 |
 |
The Secret Code of Leonardo DaVinciIt is one of the most famous works of art in the world, and one of the ones that have had to endure the most. Leonardo's fresco The Last Supper is all that remains of the church of Santa Maria delle Grazie , near Milan, as the wall on which it is painted was the only one that remained standing when it was bombed during World War II. Although many other admired artists such as Ghirlandaio and Nicolas Poussin , and even a painter as extravagant as Salvador Dalí , have given their own versions of such a significant biblical scene, it is Leonardo's that, for some reason, has captured imaginations the most. We find it reproduced in multiple versions that cover both ends of the spectrum of tastes, from the sublime to the ridiculous. Some images are so familiar that they are never looked at properly, and although they are offered to the viewer's gaze open to closer scrutiny, at the deepest and most meaningful level they remain completely closed books. This is the case with Leonardo's The Last Supper ... and, oddly enough, with almost all of his other works that have come down to us. It was the work of Leonardo (1452-1519), that tormented genius of the Italian Renaissance, that put us on the path that ultimately led us to discoveries so shocking in their consequences that at first it seemed impossible to us that it could have happened to them. unnoticed by entire generations of scholars, what finally stood out before our surprised gaze, and incredible that such explosive information had remained so long patiently waiting to be discovered by authors like us, outside the official schools of historical or religious research. So we are going to follow the story in its told steps and return to The Last Supper to look at it with different eyes. Now is not the time to place ourselves in the known context of the postulates of art history. We want to see it as a newcomer completely ignorant of that well-known image would see it. May the scales of previous concepts fall from our eyes and let us truly look at it, as if it were the first time in our lives. The central character, of course, is Jesus , whom Leonardo mentions under the name "the Redeemer" in his working notes (but the reader is warned not to take anything for granted, no matter how obvious it may seem). He is in a contemplative attitude and looks down and a little to his own left, his hands extended in front of him on the table, as if he were offering something to the viewer. As this is the Last Supper in which, as the New Testament teaches us, Jesus instituted the sacrament of bread and wine, of which he invites his followers to eat and drink, saying that they are his flesh and blood. It would be reasonable to look for some chalice or glass of wine in front of him, encompassed by the gesture of offering. After all, for Christians this dinner immediately precedes the passion of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, where he prays fervently, begging "that this chalice may pass from me" (another allusion to the wine-blood parallelism), and also to his crucifixion, in which he died shedding his blood for the redemption of all humanity. But there is no wine before Jesus , and only symbolic amounts on the entire table. Are the artists right who say those open hands are an empty gesture? Given that there is hardly any wine, perhaps it is no coincidence that many of the loaves that we see on the table have not been broken either. And since Jesus himself identified the bread with his own body that would be broken in the supreme sacrifice, is some subtle message being communicated to us as to the true nature of Jesus' sufferings ? So much for the tip of the iceberg of the heterodoxy represented in this painting. In the biblical story the young John, who is called "the beloved of the Lord", is so close to Jesus physically that he even rests his head on the Master's chest. But in Leonardo's representation there is no such thing, the figure does not recline as indicated in the biblical "note", but rather moves away from the Redeemer towards his right with exaggeration, or we would almost say coquettishly; but we're not done with this character yet. Anyone who saw this painting for the first time could be excused for some peculiar uncertainty in relation to the supposed Juan. Well, while it is true that when the artist wanted to represent supreme male beauty according to his own predilections he usually chose a somewhat effeminate canon, without a doubt what we are looking at here is a woman. The entire figure is strikingly feminine; Even though the painting is old and deteriorated, there are still the small and well-formed hands, the fine and harmonious facial features, the unquestionably feminine breast and the gold necklace. The woman, since we are sure that she is one, also wears clothes that mark her as someone special. They are the inverted reflection of the Redeemer's clothing, since we see a blue tunic with a red mantle on one side, and a red tunic with a blue mantle on the other, always within the same cut and style. No other diner wears clothes so similar to those of Jesus , but it is also true that there is no other woman. If we look at the general composition, the most notable thing is the configuration that Jesus and the woman describe: a large, very open "M", almost as if, being literally joined at the hip, they had suffered a separation, or had If you are commissioned to paint a conventional scene from the Gospels and what you offer bears a superficial resemblance to that scene, no one will notice the dubious symbolism. However, Leonardo must have hoped that others, perhaps those who participated in his unusual interpretation of the New Testament message, or someday somewhere, impartial observers would pay attention to the image of the mysterious woman indicated by the " M. " and the obvious questions would be asked. Who was this “M”, and why was she so important? Why would Leonardo