The Last Supper

Leonardo da Vinci was a painter, sculptor, mathematician, geologist, writer and the list goes on and on.  A polymath, a genius. He was born in Vinci, Italy and grew up with his father. Many scholarly texts were made available to him and he was ever so curious. He was eager to learn, and very inventive himself. Because he was so eager to learn, he would often pick up new stuff but would never completely grasp them because before he knew it, he was caught up on a new thing.
There are many paintings and books that he is very well known for, which are collected all over the world. Among his famous works is the fresco painting, “The Last Supper.” It was painted different than regular frescos, where he directly painted on the dry plaster, and maybe because of that, has not done well with time.

This is a religious painting, and it depicts the meal had before his crucification. It is here where he announced that one of his disciples would betray him. His 12 disciples are incorporated in the painting, and sat/painted in groups of three. Some would say that the number three is depicted throughout the painting because it represents the Holy Trinity. SOURCE

So much controversy has arose about the painting. One being that the disciple which is supposed to be representative of John, looks to feminine.   That perhaps it is suppose to be Mary Magdalene, or that perhaps it was because Leonardo da Vinci was homosexual.

This is the one problem I have with art “historians” or critics. I mean, sure, there might be deeper meanings to many pieces of work, but sometimes I feel like they are looking for stuff that just isn’t there. Like the following website states, the disciple was thought to be a young John, which in that case, could be depicted a bit feminine to show his youth. Many artists practiced this technique.  http://www.jaydax.co.uk/lastsupper/lastsupper.htm

The possibility of it being Mary would have caused controversy in the Church. They wouldn’t have allowed it, not if it was meant to represent John.

I was raised Catholic, and my mom actually had a replica of the painting in her kitchen. I would ask her about it, and she would tell me it was Jesus having his last meal. I wouldn’t want to know more than that as I was too busy minding my child hood playtime. But the question I couldn’t find an answer to, or maybe haven’t searched good enough was who asked da Vinci for this painting? I don’t know why, but somehow that seems important to me.

The original painting is very worn and hard to decipher, but there has been some restored images, that in turn might even distort the first one. On this website you can compare the two just by going over it with your mouse. On the restored version, you see a lovely landscape in the back. I’m guessing it is  a river there in Jerusalem, or maybe just a random background. http://www.jaydax.co.uk/lastsupper/lastsupper.htm

Because of how much time has passed, we will never get to appreciate it to its full potential. The faces are not as clear, among many other things. But I think it is a very important image, especially for the Catholic religion, and is instantly recognized in a lot of places around the world.

The Prince

One of the most highly acclaimed philosophers of the Renaissance era was Niccolo Machiavelli. Born near Florence, Italy, he was appointed second Chancellor of Florence after attending the University.
He was later brought down by Medici ruling, and was imprisoned and tortured for several weeks.
His most famed piece of work is The Prince. This is a very political piece of work, and it explains his views on how the government is ran. “Power characteristically defines political activity,” (Stanford Ency. ). The Prince still stands today as a very influential piece of work for modern politics.  This website gives a brief biography and summaries of his famed work. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/


There are several major excerpts that our book gives of The Prince. The most interesting one to me is “How a Prince Should Keep His Word.” Machiavelli states how a prince i.e. a leader, should always be of beastly nature pertaining to a lion or a fox, something in between. As a prince, you must be able to be both scary like a lion, and smart like a fox.  I truly see this in politics all over the world. Leaders have to show potential of being able to protect their territories, their countries, to not so much “scare” other countries away, but most definitely intimidate enemies. But they must be able to outwit sticky situations they might get involved in.
Leaders, or potential leaders, always make promises to cast in the people, to win their trust, but they can easily break them once they are in power. Machiavelli states that “A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promises.” Of course there are always reasons, but sometimes they are excuses disguised as reasons. They just word it eloquently enough to justify the breaking of promises.
One example is how President Obama promised to fix out of state tuition. I’m not here to bash our leader, as I know he has many things on is plate, but he made it seem like a priority. Of course, he made it seem as a priority only when speaking to college students, or people to whom this promise would appeal to. Technically, the promise hasn’t been broken, but might as well, he only has one assured year left in office, and tuition is still 175 per credit in a Southern California community college for an out of state resident.

