, a strictly male religion. Women might have been present to serve the meal but they wouldn't have participated in the ritual. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We aren't locking at documentary evidence for 1st century Judaic practices. It's not really relevant. What is relevant is that there are 12 figures at the table with Jesus. They are all accounted for as disciples who were all male. If one of these is female, then one male has gone missing. Moreover, that would be a male who is very significant to the narration that comes immediately after this story in the Gospels.
The other relevant fact is that in Renaissance painting, John is always portrayed as a beautiful beardless youth with long hair. Long hair was a norm on young Renaissance males, just as it was also common on young men in the late 1960s and 70s. For some reason, in the early 21st-century, many young people are now unable to tell the difference between a boy and a girl, if the boy has long hair. It over-rides all gender-awareness. Two girls?
Dan Brown's book is fiction.
The amazing things that people find when they overlap the two side of the picture are dependent entirely on how on chooses to arrange the overlap. Basically, if you overlap any row of people who are at different angles and have hands in different positions, then you are going to get people holding people, people with two heads,people with three eyes, people with four arms, butterfly shapes, chalice shapes, vase shapes. phallus shapes and demon shapes.
Amandajm (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fiction: the missing cup[edit]

It's not missing. It is right there. The right hand of Jesus gestures towards the cup on the tabel, and his left towards the bread, symbolising the words "This is my body" and "This is my blood". The story about the missing cup is entirely fiction. However, it was more general to depict Jesus holding a chalice like a priest consecrating the sacrament. For Leonardo, the outstretched hand signify "This (the thing I am pointing to) is...."

Amandajm (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Giovanni Maria Pala[edit]

Giovanni Maria Pala has claimed copyright on the musical tune found within the painting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.251.10 (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


"considered to be famous"[edit]

This is one of the most stupid and wanky expressions that is in consistent use on Wikipedia!

If an object is "famous" then the people who "consider it" to be famous are exactly the same group of people upon whom its fame relies. The painting is famous because millions of people recognise it. It is one of "the most famous" because reproductions of it hang in almost every Catholic church, parish hall, and parish residence and school across the globe. It is famous because it is reproduced on stamps, in glass, in wood, in tapestry, in lace, in table carpets, in salt, in glow-in-the-dark plastic plaques, on keyrings, in snow globes. It is so famous that it has been imitated countless times using different groups of people, creatures and cartoon characters.

"Considered to be famous" is a stupid expression. You can write "considered to be the greatest work of Western painting" and the word "considered" has a place in the sentence. You could write "It was considered by Leonardo's contemporaries to be his greatest work" and the word "considered" would have a place in the sentence. In both these cases, the relative greatness of the painting is a matter of opinion.

But it is not a matter of opinion that this is "one of" the most famous paintings in the world. It is "one of" the most famous paintings in the world.

NOTE: the relative fame of the painting has a qualifier. Nobody is stating that it is "the most famous". There is no question that it rates as "one of" the most famous. This is not a matter that is under any sort of "consideration" in the mind of anybody.

Is Jesus "considerd" famous? Is Marilyn Monroe "considered" famous? Is the Taj Mahal "considered" famous? Is Harry Potter "considered" famous? Or can we state, beyond the slightest shadow of doubt, that certain people, things and ideas are famous?

Amandajm (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

FOOTNOTE: The restrictions on using the word "famous" (MOS) are to prevent the use of the word every time a notable person, place or object is mentioned. It is to discourage people from writing "The Last Supper is a famous painting." This tells you almost nothing because it doesn't put the fame in context. "one of the most famous paintings in the world" is the context.

Amandajm (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Fresco[edit]

The introduction refers to a "fresco painting". But later it is said that "1821, Stefano Barezzi, an expert in removing whole frescoes from their walls intact, was called in to remove the painting to a safer location; he badly damaged the center section before realizing that Leonardo's work was not a fresco". Is it, or is it not, a fresco?101.98.169.98 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A Google search I did revealed this. Apparently it is not a true fresco but rather a type of tempera. Also in the article fresco it mentions The Last Supper as not a true fresco, but a tempera. Not at all my area of expertise so I would recommend seeing what other editors have to say on the subject or maybe you can find another/better source to confirm, but in the mean time I have reverted the page back to when it said mural. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 03:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
See the section above Talk:The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci)#The medium? where the subject was previously discussed and the section of the article The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci)#Medium which covers this. And thank you for bringing this to attention. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 03:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Insert footnote text here