Leonardo da Vinci's Judas

Leonardo da Vinci's Judas Christophe Stener Leonardo da Vinci, The Last Supper, 1498,digita restoration ©2012 Kiyoshi Bando Introduction The Last Supper fresco by Leonardo da Vinci, painted between 1494 and 1498 on the wall of the refectory of the Dominican convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, is, despite its poor preservation status, one of the most famous work of Christian art. No need to search for so-called occult meanings, such as Dan Brown's 2003 bestseller Da Vinci Code high selling claim that Saint John was Mary Magdalene, the hidden wife of Jesus, to admire this work pf art as very mysterious and fascinating. A revolutionary work This fascination comes at first sight in the refectory: a whole game of perspectives brings the elusive lines to the image of Jesus who seems alone, isolated in an intense reflection, absent to his apostles wondering at the revelation by him of his next betrayal. The moment seized by the master is obviously not the establishment of the Eucharist but the announcement by Jesus of his next Passion. The very composition of the painting is revolutionary; Leonardo da Vinci breaks the iconographic codes of medieval painting distancing Judas from Jesus, spatially separated from the other apostles, placed on the other side of the holy table to indicate that his imminent delivery of his rabbi in Gethsemane has already excluded him from the circle of good apostles. The felon who lost his faith, if any, has already sold the Messiah, for thirty pieces of silver. The expressiveness of the protagonists of the last meal and the geometric construction of the work makes it one of the most extraordinary Christian work of art. Leonardo's choice not to appear a halo on the heads of the apostles and not even of Jesus makes the work, though highly religious, a human drama. A fresco almost lost The comparison of the fresco current state with an electronic virtual restoration shows the extreme degradation of pigments due to the wear of tempera. A few years after its completion, the fresco deteriorated. In Napoleonic times, a door ruining Christ's feet was opened! Leonardo da Vinci, The Last Supper, refectory of the Dominican convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan, 1498, current state Vinci, Last Supper, Milan, Restored Copy A bold break with the stereotypes of Christian art Some preparatory drawings of the fresco, mostly kept in the Royal Library of Windsor, demonstrate that Vinci decided, after considering following the ancient iconographic canons ie placing Peter to the right of Jesus and John to his left, asleep in his lap, and distancing Judas symbolically, as much as possible; Leonardo decided finally to paint Judas, Peter and John together, very close, moving them away from Jesus. To measure the audacity of Vinci, let us look at the usual medieval stereotype illustrated by the altar of the cathedral Santa Maria Assunta de Volterra (Tuscany) dated 13th century. Jesus sitting on a cathedra presides over the last meal. The eleven apostles are lined up on the right side of the table, their names engraved above them. Judas, shown as a smaller one, kneels on the wrong table side, to receive the bite while a hellish monster prepares to gulp him referring the gospels indicating that it was during the manducation of the mouthful that "Satan entered Judas”. Another usual symbolism of Satan possession in medieval art is to represent a black bird entering with the bite in the mouth of Judas. The name of Judas on the lintel is the only one hammered. Altar of Santa Maria Assunta de Volterra, 13th century A generation before (1445) Andrea del Castagno’s fresco seems ,in comparison, some frozen ancient statuary. John sleeps, Judas is on the wrong side of the table. No surprise. No innovation. Andrea del Castagno, La Cène, Eglise S. Appolonia, Florence,1445 Leonardo’s preparatory drawings https://www.leonardodavinci.net/images/drawings/study-for-thelast-supper-2.jpg inform us that Vinci boldly broke the usual codes of composition of the Last Supper after having duly tried them. In the final arrangement of the protagonists of the last meal, Jesus is in the center of the scene, alone, immersed in the anticipation of his Passion that he knows imminent. Around him the apostles are restless, but He is alone in His inner prayer, his gaze turned to the Eucharistic offering, that of his accepted sacrifice, which he knows is saving. A preparatory drawing attests that Vinci initially envisaged a very traditional setting; Peter's arm touches that of Jesus who gives the bite to Judas