Excerpts from

Leonardo, The Secret Of the Hidden Chalice

By Jim Beck

www.davincisecrets.com

Art and Quotes by Leonardo Da Vinci

    I first became interested in the art of Leonardo da Vinci after reading the book by Dan Brown, "The Da Vinci Code". Anyone who has read this book knows that it refers several times to secrets hidden in Leonardo's works of art, "The Last Supper" being the center piece so to speak. It didn't take long after viewing many of this artist's works that I became convinced, there was more there than "meets the eye". Certain aspects of his work, especially in his religious paintings, seems to be telling a slightly different story, in contrast, to what would be expected or considered the norm for the scene being depicted. It was this fact that led me on a quest to try and decipher exactly "what" that other story was.

    So how did I discover a secret that has gone undetected for over 500 years? Well first I must say, if the latest restoration (completed in 1999) of "The Last Supper" had never been undertaken, this discovery may have gone undetected, and Leonardo’s secret would only at best be a speculative guess. The restoration team, led by Pinin Brambilla Barcilon, was able to strip away centuries of dirt, grim and over painting right down to the masters original brush strokes. This allowed me to take a very close-up look at Leonardo's original intent. I started out by looking at what was wrong with the picture, or should I say, what did Leonardo paint that wasn’t right and why. You may ask, how can anyone claim there is something wrong with The Last Supper, especially someone like myself, who knows very little about art? The most famous painting in the world certainly could not be flawed. Well flaws are one thing, but intentional errors to lead someone in a different direction, are another.

    To figure out what’s wrong I first had to look at what was right. What’s right is as big of a clue in this puzzle as the intentional “mistakes”. If you look very closely at what is left of the original after the latest restoration, you see that there is no detail that was overlooked or neglect by Leonardo. It is meticulously painted down to the creases in the tablecloth that would have been created when the cloth was folded before being placed on the table. A complex delicate pattern was painted on the tablecloth that must have been painstakingly tedious work. Every item on the table that can still be seen, could be framed and considered a work of art in its own right. In fact there is so much minute detail in such a large piece of work that it led to my conclusion that, if something looked out of place, then Leonardo most likely meant for it to be out of place.

    Now that I have concluded that The Last Supper is perfect in every respect, let’s look at what appears to be out of place. First and foremost is the hand holding the knife? Yes, the hand/knife combination looks as if it is floating or protruding from Judas' back. Others have argued that it is Peter who is holding the knife and that the arm lost its original shape through the multiple restoration attempts. Anatomically it is possible that Peter could hold it in this position but if we examine the way Leonardo painted Peter's arm, it is apparent that it is not in a position to be holding a knife at this angle, unless it was completely deformed. That and the fact Leonardo left behind drawings studying Peter’s arm position that clearly show his hand would be resting on the table. With that said, there is no other person at that location whose hands are not accounted for. Knowing now about Leonardo’s complete attention to every tiny detail, I could only conclude that if Leonardo really wanted for Peter to be brandishing a weapon, I hardly think he would have had any difficulty painting the arm in a correct uncontroversial position.



    The next thing that jumps out at me is Peter's left hand. To me the length of the index finger appears to be un-naturally long. That and the fact the position of the hand on John’s neck does not seem correct or natural. If Peter were whispering something to John would he not be cupping his hand by the ear as people normally do? There are theories floating around that Peter is making a cutting motion across John’s neck. Not because he hates John but because he despises Mary, other books written about Mary Magdalene go into the reasoning for this so I won’t cover that here. Anyway, this controversy about the left hand caused me to look very closely at what the most recent restorers had found in regards to the original work. It turns out that the restoration uncovered that Leonardo had repainted the thumb on Peter’s left hand, and he had done so not to put it in a more natural position, but rather curled it down in such an exteme un-natural way that, to me anyway, it almost appears broken. Why?



    I then took a close look at something else that just didn’t look right. Not only did this group of three to the right of Jesus look relatively smaller than the others, but also the body position of John was purposely leaning away from Jesus. This leaves a large space between the two figures especially in light that everyone else seems to be crowded in at the table. John also has an expression that is far different from that of any of the other disciples. Not the look of shock or surprise that is evident on the faces of the others, but more of a look of profound acceptance. Almost as if he already knows that of which the others are just finding out.