risk his reputation, and even his life in those times of active operation of the burners, by including said character in such a fundamental scene for Christians? Whoever it was, his fate seems less than certain, because the edge of a hand threatens that gracefully inclined neck. The Redeemer is also threatened by a rigid index finger that points upward, practically in front of his face. But both Jesus and " M " appear unaware of those hostile gestures, visibly immersed in the worlds of their own thoughts, calm and calm, each in his own way. Everything indicates that secret symbolism is being used, not only to warn Jesus and his female companion of their respective fates, but also to share (or remind) the observer certain information that cannot be published otherwise, because it would be too much. dangerous. Is Leonardo using this painting to convey some secret belief that would be nothing short of insane to share with the public in any more explicit way? Is it possible that such a belief carries a message beyond the immediate circle of his followers, perhaps even to ourselves, today? Let's continue contemplating this amazing work. To the right, according to the observer, we see a large, bearded man who bends almost double to speak to the last disciple on that side of the table. He is totally turned away from the Redeemer. It is commonly admitted that this character, Thaddeus or Judas, is a self-portrait of Leonardo. But the painters of the Renaissance never painted anything by chance, nor just because it looked beautiful, and we also know that the professional in question was very fond of visual double entendre . (His concern for choosing a suitable model for each disciple is detected in the sarcastic proposal to have the annoying prior of the convent of Santa Maria sit for the portrait of Judas the traitor.) Why did Leonardo paint himself with his back to Jesus ? But there is still more. An anomalous hand points a dagger at the stomach of the disciple located behind the character closest to " M ". No matter how much work we give to the imagination, it is impossible for that hand to belong to any of the diners, since not even by forcing the posture can any of the bystanders wield the dagger in that place. But the most astonishing thing about that disembodied hand is not so much its presence, but the fact that in all our readings about Leonardo we only find it referred to a couple of times, and even with a curious reluctance to admit that there is anything strange. As with the Saint John who is actually a woman, nothing seems more obvious or more extravagant once it is pointed out to us, but usually these details disappear completely from the sight and mind of the observer, simply because they are too extraordinary and shocking. We have often been told that Leonardo was a good Christian whose religious paintings reflected the depth of his faith. As we come to know, at least one of them includes extremely dubious imagery from the point of view of Christian orthodoxy. And our further investigations, as we shall see, reveal that nothing is so far from the truth as the idea that Leonardo was a true believer... if by such we mean that he believed in any accepted or acceptable form of Christianity. The curious and anomalous features that we have found in only one of his works seem to tell us that there is a second reading in that well-known biblical scene, another world of beliefs beyond the accepted appearance of that image frozen on a 15th century wall, near Milan. Whatever the meaning of these heterodox inclusions, they are undoubtedly incompatible with official doctrine and this is a point that should be highlighted. Although in itself it will not seem like anything new to current rationalist materialists, who consider Leonardo as the first who had a truly scientific mentality, as a man who paid no attention to superstitions or religion in any of its forms, and as the antithesis of all mysticism or occultism. But neither do they see beyond his nose. Because painting the Last Supper without a significant amount of wine is like painting the climax of a coronation and omitting the crown; By leaving out this essential detail, either the artist has completely failed or he implies that he paints something very different from what it seems. To such an extent that he is pointed out to us as a heretic, nothing less: as someone who did have religious beliefs, but these were in contradiction and who knows if at war with those of Christian orthodoxy. And also other works by Leonardo, as we discovered, underline his peculiar heretical obsessions with the help of coherent and meticulously applied imagery, which surely would not have happened if the artist were an unbeliever intent only on earning a living. Those inclusions and those symbols that no one had commissioned were much, much more than the humorous reaction of the skeptic to such a commission. It was not the same as, say, painting a Saint Peter with a clown nose. What we are seeing in the Last Supper and the other works is Leonardo da Vinci's secret code , and we believe it has a surprising relevance in relation to today's world. It could be argued that, whatever Leonardo believed, it would be nothing more than the whim of a single man, and what is more, of a notoriously strange man, who was a mass of contradictions in life. Maybe he was, as has been said, a loner, but he knew how to organize and liven up parties like no one else; He despised superstitions, but entries of fees paid to astrologers have been found in his accounts; He was a vegetarian and very affectionate with animals, but his tenderness rarely extended to the human race when he practiced dissections of corpses, obsessed with studying anatomy, and attended public executions to observe the agony of the condemned; He was a deep thinker but took Faced with such a complicated personality, it is easy to think that his particular opinions on religion and philosophy were perhaps somewhat