Leonardo and the Last Supper

1. Lodovico Sforza's Ambition Unleashed Calamity on Italy

By enticing Charles VIII and his thunderous weapons across the Alps, Lodovico Sforza had unwittingly unleashed—as all the stars foretold—innumerable horrible calamities.

A Cunning Ruler. Lodovico Sforza, known as Il Moro, seized de facto control of Milan and transformed it into a flourishing realm. Despite his success, his position was precarious, threatened by the King of Naples, whose daughter was married to Lodovico's young nephew, the rightful duke. To secure his power, Lodovico made a fateful decision.

Inviting Disaster. In 1494, Lodovico invited King Charles VIII of France, a physically unimpressive but militarily formidable ruler, to invade Italy and claim the throne of Naples. Charles arrived with a massive army and advanced rapidly, his modern bronze cannons devastating Italian fortifications and his troops shocking the peninsula with their brutality, exemplified by massacres at towns like Mordano. This invasion shattered forty years of relative peace in Italy.

Unintended Consequences. Lodovico's plan backfired as Charles's easy conquest alarmed other Italian states, including Venice and the Pope, leading to the formation of the Holy League against the French. Furthermore, Charles's cousin, Louis of Orléans, a claimant to Milan, became a direct threat. Lodovico's political maneuvering ultimately destabilized Italy and paved the way for his own downfall.

2. Leonardo, a Genius Seeking Fame, Found Opportunity in Milan

By the age of forty-two—and in an era when life expectancy was only forty—Leonardo had produced only a few scattered paintings, a bizarre-looking music instrument, some ephemeral decorations for masques and festivals, and many hundreds of pages of notes and drawings for studies he had not yet published, or for inventions he had not yet built.

A Striking Figure. Leonardo da Vinci arrived in Milan in his early thirties, a handsome and vigorous man known for his diverse talents as a painter and engineer. Despite his reputation, his career in Florence had been marked by unfinished projects and dissatisfied patrons, leaving him without the public fame achieved by other masters.

Unfulfilled Ambitions. Leonardo initially sought work as a military engineer, designing fearsome war machines, but found himself largely employed in more peaceable courtly tasks like designing costumes and stage sets. His most significant commission, a colossal bronze equestrian monument to Lodovico's father, Francesco Sforza, consumed years but remained unfinished, ultimately losing its bronze to cannons. This pattern of grand ambitions thwarted by distractions, perfectionism, and external circumstances left Leonardo feeling frustrated.

A Need for Recognition. Despite his private brilliance documented in extensive notebooks covering anatomy, flight, mechanics, and more, Leonardo yearned for a public "work of fame" that would cement his reputation. The loss of the bronze horse commission left a void, but Lodovico Sforza, perhaps recognizing Leonardo's unique talent despite his unreliability, had another project in mind that would finally provide that opportunity.

3. The Last Supper Commission Was an Unlikely, Demanding Task

Painting the wall of the refectory was a major commission, especially because (as seems to be the case) it came from the duke. Yet it seems possible that Leonardo balked at this commission.

A Dominican Setting. The commission was to paint a mural in the refectory (dining hall) of Santa Maria delle Grazie, a Dominican convent in Milan that Lodovico Sforza was expanding and beautifying as a potential family mausoleum. Dominican refectories often featured Last Supper paintings to inspire contemplation during silent meals.

An Odd Choice. Leonardo was an unusual choice for the job. His expertise lay in panel painting using tempera and oils, not fresco, the standard technique for murals, which he had never attempted. Fresco required working quickly on wet plaster, a method ill-suited to Leonardo's slow, meticulous process of layering and retouching paint.

Initial Reluctance. Leonardo's fragmented letters suggest he may have initially protested this assignment, viewing it as a "small matter" compared to his grander ambitions like the bronze horse. Despite his potential reservations and lack of fresco experience, the commission from the Duke represented a significant opportunity to create a large-scale public work.

4. Leonardo Defied Tradition with a Daring, Experimental Technique

Leonardo’s approach to his mural would therefore deviate from that of Montorfano, who was working on his fresco of the Crucifixion a little more than a hundred feet away. Leonardo created an entirely different surface on which to paint.

Rejecting Fresco. Recognizing the limitations of fresco for his detailed, layered style, Leonardo chose to paint The Last Supper using an experimental technique: applying oil-based paints (an "oil tempera") to a dry plaster wall prepared with a primer of lead white. This allowed him to work slowly, blend colors, and make corrections, unlike the rapid pace required by fresco.

A Rich Palette. This unconventional method enabled Leonardo to use pigments incompatible with fresco's alkaline plaster, such as vibrant blues (ultramarine, azurite) and reds (vermilion). He layered colors meticulously, sometimes using five coats, to achieve depth and luminosity, demonstrating his advanced understanding of color interaction and contrast, centuries ahead of his time.

Risks and Rewards. While the technique allowed for unprecedented detail and color intensity, it was inherently unstable. Unlike pigments chemically bonded in wet plaster, oil paints on a dry wall were vulnerable to humidity and flaking. This daring experiment, while artistically brilliant, ultimately doomed the painting to rapid deterioration, a stark contrast to the durable fresco painted by Montorfano on the opposite wall.