    The more I studied this section of the painting the more questions I began to ask. Was this table even big enough for thirteen? Are there even thirteen place settings? How about the number of wine glasses? Why is John tilting his head down, not the natural position one would take when somebody is trying to whisper something into your ear? Plus the fact, as Dan Brown's book suggests, John really does look very small and feminine. Could Leonardo really have meant for this to be Mary? Using my computer and a paint program, I downloaded a copy of the image from the Internet. I immediately cut out the figure of John and slid it over to rest against the left side of Jesus. Amazingly everything, except for the hand of Peter, fit together perfectly and looked so natural. I was now convinced that this, somehow, in someway, had to be intentional and that it could only mean one thing, John is Mary. How could I prove it? This certainly wasn't enough evidence to convince anybody.



    At this same time I had read in an article on the Internet that the perspective lines that Leonardo used to construct the room in which the scene was taking place converged to a point on Jesus’ head. So using my paint program I went ahead and drew in lines to try and reproduce what Leonardo would have done in constructing this room. What I discovered was not only did the lines intersect on Jesus’ head, but directly on his temple. I thought to myself how clever this little trick of Leonardo’s, “the temple of Jesus”.



    I figured somebody else must know of this and sure enough, it was a well-known fact, and the restorers even found what appeared to be a patched nail hole in this exact spot (a string tied to a nail could be used as a measuring device). I also noticed that if I extended the perspective lines from the corners of the room, all the way down to the tables front edge, the lines not only intersected at Jesus’ temple but that they created a perfect triangle with the front edge of the table. This triangle completely fit the figure of Jesus inside. It was also apparent the angle of the line on the left side of the triangle corresponded to the angle of a dark shape creating the sleeve of Mary, in fact, the line sliced right over the top of this shape. After examining this shape in further detail, I noticed that the whole area with regards to Mary’s arm seemed to be out of proportion with the rest of the her body and its relative positioning.



    Since I was now convinced that John was Mary and that the figure of her leaning next to Jesus’ left arm looked more natural than the way they are currently depicted, the only thing out of place was the hand of Peter. It now occurred to me that if I cut out the figure of Jesus along the lines created by my recently discovered triangle, leaving Jesus’ head intact, and slid this figure over to a position to the right of Mary, so as Mary’s head is resting on Jesus’ shoulder, the problem with the floating hand was solved. Low and behold this left hand of Peter now looked as if it was Mary’s own right hand. This must have been Leonardo’s reasoning for leaving the fingers of Peter's hand so un-naturally long.



The Discovery
“In fact, whatever exists in the universe, in essence, in appearance, in the imagination, the painter has first in his mind and then in his hands … it lies in his power to create them.”

    Then the discovery, looking over this image of the newly re-united couple a startling thing occurred. Miraculously, there on the table next to Jesus’ right hand, was a chalice. I could not believe my eyes. Where did it come from? The answer was simple, the dark area of Mary’s sleeve when cutout as a part of the triangle encompassing the figure of Jesus and then slid over to place Jesus next to Mary, covered up the floating hand that held the knife. Only the end of the blade is left exposed and this along with the shadow on the shirt of Andrew under the blade forms the completed chalice.



    Surely this was an optical illusion. Since so much of the original pigment was missing from the fresco and only a faint outline of the chalice was evident I needed to find more proof. So I sent out copies of this image to several people, including Dan Brown, to try and see if anyone else would consider this anything more than a simple optical illusion created by some random pigment placement. Unfortunately, everyone who responded back, with the exception of Dan Brown, said they thought there was simply not enough evidence to say for certain this new image was by design. Dan Brown was the only one who seemed as amazed as I, but then again this would prove that the theories his book put forth were indeed correct, at least as far as the art was concerned, and he does have the most to gain if this were true.

    So it was back to the drawing board. What I saw as conclusive evidence nobody else was buying. I magnified the image to take a closer look at what to me represented a chalice and the intended location for Jesus. A closer examination revealed even more conclusive evidence that this is what Leonardo had intended. I found that every item dissected by the triangle that I cut out, matched up perfectly with the items in the new position. The pieces fit like pieces of a puzzle, nothing had to be forced into place. The loaf of bread, the edge of the plate, the chalice, the color of clothing on Peters’ arm matched perfectly with the color of Jesus’ robe. Mary’s head resting on Jesus’ shoulder, not to mention the figure of Jesus completely covered the smaller figures of Judas and Peter. That is for all but the back of Judas head, but then again even that matched up with the hair of Jesus. How could this many match ups be a coincidence? I needed to find something else in this image that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Leonardo was sending a message. A message he felt needed to be hidden so well that only by the use of future technology could his secret be revealed. Why else would Leonardo have hid the chalice in this painting? There is only one explanation and that is, he knew that someday, somehow, someone would find the hidden chalice and therefore discover the lost chalice, Mary Magdalene.