or very eccentric. For this reason we would be tempted to dismiss his possible heretical ideas as something of no importance to us. And while it is generally accepted that Leonardo was a man of immense talent, the vanity of our "modern" century perhaps downplays his knowledge. After all, when he was born he had just invented the printing press. Can a solitary inventor from such a backward era have anything to offer to a world that continually stays informed by surfing the Internet, and that is capable of communicating by telephone or fax, in a matter of seconds, with people from other continents who They hadn't even been discovered at that time? This can be answered in two ways. The first, and using a paradox, that Leonardo was not an ordinary genius. Many know that he drew flying machines and primitive military tanks, but some of his inventions were so inconceivable at the time that some slightly fanciful scholars have gone so far as to suggest whether he had visions of the future. His drawing of a bicycle, for example, was not discovered until the late 1960s. 1 But, unlike the ridiculous contraptions that have marked the real evolution of the bicycle since Victorian times, Leonardo's bicycle already had two wheels of equal size and a chain and sprocket transmission mechanism. Although there is a more intriguing question than the drawing itself, and that is what reasons he could have had for inventing a bicycle. Because humanity has always had the desire to fly like birds, but the desire to pedal along the paths of that time, much less than perfect, in precarious balance on two wheels, does not cease to cause strangeness (and it does not appear in any classical legend). , unlike flight). Da Vinci also predicted the telephone, among many other futuristic claims to fame. Admitting that Leonardo was even more brilliant than the history books allow, the question still remains whether he knew anything that could exert an important influence by meaning or by diffusion five centuries later. With more reason we could ask ourselves what relevance the teachings of a rabbi from the first century have for our time and place, but let's ignore that, because it is also true that some ideas are universal and eternal, and the truth, if it can be discovered or defined, It essentially never loses validity no matter how many centuries pass. However, what interested us about Leonardo was not his philosophy (declared or tacit) nor his art. But the most paradoxical of his works, the one that, enjoying extraordinary fame, is least known: that was the one that launched us into a deep investigation of Leonardo. As we have detailed in our previous book, 2 it was the Master who made the false Holy Shroud , which for a long time was believed to have miraculously received the imprint with the image of Jesus at the time of his death. In 1988 the carbon 14 test showed that the imposture must have been the work of a handful of fanatical believers from the late Middle Ages or early Renaissance ; However, for us the image was still very worthy of attention, and that is still not enough to say. The problem of the identity of the impostor predominated in our minds, since the creator of such a "relic" could not help but be a genius. The Holy Shroud , and this is recognized by all who have written about it, both for and against its authenticity, behaves like a photograph. That is to say, it has a curious appearance of a photographic negative, which means that only a few spots are visible to the naked eye, and only when positive it is reversed by inverting the light and dark values does the image it contains appear. As there is no known work of a painter or funerary tracing that presents such an effect, this is interpreted by supporters of authenticity as proof of its miraculous origin. On the other hand, we have discovered that the image of the Sindone behaves like a photograph precisely because it is. Well yes, although it may seem incredible at first, the Shroud of Turin is a photograph . We, with the help of Keith Prince , have reconstructed the original technique that we believe was used, and we are the first to have managed to reproduce characteristics of the Shroud for which until now no one had found an explanation. 3 And although the defenders of the miraculous hypothesis said that it was not feasible, we did it with extremely simple means. We used a camera obscura (essentially a drawer with a very small diameter hole), a cloth impregnated with a photosensitive layer in which we used products that could be easily obtained in the 15th century, and a long and patient exposure. Although yes, the subject of our photographic experiment was a female plaster bust, very far from the category of the original model. Well, although the face that appears in the Shroud is not, as many have claimed, that of Jesus , it is evidently the countenance of the impostor himself. In short, the Shroud of Turin is, among many other things, a five-hundred-year-old photograph and the person portrayed is none other than Leonardo da Vinci . Now, and despite some rather curious statements to the contrary, 4 this could not have been the work of a devout Christian believer. The Shroud of Turin, once printed, shows what appears to be the martyred and bloodied body of Jesus . Let us remember here that this is not vulgar blood, but the very vehicle of human redemption. In our view, no one who dares to falsify said blood could be considered a believer... nor would it be possible to have the slightest respect for the person of Jesus and supplant his image with that of oneself. Leonardo did both with meticulous skill and, we suspect, with a certain secret joy. Of course, he knew that the supposed image of Jesus —since no one would realize that it was the Florentine artist himself— 5 was destined to be venerated by a large number of pilgrims, even during his own lifetime. For all we know, he could well have stood aside, incognito, contemplating the spectacle: