Caravaggio’s Emmaus Supper

Meditation on Caravaggio’s Emmaus Supper

By MarieHelene Cook

Caravaggio painted two scenes of the Emmaus Supper, one in 1601 and the second in 1606. It is surprising to see how he could paint, on the same subject with the same characters, such different pictures.

The first painting is striking in its vitality and joy, which convey the disciples’ astonishment as they recognise Jesus through the blessing of the bread.

The movements seem to have been stopped in midcourse, as though frozen in a camera shot, which immortalises the scene and the intensity of action. One disciple seems to be ready to get up having his right hand on the arm of his chair, while the other stretches his arms in exaltation. So, too, is Jesus in the middle of a gesture: his right hand is lifted in a blessing and his left is preparing to grasp the bread. He is looking young and healthy; his face is relaxed in a halfsmile. His vivid red tunic contrasts with his white overgarment.

The fourth figure, perhaps the inn keeper, has an interested look in his eyes, but doesn’t seem to share the enthusiasm of the disciples, having possibly not been close to Jesus before. All three characters have their eyes fixed on Jesus who is looking down at the bread. The disciples’ eager eyes and faces express what the Gospel of Luke recounts: “Then their eyes were opened and they recognised him.” (Chapter 24:31)

The scene is bright and colourful: the light, enhanced by some dark shadows in the background, shines out from the little group, especially from their faces and the white tablecloth.

As in many of Caravaggio’s paintings, the scene is open to the viewers; the table is almost inviting us in. We can see the symbols of the last supper clearly: the bread, the wine, but also the grapes and a leaf recalling the Vine (cf. “I am the Vine; you are the branches” John 15:5). The other fruits are not very recognisable; one seems to be a bit rotten; some may say it alludes to the forbidden fruit, but the interpretation is not obvious. The shadow of the basket is strange as well, like the tail of a fish, another deliberate symbol or just a casual stroke of the brush? We can also notice, sitting on a dish, an appetising bird.

The second painting is much darker and more sober with no bright colours. Grey, brown and beige are the hues used in this grave picture. The characters look

different, but they are stereotypes, they represent the same people as in the previous scene. This second painting, in some ways, presents itself as a mirror image: the innkeeper is now on the other side; the disciples have swapped places: the one with open arms is on the left here, his face hidden, whereas the other disciple, now on the right, looks intently at Jesus and his hands are prepared to help him get up but in a more discreet manner. We may wonder why their gestures are less emphatic and their movements much less obvious and more controlled. Is it to give Jesus more prominence? Let’s look at Him: He looks more solemn, older and thinner, and his dark grey clothes contrast with the light coming from half his face and his two hands. One hand is still lifted in blessing, but more restrained, while the

other hand rests on the table, its fingers withdrawing from those of his disciple, as if avoiding them; we can’t help recalling Jesus’s words to Mary Magdalen in John 20:17 "Do not touch me, for I have not yet returned to the Father.” The other reason for the soberness of the picture is the scarcity of objects: on the table only two loaves of bread and a jug, no glass to drink the wine, no basket of fruits, and no dish on the table. However, an additional person has appeared on the scene, a woman holding a dish. She is elderly and doesn’t look at Jesus but at what she is holding. Speculations are open on what the dish may be containing; it seems hot like a roast, maybe lamb? There are still lots of questions we can ask about these pictures, such as: Why does the first innkeeper’s right arm wear a bandage? Why the bird on the dish in the first painting? Why is Jesus young in one picture and older in the other? Why the presence of the woman? etc. Some say that nothing in Caravaggio’s painting is accidental... The simplification and solemnity of the second picture probably reflect the maturation of his thoughts. It seems that, in five years, the painter had had time to ponder the passage of St Luke Gospel and his meditation had become more internalised as it focused on the Risen Christ.

MarieHelene Cook

To those who criticise Caravaggio for being to realistic, here is an answer by Jacques Maritain1: “There are, it seems to me, in the technical order, two requisite conditions for religious art as such, granted its special object and the purpose for which it is intended. 1. It must be legible. For it is there above all for the instruction of the people, it is a theology in figures. An illegible, obscure and Mallarméan2 religious art is as absurd as a house without a staircase or a cathedral without a portal. 2. The work must be finished. I do not mean finished in the academic sense, but in the most material and humble meaning of this word. It is supremely fitting that nothing enter the house of God but work that is well made, complete, proper, durable, honest.”

1Jacques Maritain (1882 –1973) was a French philosopher who converted to Catholicism in 1906 . 1.Mallarmé,18421898, a French poet and art critic, believed that painting should not be too precise or defined, in order to leave it to the imagination of the viewer.