The Proof
    “Human subtlety will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature, because in her inventions, nothing is lacking and nothing is superfluous.”

    While investigating the left hand of Peter I also learned that not only did Leonardo re-paint the position of his thumb but that he re-touched the finger positions/lengths of two other members of the group as well. The main alterations Leonardo made were to the fingers on the left hand of Jesus and the other to the little finger of Philip's left hand. Philip’s pinky was merely shortened a fraction of its length. Such a small amount I could not for the life of me figure out why this would have been of any concern to Leonardo, who apparently could care less about an entire arm being deformed. It just didn’t make any sense. The fingers of Jesus’ left hand were also re-touched in a way that could in no way make any difference to the casual viewer. Leonardo gave Jesus’ fingers a more curled up appearance, as if Jesus is trying to present something to us. Even his disciples seem to be looking down at this area in a state of sudden surprise at what Jesus is revealing from his left hand.



Small changes in finger placement were made on each of these figures with no apparent value added to the overall look of the piece.

    At this time I continued messing around with the computer image and trying to make sense of these irregularities I was finding. I also began to do some research at the library and on the web to see if anyone else had discovered anything that would answer some of these questions. What I did discover is that there are hundreds of theories out there concerning symbolic meanings behind Leonardo’s works. Needless to say I found a lot of wild ideas that can only be considered the result of overactive imaginations. There was one theory though, that kept resurfacing in various forms but with basically the same theme. It was in fact; the same theory Dan Browns book alluded to. It appears that the common source of the majority of these theories is based on information found in the so-called “lost” gospels. The basic contention behind these theories is that Mary Magdalene was a much more important figure in the events surrounding Jesus than the New Testament would lead us to believe, and that she was by far closer to Jesus then any of his other followers. It is now apparent that Leonardo must have had some kind of knowledge of the information contained in these ancient texts.

    Now I needed more proof. What was I missing? What was Leonardo trying to tell me? What did he tell me thus far, that got me to this point? Come to think about it, so far I stumbled upon what I discovered. Surely if Leonardo wanted to tell a story he would have led me down the correct path. He must have left some clues or a key. Back to the drawing board, what else seemed out of place? So far, four of the seven areas I determined to be out of place were accounted for with the repositioning of Jesus and the triangle. The strange hand holding the knife now was covered and helped form the complete chalice, the odd length of Peter’s left hand now became the right hand of Mary resting on her shoulder and the smaller figures of Judas and Peter were now hidden. All the other out of place objects had to do with the adjustments of the fingers. How could these small adjustments be related? Was Jesus not only showing something to the apostles but was Leonardo depicting him holding something in his curled hand for all the world to see? Something so important that minute changes in his finger placements needed to be made? Was there a connection? What would happen if I tried to connect these points? What if I drew a circle that rested in the hand of Jesus and connected all these other points with its circumference?



    I gave it a try, and again a startling discovery. Not only did the circle fit like a puzzle piece, but it aligned perfectly with the front edge of the table on the bottom, and with the cross support of the ceiling on top. All the points that Leonardo reworked were either inside or outside the edge of the circle. Jesus held a ring, which must be a key! A key to what? Was this the clue I was looking for? It was all starting to make sense, although this new discovery didn’t really tell me anything new. What did the ring tell me about the position of Jesus, Mary and the chalice? Not a thing, there still has to be more. So I drew a circle of the same size, to each side of the one I discovered. I tried moving the triangle cutout over to these new circles. Nothing of any importance seemed to be jumping out at me. Next, I turned my efforts back to the original circle, I already knew this fit into the puzzle, and so I began dissecting it. I first drew a line down through the center and quickly came to the realization that this line, aligned perfectly with a ceiling joist, and it too intersected the perspective lines drawn earlier right at Jesus’ temple.