that would fit very well with what we know of his character. But would he even be able to imagine the approximate number of pilgrims who would cross themselves in front of his image over the centuries? That some intelligent people would convert to Christianity after seeing that beautiful, tormented face? Could you foresee that the current idea in Western culture regarding the physical appearance of Jesus was going to be largely determined by the image of the Shroud? That one day millions of people around the world would revere the image of a 15th century homosexual heretic instead of their beloved God, and that Leonardo da Vinci would literally become the figuration of Jesus Christ? It seems to us that the Shroud is not far from having been the most offensive hoax in History , as well as the most believed. But, although it has fooled millions of people, there is more than just a tribute to the art of the bad joke. We believe that Leonardo took the opportunity to create the most impressive Christian relic as a vehicle for two things: an innovative technique, and the coding of a heretical belief . In that paranoid and superstitious era it would have been too dangerous to publish this primitive photographic technique, and events would soon corroborate it. 6 Leonardo was undoubtedly amused when he made arrangements to ensure that his prototype was lovingly preserved by the very clergy he detested. Naturally, it is also possible that this ecclesial custody occurred by simple coincidence, as one more whim of fate in an already memorable case. But it seems to us that it responds more to a passion for total control that was peculiar to Leonardo, and in this case, as we see, he wanted to take it far beyond the grave.
In addition to being a fraud and the work of a genius, the Shroud of Turin presents certain symbols that underline the particular obsessions of Leonardo himself and that also appear in other works, these more generally accepted as his. For example, at the base of the neck of the character who was wrapped in the Shroud there is a clear line of discontinuity. When the entire image is converted into a "contour map" using the latest computer techniques, we see that the line defines the base of the head image in front, which is followed by indefinition, say, an imageless space, and then this returns to the upper part of the thorax. 7 It seems to us that this is due to two causes. The first is purely practical, because the front image is a montage. The body is truly that of a crucified man, and the face is that of Leonardo , so that line of discontinuity indicates, perhaps necessarily, the "splicing" of the two images. But in this case the forger was a master of the craft and it would have been easy for him to blur or repaint the telltale line of separation. But what if Leonardo actually didn't want to remove it? What if he left it deliberately, as a reference for those with "eyes to see"? On the other hand, what conceivable heresy could the Shroud of Turin convey, even if it were in code? There is undoubtedly a limit to the symbols that can be hidden in the simple and crude image of a naked crucified man... and which has also been analyzed by many of the best scientists using the most perfected instruments. Although we will return to this question in due time, let us advance here that it is possible to answer these questions by considering two main aspects of the image from a new perspective. The first is related to the abundance of blood that seems to have flowed through Jesus ' arms , a detail that contradicts at first glance the symbolic absence of wine in the painting of the Last Supper, but which in fact reinforces that specific point. The second refers to the obvious line of delimitation between the head and the body, as if Leonardo had wanted to allude to a beheading... But Jesus was not beheaded, as far as we know, and the image is a montage. We are being told to consider the images of two different characters, but who were intimately related in some way. If we admit this, however, why would the beheaded be placed "above" the crucified? As we will see, this clue of the severed head on the Shroud of Turin only reinforces the symbols of many other works by Leonardo. We have already observed how the anomalous female character " M " of the Last Supper seems threatened by a hand that makes the gesture of cutting her slender neck, and how Jesus himself is also threatened by an index finger raised in front of his face in a gesture that It seems like a warning, or maybe it's a reminder, or both at the same time. In Leonardo 's work , the raised index finger is always, in all cases, a direct allusion to John the Baptist. This saint, the supposed precursor of Jesus , the one who announced to the world "this is the Lamb of God," and said of himself that he was not worthy even to untie his sandals, was of supreme importance to Leonardo, if we judge by his omnipresence. in the preserved work. A very curious obsession in itself, in the case of a man who, as modern rationalists tell us, never had religion in much esteem. If the characters and traditions of Christianity meant nothing to him, he would hardly have devoted as much attention and work to a given saint as he did to the Baptist. Time and again we see in Juan the dominant influence of Leonardo's life, both on a conscious level, in his works, and on the synchronic level of the coincidences that surrounded that life. Almost as if the Baptist had followed him everywhere. For example, he is the patron saint of his esteemed city of Florence, and the Turin cathedral where the relic of the Holy Shroud is displayed is also consecrated to him. And Leonardo 's last painting , the one that was found in his burial chamber along with the Mona Lisa and no one claimed, represented John the Baptist , as does the only sculpture of his that has survived to us (and that he executed half-heartedly with Giovan Francesco Rustici , a notorious occultist).
