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. )