You’ve likely heard of Dan Brown ’s well - selling book " The Da Vinci Code " and the subsequent moving picture version . The book has sold tens of millions of copy , while the movie , with more than $ 757 million in box seat business office receipts , stands as the 22nd high grossing film of all time as of July 2007 [ germ : IMDb ] . Brown ’s story center around the theory that Jesus married his followerMary Magdalene , had a fry with her , and that the descendent of thatmarriagelive today .
The Koran also invokes two other popular hypothesis , both of which have been discounted byarthistorians : that Mary Magdalene , rather than the Apostelic Father John , sit down on Jesus ' right in Leonardo da Vinci ’s " TheLast Supper " house painting , and that a disembodied hand in the painting hold a tongue . For yr , recreational theorists and art historians alike have deliberate whether " The Last Supper " arrest out of sight imagination . The latest theory du jour has generated so much excitement that several da Vinci - focus on Web land site crashed from an overwhelming amount of traffic .
Slavisa Pesci , an information engineer who ’s taken up an interest in da Vinci ’s iconic painting , created an interesting optical effect by overlie a semitransparent , mirrored version of the painting on top of the original . The resolution is that two bod that search like Templar knight appear at both death of the table , while someone possibly hold an infant stand to Jesus ' leave . Pesci also cited the presence of a previously unseenwinegoblet in front of Jesus . Pesci suggested that it may be a portraying of the first Eucharist , when Jesus gave his disciples kale and wine-colored at the Last Supper to represent his body andblood . Pesci did n’t indicate who he imagine the sister might be , but many amateur bookman have enounce it ’s the child of Jesus and Mary Magdalene .
As for the meaning of these ostensibly hidden images , Pesci has no comment , though he believe they may be a product of da Vinci ’s observe love of mathematics [ Source : AOL News ] . Da Vinci was also bang to pen from entrust to right hand and from right to left , a proficiency calledmirror composition .
Pesci ’s hypothesis and its potential relationship to da Vinci ’s mirror writing , while alluring , show some problem . Chief among them , one da Vinci scholar notes , is that the original painting has deteriorated overtime[Source : AP ] . The wall painting is no longer as intense or curt as it was when da Vinci first unveiled it . The composite picture is distorted and blurry , a job made bad by the original ’s current , faded condition . Still , Pesci ’s composite picture does seem to show something or someone .
Before we dissect this and other theories about " The Last Supper , " rent ’s investigate the picture ’s history and subject . Leonardo da Vinci completed the work between 1494 and 1498 . It ’s a bulwark mural in the Church and Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie , a UNESCO World Heritage Site . The painting depicts the famed scriptural scene have intercourse as the Last Supper , when , before long before his death , Jesus call that one of his follower would wander him . " The Last Supper " really shows the moments immediately following Jesus ' pronouncement , explaining why his followers seem engaged in a phrenetic conversation . The house painting is consider remarkable for , among many celebrated features , its realism and for portraying the Apostle as full of emotion and submit part in an intense treatment rather than but standing quietly behind the table [ reservoir : The Cenacolo .
Problems with “The Last Supper” Theories
Let ’s say that da Vinci did imbed confidential trope in " The Last Supper , " intending for someone to make a discovery one mean solar day like Slavisa Pesci did . Would such a secret have any virtue ? What especial knowledge would da Vinci have had about Jesus 1500 year after his dying , and why would he hide out it in a painting ?
devotee of " The Da Vinci Code " might say that the presence of the images designate that Dan Brown and other similar author are on to something mysterious , fundamental and sound . Theories about da Vinci ’s body of work abound in Brown ’s book , including many about the " Mona Lisa . " But as our articleHow the Da Vinci Code Does n’t Workshows , it ’s easy to disprove many of the novel ’s theories , which is perhaps not surprising or important , except that Brown seems to present his book as based in fact . Yet the main nonfictional prose source for his book , " Holy Blood , Holy Grail , " has itself been called inaccurate by scholars .
Skeptics also point out that da Vinci ’s painting should be considered a fancied representation of the Last Supper and not an authoritative record of who was there , where they posture and what they did . ( Unless , of course , one believes that da Vinci somehow had substantial and highly surreptitious knowledge about Jesus ’ life . )
If a subroutine similar to that performed by Pesci were done with other paintings , would people see hidden images or codes ? Whether it ’s ghost - obsess photographs or patterns in goner , multitude often see what they want to see . But again , there is da Vinci ’s known taste for maths and mirror techniques . A popular possibility , potentially supported by computer analysis , asseverate that the " Mona Lisa " is a masked self - portrait of the painter himself .
Then there are " The Last Supper ” theory that are quite easy to rebut , such as those wall the knife . First , the knife is almost surely a dinner tongue of some kind and not a sticker or arm , which would make sense , commit the place setting . secondly , depth psychology of the painting show that Peter – and not a disembodied hired hand or one of the other disciples – hold the knife , though he does so in an odd position [ Source : JayDax ] . Da Vinci also created sketches in which he appeared to be practise how to position Peter ’s arm . ( you may read about this more inHow the Da Vinci Code Does n’t go . )
As for the image of Judas – who , some people say , is the only one leaning away from Jesus in the picture – he quite understandably is n’t . Several adherent on the left and correct portion of the house painting inclination off from Jesus , so Judas is not the only one .
Is Mary Magdalene in the picture , perhaps as John , with his womanly appearance ? Probably not – unless da Vinci were adjudicate to express a particular subject matter , it would not make sentience to leave John out of the painting while depicting the rest of Jesus ’ disciples . secondly , scholars widely agree that da Vinci accurately represented John , at least by the standards of the fifteenth century . Art from da Vinci ’s era often displays John with long hairsbreadth and feminine feature .
A copy of da Vinci ’s painting was created in the 16th century . Conceivably that house painting could be used to further test Pesci ’s possibility , but by the time the procreation was made , the original interpretation of " The Last Supper " had already experienced some flaking and abasement . The Tonglero Abbey transcript is just that – a transcript that may differ in subtle but significant respects . After all , there was only one da Vinci .
For more entropy about hidden messages in the " Last Supper , " " The Da Vinci Code " and other related to topics , please check out the link below .