That raised index finger—which we will call “John's gesture”—also appears in a painting by Raphael , The Academy of Athens (1509). Here it is Plato 's venerable character who makes the gesture, but considering the circumstances the allusion is not as mysterious as one might suppose. In reality, the model who posed as Plato was none other than Leonardo himself and we see him making a gesture that, in addition to being in some way characteristic of him, undoubtedly had a deep meaning for him (and possibly also for Raphael and others in his circle). ). In case anyone believes that we are exaggerating the importance of what we have called "John's gesture", let's look at other examples in Leonardo's work. It appears in several of his paintings and, as we have said, always has the same meaning. In his Adoration of the Magi , begun in 1481 but never completed, the gesture is displayed by an anonymous spectator standing behind a promontory on which a carob tree grows. When one contemplates the painting one hardly notices this character, since the attention is inevitably directed towards what one would believe to be the main theme, that is, as the title suggests, the adoration of the Holy Family by the "wise men of East", or magicians. The Virgin, beautiful and in a self-absorbed attitude, with the baby Jesus on her knee, has not received color and has a dull appearance. The magicians kneel to offer the gifts they bring to the child, while a crowd gathers in the background who we assume has also come to pay homage to the mother and child. But, like the Last Supper, this painting is only superficially Christian and is worth a closer look.
No one will say that the worshipers of the first term are examples of health and beauty. Thin, almost cadaverous, the hands are raised but not in a gesture of reverence but almost like nightmarish claws directed towards the central couple. The wizards bring their gifts, but only two of the three legendaries. We see that they offer frankincense and myrrh, but the gold is missing. For an observer of Leonardo's time, gold meant, in addition to immediate fortune, royalty, and that is what is not offered to Jesus . When we look behind the Virgin and the Magi we see a second group of worshipers. These seem much healthier and normal, but if we look closely we will observe that they do not look at the Virgin or the child at all. It seems as if the veneration is directed to the roots of the carob tree, behind which there is a man making "the gesture of Juan." And the carob tree is traditionally associated with... John the Baptist. 8 In the lower right corner of the painting there is a young man deliberately turning his back to the Holy Family. There is a coincidence that he is Leonardo himself, but the explanation commonly proposed for his attitude is somewhat weak: that the artist considered himself unworthy of looking at her in the face. Well, we know that Leonardo did not sympathize with the Church; In addition, the self-portrait of him as Thaddeus or Judas in the Last Supper also deviates significantly from the Redeemer, as if underlining a very strong emotional reaction regarding the central characters of the Christian story. And since Leonardo was never a paradigm of devotion or modesty, it is not likely that such a reaction was inspired by an excess of humility or reverence. Returning to the beautiful and disturbing sketch of The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne (1501), which the National Gallery in London is fortunate to own, we again find elements that should surprise the observer - although they rarely do - with their subversive implications. The drawing presents the Virgin and Child with Saint Anne (Mary's mother) and the child John the Baptist. Apparently, the baby Jesus is blessing his cousin John, who looks up with a meditative expression, while Saint Anne gazes closely and closely at her daughter's absorbed countenance... and makes the "John gesture", but with a curiously large and masculine hand .