5. The Painting Captures a Storm of Human Emotion and Gesture

For Leonardo, a person looking at a painting (which he calls “dumb poetry”) was like a deaf person studying an animated conversation: he could understand what was happening through the language of gesture.

Observing Humanity. Leonardo was a keen observer of human behavior, sketching people in the streets and noting their expressions and gestures during conversations, arguments, and moments of emotion. He believed a painter must capture not just the physical form but also "the intention of his mind," conveyed through body language.

Apostolic Reactions. In The Last Supper, Leonardo depicted the apostles' varied reactions to Christ's announcement of betrayal with unprecedented dynamism. Arranged in four groups of three, they twist, lean, point, and gesticulate, displaying a range of emotions from shock and confusion to anger and protest, creating a scene of intense psychological drama.

The Language of Hands. Leonardo was particularly fascinated by the expressive power of hands, studying them extensively and noting how they could convey thoughts and feelings. The apostles' hands in the mural are central to the composition and narrative, communicating their individual responses and contributing to the painting's overall sense of agitated inquiry.

6. Leonardo Infused the Scene with Layers of Meaning and Symbolism

Leonardo’s Last Supper was created not for the art historians and tour groups of a later, secular age, but for a band of Dominican friars who ritually commemorated Christ’s sacrifice through the celebration of the Eucharist.

Beyond the Drama. While capturing the dramatic moment of betrayal, Leonardo also embedded deeper layers of meaning. Christ's central position, isolated and framed by a window, emphasizes his significance. His hands, often overlooked by early viewers focused on the apostles' reactions, simultaneously reach for the wineglass and gesture towards the bread, clearly alluding to the institution of the Eucharist.

Sacramental Focus. For the Dominican friars, the painting's primary purpose was likely to reinforce the doctrine of transubstantiation and the importance of the Eucharist. Christ's actions with the bread and wine, his downcast gaze directed at the bread, and his welcoming gesture towards the refectory entrance would have powerfully conveyed the sacramental nature of the meal.

Symbolic Details. Leonardo included symbolic elements beyond the obvious bread and wine:

• Eels and Oranges: A delicacy associated with courtly feasts, possibly a subtle commentary or simply reflecting contemporary Milanese cuisine.
• Pomegranate/Apple: Traditional symbols of Christ as the "new Adam" or the unity of the church.
• Overturned Saltcellar: A unique invention by Leonardo, possibly alluding to bad luck or the desecration of the covenant.
• Judas's Purse: A clear symbol of betrayal and avarice, linking Judas to negative stereotypes of Jews.
• Judas's Left Hand: Leonardo depicted Judas as left-handed, exploiting the historical association of the left side with the sinister and evil.

7. Political Turmoil and Personal Loss Shaped the Painting's Context

And from that time,” wrote a Venetian chronicler, “the duke began to be sore troubled, and to suffer great woes, having up to that time lived very happily.”

A Shifting Landscape. The years Leonardo worked on The Last Supper (c. 1495-1498) were marked by intense political instability in Italy, largely triggered by Lodovico Sforza's actions. The French invasion, the formation of the Holy League, and the Duke of Orléans's claim on Milan created a climate of anxiety and uncertainty.

Personal Tragedy. Lodovico's life was struck by personal tragedy during this period. The death of his beloved illegitimate daughter Bianca in late 1496, followed swiftly by the death of his wife Beatrice in January 1497 after giving birth to a stillborn son, plunged the Duke into deep mourning. These losses likely intensified his focus on Santa Maria delle Grazie as a family mausoleum and his desire to see Leonardo's painting completed.

Pressure to Finish. Lodovico's grief and the looming threat from France and Venice likely increased his impatience with Leonardo's slow progress. In June 1497, he explicitly ordered his secretary to press Leonardo to finish the mural and sign a contract for portraits of the Sforza family to be added to Montorfano's Crucifixion on the opposite wall, reflecting the tragic new reality of his family.

8. The Masterpiece Achieved Fame Despite Its Rapid Deterioration

“What is fair in men passes away,” Leonardo once wrote, “but not so in art.” Alas, what is fair in art also passes away, as The Last Supper proves only too well.

A Flawed Technique. Leonardo's experimental technique of painting with oil tempera on a dry wall, while enabling artistic brilliance, proved disastrously unstable. Unlike true fresco, the paint did not bond permanently with the plaster, leading to flaking and deterioration within decades of completion.

Adverse Conditions. The painting's location on a damp wall in a refectory exposed to kitchen steam, candle soot, and later, flooding, exacerbated its fragility. Within twenty years, visitors noted its decline, and by the late sixteenth century, it was described as being in a state of "total ruin."

Centuries of Damage. The painting suffered further indignities over the centuries:

• A door cut through Christ's feet in 1652.
• Repeated, often unskilled, restoration attempts using damaging materials and techniques.
• Use of the refectory as a stable by Napoleon's troops.
• Bomb damage during World War II.

Enduring Legacy. Despite its tragic physical history, The Last Supper achieved immediate and lasting fame. Copies were made across Europe, and its innovative composition, psychological depth, and technical mastery revolutionized painting, marking the beginning of the High Renaissance. Though much of the original paint is lost, modern conservation efforts have stabilized the work and revealed details previously obscured, allowing us to glimpse the miracle that captivated its first viewers and continues to inspire awe today.

Last updated: May 3, 2025