placed and shrunk in size on the other side of the table while John sleeps, slumped, on the table. Initial set up ©2012 Kiyoshi Bando Final set-up ©2012 Kiyoshi Bando A political as well as a religious work The painting was commissioned by the Duke of Milan, Ludovic Sforza, who intended to make Santa Maria de la Grazie the mausoleum of the Sforza dynasty. Bramante built a new apse topped with a dome, a tiburio lombardo to receive the remains of his wife Beatrice d'Este, who died prematurely in 1495. The Duke's coat of arms rises above the fresco. The moment Jesus announces the betrayal of Judas Vinci hesitated during the preparation of his work on the time of the last meal he wanted to represent. A preparatory drawing, kept at the Royal Windsor Library, shows John asleep in the lap of Jesus who hands the bite to Judas who rises to take it. No question, it is not the establishment of the Eucharist that the fresco shows, the absence of chalice is significative, but the amazement of the apostles at the revelation that Jesus has just made to them "Truly, I tell you, one of you will deliver me" announcement reported by the four evangelists ; it is the Johannic version (John, 13,21-26) that follows Vinci "One of the disciples, the very one whom Jesus loved, was beside him. Simon-Pierre told him, "Ask who he is talking to." ». Simon-Pierre addresses John and asks him to question the Master on whom he is the one who will deliver Him; Judas recoils ; he does not participate in Pierre conciliabule with John ; he is scared to be designated but he designates himself already to us by his purse with the blood money in it, that he tries to conceal. Vinci thus follows John's chronology, which suggests that Satan took Judas not at the last meal, at the time of the bite but as soon as thefeet werewashed. Vinci focused the viewer's attention on the attitude of Judas, who alone did not seem surprised because he knew he is the traitor. At this very moment, only two protagonists have no part in the general confusion: Jesus whose serene face contemplates his next Passion and Judas who has decided to deliver Him. Vinci thus highlights the parallel destiny of the two men who go towards death, one infamous, the other one glorious, one damning, the other one saving, one peecaminous, the other one redeeming. Jean is painted of great beauty, youthful, almost androgynous, Pierre old as usual. The Judas da Vinci, a complex Judas Leonardo da Vinci's relationship with the Dominican Prior was bad. Vinci was slow to finish the fresco,; he started his work in 1494-1495 but completed it not before 1498, too busy delivering other works, notably the duke's equestrian statue. According to Vasari, Leonardo da Vinci was slow to complete his fresco because he procrastinated to paint the Christ, so much impressive a figure, and because he had a hard time finding a model for his Judas. Asked by the Duke of Milan about this delay, he replied: "For more than a year, I have been going to the Borghetto (the hot district of Milan), morning and evening, because there live all the scoundrels. (...) I haven't found a face that satisfies me [for Judas] yet. (...) But if my research remains in vain, I will take the traits of the prior father who complains about me... » anecdote inspiring Leo Perutz’ novel The Judas of Leonardo (1988). Judas had been appointed by Jesus as treasurer of the community. His clenched hand on the purse refers to the thirty deniers he received as the price of his delivery - the Greek term "Mark" (3,19) paradounai was deliberately mistakenly translated by treason by Jerome in the Vulgate. His elbow, overturns the salt, a symbolic gesture found in other representations of the Last Supper, not according to the popular belief of evil fate, but, in the religious sense, referencing the parable on "the salt of the earth" in Matthew (5,13-16). His other hand comes forward to sneak up on the bread before Jesus gives him a bite according to the topos of Christian art denouncing Judas as a thief. Judas is identifiable at first sight: even sitting on the right side of the table, he stands three-quarters, his face hard, his nose buzzed; if his hair is, not red, but dark brown, Vinci retains the convention of the green mantle, that of the treachery, yellow one was also a negative topos. A preparatory drawing for Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper showing Judas, dated 1494, is preserved by the Royal Library of Windsor https://www.wga.hu/art/l/leonardo/07study3/1study4.jpg; it shows a dark-haired bust man in the Judas posture of the fresco, his neck turned causing