Leonardo da Vinci was already a well known artist when he created his masterpiece The Last Supper. He painted it on the back wall of the dining hall at the Dominican convent of Sta Maria delle Grazie. The reason the painting is laid out the way it is is that Leonardo was trying to "extend the room", to make it look like Jesus and his apostles were sitting at the end of the dining hall.
The painting depicts the very moment that Jesus has said to his disciples:
Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?
And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.
--Matthew 26
The disciples are all reacting in horror to the thought that someone at that table would betray their master.
Dan Brown's error in The Da Vinci Code is that he calls it a FRESCO. It is not, and this is a critical difference because if the painting been a fresco, we would still have a superb image to view and examine. It is *because* it is not a fresco that we have all these questions. Let me explain, this seems to intrigue people.
Normally, the way a painting like this would have been done would be a "fresco". That means that the plaster is made wet, and then the painting is done on the wet plaster. When the plaster dries, the paint is sort of intermingled with the plaster and it's nice and permanent. However, that type of painting is limited in its colors and can't be retouched. When the plaster dries, you're stuck.
Leonardo wanted to experiment with a new style he had invented - tempera (egg yolk and vinegar) plus oil painting ON dry plaster. That way he could use more colors and redo portions if necessary. The painting took him four years to complete - 1495 to 1498. His patrons were furious at the delay but Leonardo refused to go any faster.
Unfortunately, Leonardo's style experiment was a disaster. The paint almost immediately began falling off the plaster - the humidity was causing the paint to separate from the plaster on which it had been painted. Over the years, the piece has been vandalized and nearly fell apart completely.
A recent 20-year effort tried to stabilize the piece for future viewing. Much of what we know about the way this painting was done and the fact that it was NOT a fresco was learned during that repair process.
From the University of Pennsylvania website: "Leonardo's method of working on the Last Supper was unprecedented. The Last Supper is not a fresco. Leonardo's intense concentration and hesitant manner of execution did not suit the commonly used medium for mural painting, in which the pigment had to be applied quickly before the plaster dried, precluding any changes during the course of execution. Instead of fresco, Leonardo devised his own technique for mural painting, a sort of tempera on stone. ... As early as 1517, it was noted to have begun to decay."
Here are some of the not-so-obvious features you can see in this painting if you examine it closely.
They were Eating Loaves of Bread and Fish?
In addition to John, there are also accounts from Matthew, Mark and Luke. Depending on how you translate the words of Luke 22:15, it actually says that he longs to eat Passover with them - but that he will be unable to because Passover is TOMORROW NIGHT. Many other phrases corroborate that preparations for Passover were commencing - but not the *dinner*. When the apostles ask about Passover, Jesus knows he will be crucified by then. For the supper, that is why the bread is leavened (fluffy with yeast, not flat) and why they have fish instead of lamb. This is NOT the Passover feast. Jesus himself is in fact the next day the passover sacrifice. Many accounts list Jesus dying at 3pm (the 9th hour). This is also when it's recorded that the passover lambs were slain.
The King James version of Matthew 26 says:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Mark 14 says pretty much the exact same thing, you have to wonder that these guys didn't share notes or something ...
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
So anyway all we know for sure is that they had bread and wine. It's not like contemporary newspaper writers were making notes of what these 13 people in one room ate that night :)
One Long Table with Chairs?
This is another 'set the scene' situation. Back in the days of Christ, people didn't sit at giant, long tables like they do at the head table of modern day weddings! The table for the last supper should have had people all around it. And people didn't sit on hard chairs to eat, that was considered VERY bad for the digestion. They reclined on sofa-like divans, so that food was able to slowly work its way down into your stomach. Meals were very long, drawn out affairs, from 3-4 hours, so again food and wine had time to gently digest. There's no way that Jesus and his disciples would have been arranged anything like in the picture. However, of course, Leonardo was making a painting that he wanted viewers to connect with and understand. If he tried to show his Renaissance audience a large group of people AROUND a table lounging, it would have been extremely hard to show all of their faces, their reactions, and so on. So he adjusted the situation so all the faces were easily visible next to each other.
Daytime and Lighting
A lot of attention is paid to lighting in The Last Supper. Leonardo did several things quite nicely that add to the atmosphere of this work of art.
The Painting was Day, the Supper was Night
It clearly says in the Book of John 13:21 that the Last Supper was a nighttime feast. The King James Version of the Bible has:
"Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve." - Matthew 26
"And in the evening he cometh with the twelve." - Mark 14
However, trying to paint a nighttime scene that showed all of the emotion and the light-dark contrast that da Vinci was aiming for would have been difficult. Leonardo chose to set his stage during the day (look out the windows) to better light his stage.
Jesus is a Light Source An interesting note about this painting is in its lighting. A main source of light for the painting is Jesus himself - it is "light from Jesus" that falls on the scene.