I found an essay giving the examples of how The Prince has influenced American politics. Chapter 18, the one mentioned above, gave the sense of how Machiavelli encouraged lying, praised it, and found it absolutely necessary to conduct good governing. His writing might be biased, but he gives an example of how George H.W Bush (by Americans) was never held accountable for the “deadly consequences of his interventionalist foreign policy. The point he was making, that reflects that of Machiavelli’s writing , is that war was cause of a half-truth given by the President. But as supporters, Americans allow his reasoning to prevail, and ignore the facts. As a leader, he is well advised to manipulate around these “lies,” to appeal to the public. And that, if in accordance to Machiavelli’s writings, is one of the traits a leader cannot do without.
Link to essay, very interesting points made all throughout.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0508i.asp

Byzantine Music

Byzantine music clearly reflects the Christian Church, it was the "medieval sacred chant" of the Church.
This style of music dates back to the 8th century. There are chants that date as late as th 12-13th century, and those are the ones that are more well known, and can be read in church texts, patristic writings and medieval books.The following website gives samples of Byzantine music from different periods in time. http://www.oud.gr/music_byzantine.htm
Phos Hilaron is an early hymn, from around 4-5th century, and since it is sung in the evening when lamps are being lit, they will sometimes refer to it as the "lamp lighting hymn." The bishop St. Athenogenes was given credit for this vesper hymn. This website gives a bit more info on this vesper(evening praying service) hymn. http://www.smithcreekmusic.com/Hymnology/Greek.Hymnody/Phos.hilaron.html
Here is also a video containing the hymn, with an English translation.

The Gregorian Chant was another form of early medieval music. In was named for the pope (590-604), St. Gregory. This chant became the sacred chant of the Church and went all across Europe. "De Profundis" is a Gregorian chant and the following video is of the chant itself.

Upon listening to both, it is very hard to pick up many differences given that these hymns have probably been altered with time, and that the language is completely foreign. But what you can clearly pick up is that in the Gregorian chant, they do put more emphasis on the vowels, and carry them on for long notes, and throughout a single stanza. The byzantine music is more fast paced, with different sounds throughout, they don't focus on one for a long period of time. Like I said though, it is very hard because if I was to just listen to them once, I would say they sounded the same.
The latter one though, I must say that that is what I hear when I tune to the occasional Christmas Eve mass with the Pope. It has survived in the Roman Catholic Church and the hymns are still sung today. Browsing through some, and the titles, they have many that I do hear when I even go to Sunday mass. (back when i attended mass. )

Augustus

Augustus Caesar, was Rome's first emperor and he held power up until his death. His total reign was that of about 41 years. He came into power after Mark Antony's assassination.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus

In our textbook, it states that propaganda “is an important component of the success of any new government or regime.” Both Horace and Virgil, were poets of the Roman era, and both wrote poems for Caesar, and some criticize that their works are propaganda in disguise.

In Horace’s poem, he claims how Caesar’s governing has brought food, and no wars. That there is always laughter and happiness at a family home. Virgil’s poem more like introduces Caesar to the Roman people, assuring them of his good ways, and the greatness that will come of Rome when he begins his Roman reign.

Both of these are either intentional or unintentional propaganda, but propaganda nonetheless. These two poets were already well known, and if they only have positive things to say about someone, especially someone who is going into power, well their followers are going to believe their word.

United States elections. Ha. How can we forget the commercials these politicians had, not only to say positive things about themselves (which is what their focus should have been,) but rather also on the negative things of their opponents. That was what seemed to be their main focus. “So and so didn’t vote so many times.” “So and so did this and that 10 years ago.” But whether or not they were negative, people would believe them, and get lured in, ultimately taking effect on who they would vote for.
Here is one video where Governor Jerry Brown, used one of Meg Whitman’s statement, to impact his election in a positive way. http://youtu.be/WEPlZYp5-Pk

I found it kind of ironic, and how she does say “30 years ago,” when Jerry Brown was governor. Her rep. must have not done his/her research before writing it out for her.

Propaganda is the only way elections are done now. Politicians run campaigns, raising up to millions of dollars, casting in votes with powerful words, and having other influential people speaking wonders of them, or ill of the others. But it’s not just in the “big” presidential, or governor elections. School elections, even in elementary schools. They have their posters up, give away balloons, candy, anything to cast in a vote. Of course, I’m not say propaganda is bad, but some can be. If you are say true things, and not hurtful, then of course I’m all for it! You have to put yourself out there somehow. But a lot of it is stretched out truths, and bad things about the opponent.  I think people have to choose propaganda on more of the moral approach, rather than beneficial. But that will never happen!