the tendons to protrude. This is obviously the drawing of a model after nature; may be this model was it a train rapier from borghetto milano, we do not know but it is very plausible. This drawing shows how much Vinci has personalized each apostle. Judas is not so much ugly, as he is usually represented, than possessed by a black energy. Peter is a chenu man and John an ephebe. The trio gathering highlights their personalities. They are men of flesh and blood not stylized hieratic figures as too often in Christian art. The Judas of Vinci receives from this closeness with Peter and John is a complex character, far from the excesses of medieval art incrimination and caricature. Leonardo use physical features not per se but to support psychological analysis. A work copied but never matched The fresco of Da Vinci was copied by many artists, Giampertrino, Marco d'Oggiono, Bossi, among others; copied but not imitated; Leonardo's novation was so great that none of his contemporaries dared to follow his unorthodox composition, reusing the old stereotypes eg Andrea del Sarto rejects Judas at the end of the table on the right in his fresco of Saint Salvi in Florence of 1520. Andrea del Sarto, refectory of S Salvi in Florence, 1520 Rembrandt paid tribute to the originality of the composition by Vinci did not escape Rembrandt in a drawing 1635 preserved by the British Museum that crunches only the two groups of apostles to the right and left of Jesus, without even showing Christ. Figure 1 Rembrandt, Last supper from Vinci, British museum Joos van Cleve painted at the beginning of the 16thcentury, the same episode of the announcement of the delivery; he shows Jesus surrounded by John and Peter, while Judas clenching his hand on the purse that contains the thirty deniers of betrayal, stares at Jesus with a hostile look because he knows that in a moment he will designate him as the traitor by handing him the bite. The intention is identical to that of Vinci but much more conventional the spatial setting. Joos van Cleve, Altar of Lamentation, Louvre Museum, 1st half of the 16th century. Salvador Dali follower of Leonardo da Vinci Salvador Dali’s Last Supper painted in 1955 shown in the National Art Gallery in Washington, completely renews the composition of the Last Supper. Following Vinci’s spatial perspective Dali breaks however the topoï representing the twelve apostles in oration with their faces bent, dressed in an immaculate cloak, which makes it impossible to distinguish the apostles. Judas is one of them but which one? Dali denies any incrimination. As in the Last Supper of Vinci, the work is inscribed in precise geometric proportions, in a dodecahedro, one of Plato's five solids, considered to be a perfect form built according the gold number. A Vitruvian man in the background testifies Dali's artistic lineage to Vinci. Deeply charged with occult symbolic meaning, this work is one of the most striking in modern art. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.46590.html Pastiches Leonardo da Vinci's fresco is so founding, so unique, that it inspired many pastiches as well as multiple silkscreen prints by Andy Warhol (1986), a painting by Zeng Fanzhi (2001), photographs by Raoef Mamedov (1998), Ad Nesn (1999), Bettina Rheims (1999), Marithé and François Girbaud (2005) to name only some significant works. Also worth mentioning is a 1997 Volkswagen ad. Luis Bunuel’s Viridiana The film was a scandal but won the Palme d'Or at Cannes in 1961, Viridiana by Luis Bunuel recounts the misfortunes of Viridiana, whose monastic vocation is ruined by the incestuous concupiscence of her uncle. Diverted from a future as a nun, Viridiana decides to dedicate her life to the poor people who will take advantage of her charity to set up in her home a bacchanalia, during which Don Luis gives his own, and scandalous, interpretation of The Last Supper. The beggars get drunk, loot the house and try to rape her. Saved by her cousin, she gives in to his charms and agrees at the end to settle down with him and the maid in a threesome. Luis Bunuel ostensibly diverts, with alacrity, the work of Leonardo da Vinci in the composition of his beggars last supper. Luis Bunuel, Viridiana, the 'Supper' of the beggars, 1961 * This article is an excerpt from STENER Christophe, Anti-Semitic Iconography of the Life of Judas Iscariot, Christian Art, BOD, 2020 To browse on BoD Amazon Fnac Decitre 620 pages, 600 reproductions Books on Demand, 2020, ISBN-10 : 232222474X Christophe STENER National School of Administration alumni Professor at the Catholic University of the West (France)