Now, that raised index finger rises above the tiny hand of Jesus that blesses, as if dominating it in a literal and also metaphorical sense. And although the Virgin is sitting in a very uncomfortable position, almost "on horseback", as women used to ride in ancient times, in reality the strangest position is that of Jesus , whom the Virgin holds almost as if pushing him to bless him, as if he were I would have brought the painting just to do it but I barely managed to keep it there. Meanwhile, Juan rests calmly against Saint Anne's knee, quite oblivious to the honor with which he is distinguished. Is it plausible that the Virgin's mother herself is reminding her of some secret related to Juan? According to the note published by the National Gallery, some art experts who are surprised by the youthful appearance of Saint Anne and the anomalous presence of John the Baptist speculate whether the work does not actually represent Mary with her cousin Elizabeth... the mother Juan's. Which seems plausible, and if they are right, corroborates the argument. The apparent reversal of the usual roles of Jesus and John is also seen in one of the two versions of the Virgin of the Rocks that we owe to Leonardo. Art historians have never satisfactorily explained why there are two versions, one of which is currently on display in the National Gallery in London, and the other, much more interesting to us, in the Louvre in Paris. The original commission was made by a brotherhood called the Immaculate Conception , and it was to serve as the central image of a triptych for the altar of the chapel that said brotherhood had in the church of San Francisco Mayor in Milan (the sides of the triptych were commissioned by other painters). 9 The contract, dated April 25, 1483, still exists and sheds interesting light on the commissioned work... and the one that the brothers actually received. The document clearly specifies the shape and dimensions of the painting, which was de rigueur because the frame of the triptych already existed. The curious thing is that the two versions completed by Leonardo meet the specification, so we do not know why he repeated the commission. But we can venture a guess about these divergent interpretations, and it does not have much to do with perfectionism and everything to do with the perception of the explosive power of what has been done. The contract also specifies the subject of the painting. It was about representing an event that does not appear in the Gospels, but had been present in Christian legend for a long time. It is the story of how, during the flight to Egypt, Joseph, Mary and the baby Jesus took refuge in a cave in the desert, where they found the infant John the Baptist under the protection of the archangel Uriel. The intention of this legend is to solve one of the most obvious and annoying doubts raised by the story of Jesus ' baptism according to the Gospels. What need did Jesus have to be baptized if he had been born free of sin, and since this rite is a symbolic ablution through which one is cleansed of his sins and commits himself to living holyly in the future? Why would the Son of God submit to an obvious act of authority on the part of the Baptist? Legend has it that during the chance meeting between the two holy infants, Jesus granted his cousin John the authority to baptize him when they were both older. For several reasons it seems an irony of History that the brotherhood entrusted such a matter precisely to Leonardo, but we can also suspect that he was delighted with the commission... to make it an interpretation exclusively his, at least in one of the versions. . In accordance with the customs of the time, the brothers requested a showy and lavish painting, with gold leaf gilding and many cherubs and spirits of Old Testament prophets as filling. But what they received was quite different, to the point that relations between them and the painter deteriorated, and everything culminated in a lawsuit that dragged on for more than twenty years. Leonardo chose to represent the scene with the greatest possible realism and without extraneous characters. He did not want plump cherubs or severe biblical prophets announcing misfortunes. In fact, we would almost say that he practiced excessive reductionism regarding the dramatis personae , since Saint Joseph does not appear at all although the painting supposedly depicts the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt.
The Louvre version , which was the first, presents a Virgin in a blue tunic who surrounds a child with her protective arm, while the other infant forms a group with Uriel. The curious thing is that the two children seem identical, and even more curious, the one with the angel blesses the other, and it is Mary's child who kneels submissively. That is why art historians have assumed that Leonardo , whatever his motives, chose to place the child John next to Mary. After all, there are no labels that identify the characters, and without a doubt the child with the most authority to bless was Jesus . There are other interpretations of this painting, however, that not only suggest highly intense and unorthodox subliminal messages, but also reinforce the codes used by Leonardo in other works. Perhaps the similarity of the two children in this case suggests the idea that Leonardo tried to deliberately confuse their identities, he would know why. And although Mary embraces the child John in a gesture of protection, as is generally admitted, on the other hand her right hand extends over the head of " Jesus " in a gesture that almost seems hostile, or what Serge Bramly , in his recent biography by Leonardo, described as "evocation of the talons of an eagle." 