A Collection of Stars

• α Schedar — alpha Cassiopeiæ is called “Shedir” or “Schedar” which comes from the Arabic word “al-sadar” meaning the Breast. In Hebrew, the word “Schedir” means the Freed.
• β Caph — beta Cassiopeiæ is called “Caph” which comes from the Arabic term “al-Kaff al-Khadib” meaning the Stained Hand. Also, known as “al-Sanam al-Nakah” meaning the Camel’s Hump. In Hebrew, Caph means the Branch.
• δ Ruchbah — delta Cassiopeiæ is called “Ksora” or “Ruchbah,” from the Arabic “al-rukbat” meaning the Knee which is a reduction from a longer phrase that refers to Cassiopeia’s Knee.
• γ Cih — gamma Cassiopeiæ is derived from the Chinese Tsih, meaning a Whip. Alternatively also referred to as the girdle. It is the central star of the “W” of the constellation.
• ε Segin — epsilon Cassiopeiæ is called by the common name of “Segin”, which is of modern, but obscure, origin. The star has also been referred as Ruchbah at one time.

Before we can investigate the mystery of Cassiopeia we need to ask a fundamental question: How would a Quattrocento observer read Leonardo’s Last Supper? The difficulty of looking at Renaissance painting from a modern perspective is that we decontextualize the experience: by making assumptions about its meaning for those whom the paintings were made we misidentify its purpose. Additionally, the modern experience of non-contemporaneous painting is filtered through our own biases and worldviews—some invent meaning where there is none, while others refute interpretation because it’s antipodal to official doctrine. By doing so, we obscure the past. In order to gain a better understanding of Leonardo’s work and reveal its hidden layers of meaning we should take a critical approach and begin by analyzing the use of gesture in the painting.

There are two methodologies towards a critical analysis of gesture in the Last Supper: (a) internalization, meaning the use of gesture to develop the dramatic narrative of the painting; and (b) externalization, meaning the use of gesture as a communicative device between the painting and the observer. The modern response to the Last Supper is to view it as a play depicting the dramatic moment when Jesus announces to his disciples that one of them will betray him with the gestures being elements of the drama. For the contemporaneous viewer, the painting was more than a dramatic depiction of a religious scene, it served the purpose of instructing the believer by using gesture as an emotional and pious language. {7}

We also need to consider the role played by the observer’s imagination: the pious experience in Quattrocento Italy dictated that the faithful in the process of prayer would invent an interior narrative of religious stories based on the personalized specificity of places and acquaintances with the intent of stirring within the faithful a meditative sensation of piety. The function of the painter was to create a universal framework upon which the observer would integrate their internal meditation. For the painter and observer it was a dynamic and organic relationship; an interplay between the painter’s exterior generalization and the observer’s interior particularization. {8} In this sense, the contemporaneous observer was a complementary participant in Quattrocento painting—an experience foreign to the modern beholder.

Of course, deciphering gestural meaning in Leonardo’s painting is not so simple a task, since he layers his painting with a multiplicity of coded messages to the point of contradiction. Here, we turn to his own words: Pleasure and Pain represent as twins, since there never is one without the other; and as if they were united back to back, since they are contrary to each other; and Envy must be represented with a contemptuous motion of the hand towards heaven, because if she could she would use her strength against God…. {10} His words not only illuminate the meaning of Jesus and the figure seated next to him, but also the gesture of Thomas with his finger pointed up to the heavens. Digging deeper, we can see that the right hand of Jesus (Fig. 2) is mirrored by the left hand of the Virgin Mary (Fig. 3) in his two later paintings of the Virgin of the Rocks. {11}

Although, I disagree with the populist theory that the figure depicted to Jesus’ right is Mary Magdelene {12}, I do accept that the figure is a woman. As the focal point of the painting, Jesus is the action element while the figure to his right sits in repose—his mirrored opposite. Her clasped hands (Fig. 2) can signify: (a) that she is bound; and (b) by forming a circle with her upper body she represents the eternal symbol of the goddess or the feminine spirit. This, of course, creates an incongruity with the general narrative of the religious scene and undermines the pious purpose of the painting—an inconsistency I will attempt to reconcile at a later time. Nor do I agree with Knight-Jadczyk’s opinion that the mapping of Cassiopeia within the Last Supper is the secret code—to echo the Greeks who saw the constellation as a Key, Cassiopeia is the means by which we can unlock the mystery of the Da Vinci Code.

Editor’s note: This is the first part of a two part article on Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper.