Supper at Emmaus
Mindful that it's still Easter, a friend from The Old Time sent me a copy with short meditation of Caravaggio's 1605/6 painting "Supper at Emmaus." It captured my interest both because Luke's (24:13-35) story of Jesus' adventure that afternoon and evening of Easter Day is fascinating, and also because Caravaggio's religious paintings are among the incomparable best, and this one does not disappoint. Typically dark with a light place that immediately grabs the eye, and if you enlarge to have a close look, the details are astonishing. The old woman's face, hair and servant's cap.
The collar and jacket buttons of the man standing between the woman and Jesus.
The bread that Jesus has just prayed over and broken.
Caravaggio did an earlier painting of the "Supper at Emmaus" (1601) and while it's more grandiose than his later one (which may explain his decision to replace it), the details are even more amazing.
.jpg)
Jesus' face is more masculine in the later painting. The colors are bright instead of, later, subdued.
Look at the detail in the red jacket of the man standing on the left (to Jesus' right):
In the 1601 painting the meal is quite festive, the table set with elegant dinnerware, and look at Caravaggio's detail on the skin of the roasted fowl:
As a Bible student, I'm interested in the story as Luke tells it, and the story as Caravaggio pictures it. Luke tells it one way, Caravaggio visualizes it two ways, it's almost "take your choice." I'd choose the more elegant 1601 painting if the scene had taken place in Caravaggio's place and Time, even the design of the pottery bowl holding the roast bird looks right, and I can smell the aroma of the bird just pulled from the oven, and the fine red coat of - - is that the host at the inn where I imagine they stopped for the night? - - looks quite fashionable. Why did Caravaggio decide it all needed to be done over, maybe "corrected"?
Someone told him, Hey, Car!! didn't you read the story?! The bread is there, but in your picture the bread is not The Main Thing, the goose is the main thing, while the story is about the Breaking of the Bread! Exit the Thanksgiving Feast, man, and show the Bread that Jesus has just broken and opened their eyes to who he is who's been teaching them all afternoon! So, Caravaggio did it over. He added a servant, the old woman, he revisualized the meal, he made Jesus look like a man instead of a eunuch, he toned it down greatly to the somber event that it likely was, and he revisited the lighting so that you cannot take your eyes off of Jesus, and if you do so, your eyes keep going back to him.
Incidentally, couple of points. The story says that Jesus said the blessing: he would have said "ha motzi" the Hebrew prayer of blessing over the bread that starts the meal: baruch ata adonai eloheinu melek ha-olam; ha-motzi lechem min ha-aretz (blessed are you Lord our God King of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth).
The other point is that, like Mark and Matthew the other synoptics (but not Gospel John), Luke makes this a sacred feeding by having Jesus do the four eucharistic actions: taking, blessing, breaking, giving the bread. The Roman Catholic meditation my Old Time friend sent me centered on that eucharistic meaning of the Supper at Emmaus and the mystery of it all, even though Caravaggio did not see it the first Time around!
BTW, googling a bit, I came across an art critic's discussion of the question:
Why Did Caravaggio Paint Two Different “Supper at Emmaus” Paintings?
In my first article here on Medium, I discussed some interesting details and reflected on Renaissance and Baroque art. I decided to look into one of my favorite artists from that article: Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio — or just Caravaggio for short.
His style is quite distinct; often he uses lighting that has a sharp contrast to it, painting scenes that appear dimly lit, with light resting on certain small spaces. In my further research into his other work, I discovered something strange.
Caravaggio made two different versions of his “Supper at Emmaus” painting.
One of them, which I discussed in my first article, is dated at 1601. The other which I discovered is dated between 1605–1606.
Of course, my first question was “why?” Had he been unhappy with the previous one? I’m no painter, but I can understand as a writer the need to go back and rewrite. So I decided to examine the differences, and what they might reflect:
In the 1601 painting, it is noticeably brighter. The figure of Jesus has no beard, and as I’ve discussed before, appears to embody some feminine characteristics in his face; it lacks the usual strong features a male face often embodies in art, which I feel may reflect the theological idea of Christ being neither strictly male, nor strictly female.
The table is perhaps the most noticeable difference besides the lighting. In the 1601 version, there is a lavish spread of food. The figures around it are all male, all seemingly in the middle of an action (the man in the chair in the foreground, for instance, appears to be just about to leap out of his seat).
Now to compare this to the 1605 version:
Notice how the table is much more sparse. There seems to be only bread and some kind of meat, but nothing so grand as the display of fruit in the 1601 version. The lighting is much darker, and while most of the persons in it appear to be in the middle of an action, it is not as animated as before.
In addition, Christ’s physical features seem to embody a more masculine presentation; he has a short beard, and the overall shape of his face seems to be sharper, though not so much that it is jarring. In both, however, Christ has very long, curly hair, which again adds to the more feminine characteristics of his appearance.
His pose is similar to the one in the 1601 version, seeming to invite the audience to come and sit at the empty space at the table (which both paintings feature), though in this newer one his hand is only raised a little, as opposed to the literal open hand and raised arm in the older one.
This 1605 version also features a woman. There is an old woman holding a basket of something (upon zooming in, it looks like cooked ribs, but I’m unsure as to what exactly it is).
Overall, this newer version seems to be Caravaggio’s way of “toning down” as it were; all the differences that can be seen seem to point to a desire or intention for a more subtle scene. Instead of a brightly-lit table, it’s much darker; the people within it are less animated, the table is sparse (perhaps giving it a more realistic feel for the time period).
If the 1605 version is Caravaggio trying to emulate something more subtle or realistic, what does that mean for the “meaning” of the painting?
I’ve discussed before about how I feel the overall “meaning” of the painting is that Christ is beckoning the audience to join him at the table, as shown by his pose and the empty space at the table. So if this newer version is meant to be more “realistic,” what does a “realistic” invitation mean?
One way to look at it might be that this “realistic” invitation doesn’t sugar-coat things. The table Christ is inviting us to is not a fancy one; it is not the heaven-like delight you might imagine. And in that way I think it fits well with our own time. The theological idea that Christ is at work in the world today, and that he shares in humanity’s suffering, may be illustrated quite well here.
Even though the table is sparse and things look dark, Christ invites the audience to join him nonetheless. He appears to say, “Look, I know this isn’t as glamorous as you thought it would be, but I’m here too, so let’s all be here together and make the most of it.”
There’s no escaping all the bad news circulating in the world right now; climate change is an ever-encroaching issue, COVID-19 has had rippling economic repercussions (as well as mental health repercussions), and none of it seems to be letting up anytime soon.
Even if you’re not a very religious person, I feel that art is a kind of universal language.
I hope this painting can give you a little bit of hope — the table is dark, but we’re still all in this together.
++++++++++
And oh, here's an English translation (NRSV) of the story as Luke tells it. You won't hear it in church this Easter Season, because in the three year lectionary cycle, we read it last year on the Third Sunday of Easter, Year A.
Luke 24:13-35 The Walk to Emmaus
13 Now on that same day (i.e., the Day of the Resurrection) two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened.
15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, 16 but their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?” They stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?” 19 He asked them, “What things?” They replied, “The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place. 22 Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, 23 and when they did not find his body there they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see him.”
25 Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! 26 Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.
28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. 29 But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.”
So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them.
31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?” 33 That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem, and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. 34 They were saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.
++++++++
It's a post resurrection appearance story of which Mark has none; Matthew has scant, Luke has abundant, and John has superabundant: the stories quickly developed and were even more enthusiastically enhanced with the passage of Time! I guess it's the way the Holy Spirit works, eh?!
RSF&PTL
T88&c