    I knew I must be on the right track. Next I drew two circles equal to the first and placed one on each side of this new centerline. This appeared to be a correct assumption as the edges of these new circles traced the outline of Jesus’ figure almost to a tee. Seeing the results of drawing a centerline on the first circle, I decided to do the same with these new circles. This did not seem to lead to any major new breakthrough, but I left the lines in their place just in case. After playing around for a few minutes with different circle configurations, I decided to go back and try cutting out the figure of Jesus again, now incorporating the new lines from the additional circles to see if any new clues could now be ascertained. Veni, Vidi, Vici! I came, I saw, I conquered. There it was! The proof I’ve been searching for. The perfect geometric solution. Leonardo mixing his math with his art, his tricks with his treats, his thoughts with his life’s work. What a remarkable person.









“Every part is disposed to unite with the whole, that it may thereby escape from its own incompleteness.”

    As you can clearly see by my discovery, Leonardo used many geometric shapes in his creation of this puzzle. Upon investigating these shapes I have found that they all relate to an ancient form of math called the “Sacred Geometry”. Without going into a complete course on the subject I will just say that this ancient form of geometry relates to the belief that all things in nature have geometric patterns that connect all things physical and spiritual together. It is a widely held belief that ancient peoples used this knowledge in the construction of sacred buildings, such as temples, churches, and pyramids. The geometric forms created by its use have been discovered depicted on stonewalls and tablets dating back thousands of year before the birth of Christ. Many artists in Leonardo’s time knew of this geometry and its sacred relationships and used it extensively in their art. As you can see, Leonardo perfected its use.

    One of the most basic geometric shapes Leonardo used in creating his secret message is the circle or ring. The circle symbolizes unity, completeness, and integrity. The most apparent use of which is formed in the center of the painting resting on Jesus’ hand. With a closer look it is evident that the ring is not at all resting in his hand, rather the only portion of the hand that is touching the ring at all is Jesus’ ring finger. If you look very close at this finger, it is apparent that Leonardo painted it in a very peculiar position, a position that is not very natural and almost impossible to imitate. With that said, a ring on Jesus’ ring finger alone would be symbolic of his marriage.



    Another very apparent use of symbolism can be found in the fact that the perspective lines from the corners of the ceiling intersect at Jesus’ temple as I mentioned earlier. The lines form an upside down triangle that could be argued to symbolize a chalice and if the lines are continued down to the table edge, a triangle is formed. These two opposing triangles form the ancient symbol for blade and chalice, symbolizing reproduction.



Look familar?

    This next symbol I didn’t notice right away. Once I made the discovery and began doing some basic research into its origins and symbolic meaning, I realized that it is the strongest and most relevant of all the symbols Leonardo used. The Vesica Piscis is defined as the intersection of two circles or spheres whose centers exactly touch. This symbolic intersection represents the "common ground", "shared vision" or "mutual understanding" between equal individuals. The shape of the human eye itself is a Vesica Piscis. The spiritual significance of "seeing eye to eye" the "mirror of the soul" was highly regarded by numerous Renaissance artists who used this form extensively in art and architecture. Two rings joined in this way also represent marriage.





    The intersection of these two circles also creates a pointed oval or almond shape in the center. This shape is known as a mandorla. This common part of the two circles is symbolic of sexual love and togetherness. In ancient times rendering of the shape represented the mysterious feminine aspect of life as a sacred womb, a portal between the realm of spirit and the realm of matter through which all life passes into this world. The pointed arch is derived from this form and was and still is widely used in the design and construction of various religious institutions.





    From this almond shape a basic symbol of a fish can be created. This symbol has an unusual history, now used almost exclusively to denote membership in the Christian religion; it once meant something very different. In Pagan times, this glyph was associated with the Goddess Venus, and represented female genitalia. How it came to be associated with Christianity isn't entirely clear, but early depictions of Christ depict him as an infant within the vesica, which represented the womb of Mary. The New Testament story of the loaves and fishes, is claimed by some, to secretly reveal the formula used to geometrically create this fish shaped pattern.







Resources:

Symbol definitions from http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/blsymbols.htm

and

www.symbols.com

“The Da Vinci Code” author: Dan Brown

Leonardo, The Last Supper by Pinin Brambilla Barcilon and Pietro C. Marani

Leonardo Da Vinci quotes from Brainyquote.com

[ Home ]