10 Uriel points in front of him, at Mary's child, but his enigmatic gaze is directed towards the observer, which is also significant since he is away from the Virgin and child. The most acceptable and easiest thing would be to interpret the gesture and posture as indicating which of them is the Messiah, but there are other possible explanations. What happens if the child who is with Mary in the Louvre version of the Virgin of the Rocks is Jesus , as would seem most logical, and the other, the one with Uriel, is John? Let us remember that in this case, John blesses Jesus and the latter submits to his authority. Uriel, in his special role as John's protector, does not even have to look at Jesus . And María, while she protects her son, raises a threatening hand above the head of the infant Juan. Many centimeters below that extended palm we find Uriel's pointing; with each other, both gestures seem to encompass some cryptic key. As if Leonardo wanted to indicate to us an object, something significant, but invisible, that should be in the space between the two. In that context we do not believe it is arbitrary to suggest that Mary's outstretched fingers appear to be placing a crown on an invisible head, while Uriel's outstretched index finger cuts precisely the space that would correspond to her neck. That virtual head floats above the boy who is with Uriel... so he is identified as effectively as if he had tagged him, in short, because which of the two was decapitated? So, if that one truly represents John the Baptist, he blesses the one who is superior to him. But when we turn to the much later version of the National Gallery, it turns out that all the elements needed to establish those heretical deductions are missing here... and only them. The two children are quite different in appearance, and the one with Mary carries the long cross that is traditionally associated with the Baptist (although it is true that another painter could have added this detail). Here Mary's right hand also extends over the other child, but this time without any suggestion of threat. Uriel does not point or look away from the scene. Everything happens as if Leonardo invited us to the game of "find the differences" and challenged us to draw our own conclusions from these anomalous details. This kind of scrutiny of Leonardo's works reveals a plethora of provocative and disturbing second readings. The theme of John the Baptist seems to be repeated in many places, often through clever subliminal symbols and signs. And time and time again, he or the images that represent him are placed above the figure of Jesus : even in the symbols cleverly included in the Shroud of Turin, if we are not mistaken. Leonardo's insistence on such intricate images has a certain obsessive character, not to mention how much he risked by publicly presenting a heresy, even if he did so in a cunning and subliminal way. As we have indicated before, perhaps the reason why he left so many of his works unfinished was not perfectionism, as is generally believed, but rather the awareness of what could happen to him if someone knew how to see beneath the thin veneer of orthodoxy to the authentic content. "blasphemous" of what was being represented. Although he was a titan intellectually and physically, he perhaps did not have much desire to attract the attention of the authorities; With just one experience he had more than enough. eleven Obviously, there was no need for him to put his own head on the chopping block by introducing such heretical messages in his paintings. Except if he passionately believed in them. As we have already seen, far from being the materialist atheist that many moderns like so much, Leonardo was a deep, sincere believer, except that his belief system was totally contrary to what then constituted and still constitutes today the "general line." » of Christianity. He was a follower of what today we would call "the occult." This word today has, for many, immediate and not at all positive connotations. It is understood that it means black magic, or the frivolities of degenerate charlatans, or both at the same time. In reality the word "hidden" only means what it means, as when astronomers speak of the "occultation" of one celestial body by another, leaving the former eclipsed. Regarding Leonardo , it will be agreed that, although some elements of his biography and beliefs have a certain relevance to sinister rites and magical practices, what he really sought and above all was knowledge. And many of the things he sought had been effectively "hidden" by society, and particularly by an organization as ubiquitous as it was powerful. In almost all European countries at the time, the Church viewed any type of scientific experimentation with distrust, and was not content to just watch, but used drastic measures to silence those who dared to publish unorthodox or merely particular opinions. On the other hand, Florence, where Leonardo was born and trained, and at whose court his career truly began, was the flourishing center of a new wave of knowledge. And this, although it may seem surprising, was entirely due to the city having become a refuge for many occultists and magicians. Leonardo's first patrons, the Medici family, who were then the masters of Florence, actively encouraged occult studies and paid scholars to search for certain lost manuscripts and, if found, translate them. The Renaissance men's fascination with the arcane was quite different from our love of newspaper horoscopes. Although there were areas of research that today would inevitably seem naïve or pure superstitions, many others involved serious attempts to understand the Universe and the place that man occupies in it. However, the magicians intended to go one step further, and discover ways to control the forces of nature. From this point of view, perhaps it will not be so surprising that Leonardo, precisely him, actively participated in the occult culture of his time and situation. The distinguished historian Frances Yates goes so far as to suggest that the entire key to Leonardo's ambitious genius could be found in the notions of contemporary magic. 12 In our previous book we have detailed the philosophies that predominated at that time in the occult world of Florence; 13 In summary, we will say here that the groups of the time made great use of Hermetics, whose name derives from Hermes Trismegistus , a great Egyptian magician, although probably legendary, whose books offered a coherent system of magic. By far the most important part of Hermetic thought was the idea that man is, in some way, literally divine. And that concept alone was so dangerous to the Church's dominion over the minds and hearts of its flock, that it necessarily had to be anathematized. Numerous demonstrations of Hermetic principles are certainly found in Leonardo's life and work. At first glance, however, there seems to be a blatant contradiction between professing elaborate philosophical and cosmological ideas and heretical notions, and continuing to attach so much importance to biblical characters. (It must be emphasized that the heterodox beliefs of Leonardo and his circle were not a mere reaction against a gullible and corrupt Church. As History has shown, there was in fact a strong reaction against the Church of Rome, and not at all clandestine, which was the Protestant Reformation. But if Leonardo lived today, it seems to us that we would not find him active in that kind of Church either.) There is, however, much evidence that the Hermetics could be true heretics. A fanatical representative of Hermeticism, Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), proclaimed that his beliefs derived from an ancient Egyptian religion that predated Christianity, and that it eclipsed Christianity in importance. 