Hermes and the Infant Dionysus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hermes_di_Prassitele,_at_Olimpia,_front.jpg

Hermes and the Infant Dionysos, is a sculpture thought to be done by Praxteles. Praxteles was son of Cephisodotus the Elder, also a sculptor. Praxteles was the first to sculpt a nude women shape in life size form. It was found in Temple of Hera in Olympia in 1887, and it is argued whether it is indeed the original or not. Dating suggest that it was done back in the 4^th century BC.

In Greek mythology, Dionysos is the God of winemaking, ritual madness, and ecstasy. The myth states the Zeus had given left Hermes in charge of Dionysos, hence the inspiration for that sculpture, or that is what I would imagine. Zeus was Dionysos father, and his mother was Semele.

The statue is made of Parian marble.    The measurements of Hermes are as follows:  2.10/2.12 m, 3.70 m with the base. This sculpture was made in the classical era of Greece. It was found with many parts missing, his forearm, some fingers, his penis, and still are missing today. It took eight discoveries to find other parts that had been missing before.

The statue itself portrays Hermes standing upright, holding the child, and it is said it is suppose to represent him playing with the child. 

I personally love sculptures, and they are so mysterious and glorious to me, all at the same time. This is a beautiful piece of work. It shows tenderness from Hermes side, the way he is holding the child and it seems as if his gaze is on him. The child looks like he is looking away, or maybe Hermes was doing something to lead his attention somewhere else. A lot, if not most, of the Greek sculptures are done representing the person in nudity. It shows that they didn’t think it was something so out of this world, like we do today. We put such emphasis that nudity is wrong, or ill minded. When indeed it can be something so admirable like this sculpture. Of course, it’s a thing that we might all disagree on, but I’m sure they had their reasons as to why they used nudity so much in their work.

Created to Destroy

The Christ Man Himself

In the account of the Mayan Civilization, and the story that Popul Vuh had read of Mayan ancestors, states that of how the earth was created, as well as life. Tepeu and Gucumatz created the Earth, after talking one night, and decided it would be necessary.  And that the Creator and Maker created humans, or beings, but destroyed them because they weren’t the way they wanted them to be. It fascinates me, how such an imaginative way of believing that the earth came about, was followed by many people. I mean, I cannot say the Mayans were ignorant, but in those days, people just wanted answers to something, and they usually accepted anything. I’m sure that the first person who shared that story, was someone of great power, therefore, the community had to believe it. For that greater person would never lie, in fact, he was more than likely sent from the God’s to share His knowledge.

A lot of creation stories seem to have the same amount of creativity. And of course we are all free to believe anything we want, but if we had today, a figure that a great majority of the population followed, and he for some reason, came up with an explanation for creation, we would more than likely follow it. It is easy to believe someone in power, someone we look up to and confide in, no matter how “imaginative” it may seem. For example, do we all remember a while back the Puerto Rican man who claimed he was both Jesus Christ and the AntiChrist. I mean, honestly, for me, I never even contemplated the idea of believing him. But many other people did. People who confided in him, and were desperate for answers, took his word and followed his teachings. Some of his believers, now even share his famed “666” tattoo, and show it in reference to this movement. To a lot of us, this all seems so silly, but to the people who are in the movement, truly believe this man, and all that he has to offer. There is link to his website, feel free to see what he is about.

One other thing I contemplated upon my reading of this chapter was the world wide, religious tolerance for the killing of another man for murdering someone else. Code of Hammurabi, Story of the Flood, The Covenant Code. All these set of laws encourage the killing of man for a crime. Do unto him, what he did unto others. Eye for an eye, heart for a heart. A lot of religious people that believe killing is wrong, and only God should decide when someone should die, agree that if a man kills a man, that the killer should be put to death, because that is what God would want. He would want to punish him. But it is all so contradicting. I mean, it is very easy to wish death upon someone, but who are we to decide that matter? Life is so precious, and regardless of how much harm a person does, we can’t not take that away. Even here, I feel a little hypocritical, because I have once before wished ill upon someone one, when my uncle was murdered.  I’m sure if I find out something bad happened to the killers, I would be “happy”. But I’m a firm believer of Karma. So I know those people who hurt my family, will have their time, but killing him, wouldn’t do me any good. If we believe in such God, who are we to play his role? No one.