Third Light Source Off-Painting If you look at the table legs, there is a third source of light in the painting. It would be below and to the left of the bottom corner of the painting. Maybe there was a candleabra or torch or something in the dining hall in that point, and Leonardo added those shadows to add to the realism ...
The Chalice and Cups
One of the central themes to the Holy Chalice story and to many interpretations of the Last Supper is that there was one large cup that was passed around for everyone to drink from. However, if you look at the table, you'll see that each person has their own, small cup. Again, this would have been quite normal for the time. Wine was an extremely important part of the meal and needed to be drunk along with the food to aid digestion. You wouldn't want to share a single glass with 12 other people, passing it all around. Each person would have their own glass which would be kept full and used often.
In the novel The Da Vinci Code, the author says that the Chalice talked about wasn't an actual, physical item. It was a metaphor for a pregnant woman. In any case, Jesus and his apostles were very poor. They wouldn't have had ruby-encrusted gold items. If anything, archeology shows they probably had small, pottery cups and perhaps would have had one large one more like a "pitcher" to pass around and fill each small cup with.
The rationale behind the pregnant-Mary theme is that the Holy Grail was called the "sangreal" - i.e. San Greal. But some say that should have been "Sang Real" - i.e. Holy Blood. So it wasn't a chalice - it was the royal blood of Christ. In any case, the FIRST Time this word is even used was in the famous Morte d'Arthur which was written by Thomas Mallory in the 1400s - i.e. LONG after the days of Christ. In his document, Mallory uses the word "sangreal". That spelling and word had never been used before. So either Mallory simply made a spelling error (which many historians believe) or he decided to foster this belief for some reason.
Interestingly, though, there's no pitcher here. And I think there aren't even 13 glasses.
The Mysterious Hand and Knife
Everybody agrees that there IS a hand holding a knife in the Last Supper. The question is - what does it mean? First, understand what we're talking about. See the guy in yellow on the far left with his hands up in the air? That's Andrew. He's reacting in shock to Jesus who has just said "someone at this table will kill me soon". Just below Andrew's left hand is a hand holding a knife. Whose hand is it? I'll zoom in, and I apologize for the fuzziness of the images.
Since I get tons of questions on this let me first state clearly that obviously this hand is ASSOCIATED with Peter - the guy in purple who is leaning over to talk to "Mary" / John. The reason, historically, that Peter would have had the knife is that in "a later scene", the guards come to take Jesus away. Peter defends Jesus with this knife. So in the storyline, Peter has the knife because he knows danger is coming and he is prepared for it. He is trying to warn Mary/John about that danger, and she is listening calmly.
The "redone" version of the painting has the hand even more firmly connected to Peter's arm. But remember, when they redid the painting, they were trying to recreate something that had mostly fallen apart. So the redone image could easily have mistakes based on false assumptions.
Why Have an Issue with Peter's Hand?
OK, here's the issue. Leonardo was brilliant with anatomy. That was in essence why he was so famous. He was one of the first artists to work with dead bodies and to study muscles, sinews and body structure. A hallmark of his works is his incredibly detailed anatomy. Yes, he couldn't just put a "disembodied hand" floating in the middle of his painting. The people who paid for it would have been quite upset and told him to fix the error. But he was trying to make a point so he was doing it subtly. He deliberately made a hand that was positioned at Judas' back. We all know that Judas is the "bad one". He deliberately made that hand point straight right-to-left, coming out of Judas' back. He made Andrew have a very particular reaction - one that ALL of us recognize as "hands up" that is a response to a direct threat. If you look at that portion of the scene, there is Judas. There is a knife coming directly out of Judas. And there is Andrew with his hands straight up, looking in horror. In fact looking at a zoomed-in image, Andrew's eyes are very clearly looking at Judas.
Leonardo worked on this painting for FOUR YEARS. This wasn't a quick, fly-by-night project. He put years of effort into its design and execution. He did everything very deliberately, from the lighting to the placement of the people to their individual interactions with each other. This hand was NOT some random accident. Its placement was NOT just a random chance.
Leonardo had been jailed by the church for his behavior. He was not exactly in tune with church doctrine, and felt strongly that the people should have more power. Some say this hand-and-knife shows the power the church had at this time in history - especially in da Vinci's native Italy - and their ability to control what was said. People could easily be killed for speaking out against the church.
Can't It Be Peter's Hand?
Yes, the point is that as far as the painting goes it IS Peter's hand. Again, Leonardo can't just put disembodied body parts floating around his painting. He had to have it associate with SOMEONE. But if his sole purpose was to have "Peter has a hand" he could easily have done it in any of a trillion positions that were casual. Instead he did a VERY specific position which is relatively unnatural and strange, and put it in a very specific context.
Remember, there are TONS of tiny details in this painting. Judas has in his right hand a small bag with 30 pieces of silver in it. Leonardo knows this story VERY well and has spent 4 years on its work. He is putting in tiny details to help make the story more clear and to add his own commentary on it.
[source]