14 One part of that flourishing occult world—but not so much that it could dare, in the face of the disapproval of the Church, to be anything other than an underground movement—were the alchemists. Once again, we are facing a group that is the victim of modern prejudice . Today we mock them and consider them crazy people who wasted their time in the vain attempt to convert base metals into gold; In reality, that image was a useful screen for serious alchemists, more concerned with true scientific experimentation... and above all, with personal transformation and the consequent total mastery of one's own destiny. Once again, it is not difficult to believe that a man as thirsty for knowledge as Leonardo could have participated in that movement and perhaps even been one of its main inspirers. Although we have no direct evidence of such a relationship, we know that he frequently dealt with ardent occultists of all persuasions, and our own studies of the forgery of the Shroud of Turin strongly suggest that this reproduction was the direct result of his own "alchemical" (or rather, we have come to the conclusion that the art of photography itself was, at one time, one of the great alchemical secrets). 15 Having said this, it still remains that a fascination with hermetic ideas is not compatible, apparently at least, with the kind of concerns that attributed great importance to John the Baptist ... and to the putative meaning of the woman " M ". In fact, it was this discrepancy that intrigued us so much that it forced us to continue digging deeper into our research. Of course it could be argued that the only thing that all that raised index finger means is that a certain genius of the Renaissance was obsessed by the character of John the Baptist. But wasn't it possible that there was a deeper meaning behind Leonardo's own personal belief? What if the message we read in his paintings were somehow really true? Of course, in occult circles it has been maintained for quite some time that the Master was the possessor of secret knowledge. When we began to investigate his participation in the Shroud of Turin, we heard many rumors in those circles to the effect that, in effect, he had not only intervened in its creation, but that he was also known to have been a magician. certain renown. There is even a nineteenth-century poster that served to advertise the Parisian Salon de la Rose + Croix (a meeting center for occultists with artistic interests), and represents Leonardo as Guardian of the Holy Grail , which is understood, in those circles, as a synonym from Guardian of the Mysteries . Also in this case it must be recognized that rumors plus artistic license do not amount to much in the way of proof, but added to all the other indications that we have presented before, they certainly awakened our desire to know more about the unknown Leonardo. For now we had revealed the main reason for Leonardo's apparent obsession, that is, John the Baptist. Although it was natural that he received commissions to paint or sculpt said saint at the time that he lived in Florence, which as we have said had him as a patron, it is also true that Leonardo freely chose to accept them. And that the last portrait he was working on before his death in 1519—not commissioned by anyone, but undertaken for his own reasons—was a John the Baptist. Maybe that was the image he wanted to see when he was on his deathbed. And even when he was paid to paint an Orthodox Christian scene, he always tried to highlight the Baptist's role in it whenever he could. As we have seen, his images of Juan are subtly altered to convey a specific message, even if it was captured imperfectly and subliminally. He certainly paints John as someone important, but at the end of the day, he was the Precursor, herald and carnal relative of Jesus , so it was logical that his role would be recognized in this way. What Leonardo does not say is that the Baptist was inferior to Jesus like any other human. In his Virgin of the Rocks , the angel points to John, or so it can be argued, who blesses Jesus , and not the opposite. In the Adoration of the Magi , normal, healthy-looking characters venerate the roots of the carob tree, John's tree, not the colorless Virgin and Child. And the "gesture of John," the extended index finger of his right hand raised in front of Jesus ' face at the Last Supper , is obviously not a gesture of affection or solidarity, but seems to be saying in a way, to put it mildly, , quite threatening: "Remember Juan." And that other work of Leonardo's, the most unknown, the Shroud of Turin, contains the same type of symbolism, with the image of a supposedly severed head placed "on top" of a classical crucified man. The overwhelming testimony of the evidence is that for Leonardo , at least, John the Baptist was superior to Jesus . From all this it will seem that Leonardo was the voice crying in the desert. After all, many great geniuses have been eccentrics, to say the least. Maybe that was another aspect of his life in which he was far from the flock, from the conventions of his time, alone and misunderstood. But we also knew, and this from the beginning of our investigations (towards the end of the eighties), that evidence had recently emerged, although of a very controversial nature, that linked him to a powerful and sinister secret society. This group, which is claimed to have existed for several centuries before Leonardo, included several of the most influential individuals and families in European history, and according to some sources still exists. It is said that among the promoters of this organization are not only members of the aristocracy, but even some of the most eminent figures in current political and economic life, who keep it alive for their own particular objectives. In our beginnings we had perhaps entertained the idea of a quiet life in art galleries, dedicated to deciphering Renaissance paintings. We couldn't be further from reality.
|
