Talk:The Wedding at Cana

Future Additions

If you know anything about Venetian or Renaissance art, your additions to this article are greatly valued.

Copy-editing & wikifying

A general request: could people who remove {{wikify}} and {{copyedit}} templates from articles make sure that all the necessary work has been done first? Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A few precisions

I won't edit myself (not a native English speaker) but I have an interest for the Italian Renaissance art and would like to contribute.

Trivia: the moment shown here seems to be the dessert, as the food on the table is sugar, fruits and (according to at least one art professor at the Louvre) quince jam. Which is logical, the miracle having been performed at the end of the meal. Of course, the fact meat is represented above is a bit strange!

Jesus is placed at the centre of the table, and significantly, on his right is a woman who, like Jesus, is also depicted with a halo.

This seems a bit obvious to say, but that woman is his mother, the Virgin Mary, who was present at the wedding - hence the halo above her. The fact Jesus and Mary are seated in the place of honor (while the bride and groom are on the left) is probably to symbolize the sacred marriage, the New Alliance.

Mary was the one who asked her son to do something about the lack of wine (note the hand gesture). She's also wearing a black veil, which is interpreted by some as a prefiguration of the Passion of Christ.

For this reason, many suggest that the wedding at Cana may in fact have been Jesus' own wedding.

I don't know who those "many" are, but I've never read any serious expert recognized in the field who said such a thing. To put it bluntly: maybe Dan Brown said so, but if he's a reliable art expert, than I'm Mickey Mouse.

Above Jesus, on an elevated walkway, several men butcher the meat of an unidentified animal.

Art critics generally think it's lamb. Jesus is the sacrificed Lamb of God, the Agnus Dei. The butchered lamb is therefore symbolical of his future sacrifice. Christ is exactly under the blade.

Towards the bottom left part of the picture, there is a man pouring wine from a huge, ornate jug.

You can add this is the exact moment of the miracle of Cana: the water is being transformed into wine. Also, if you count, there are 6 jugs in the painting, just like in the Bible.

It should be noted that, though the majority of the characters in the painting are holding wine glasses, nobody appears to be intoxicated, but are healthily enjoying the feast.

It should also be noted that no one is actually talking. The painting was made for a Benedectine monastery, to be hanged in their refectory - and silence was a strict rule.

At the centre of the courtyard sits a group of musicians playing late Renaissance instruments (lutes and early strings). (...) Above Jesus, on an elevated walkway, several men butcher the meat of an unidentified animal.

This vertical axis is highly symbolical. Above Christ, the Agnus Dei, a lamb is being butchered. Beneath Christ, musicians. Note that in front of the musicians there is a hourglass. In art, this is called a "vanity": showing earthly pleasures such as music, but also with a reminder of death (the hourglass, the butchering).

Hope this helps,

--Avari 00:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Avari

I agreed with Avari on most points.

The silence of the attendees is all the more poignantly observed when this painting is compared to Veronese's House of Levi.

I also agree that the rumor that this depicts Jesus' wedding is the result of too many readings of the Da Vinci Code. The woman beside Jesus has little finery or jewelry, looks older, has the simple blue of the Virgin, etc. Also lets not read into the gospel what is not said when so little is said. If someone can cite a gospel that says that Jesus got married at Cana, then please let us know. Also at the time of the wedding Jesus did not have all 12 disciples. In addition, I do not think the wedding guests are dressed in purely contemporary garb, some of looks like the garments worn by turkish traders. CARAVAGGISTI 23:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the observation that no one is talking. In fact, numerous conversations seem to be going on in the painting. I think it's a very noisy painting. Just going around the table, starting on the left, the man in the green turban is leaning back and talking to one of the servants. At the corner of the table the bearded man in red is talking to the person in the green hood. On their left the man in light blue is busy explaining something to the person in the striped hat. Etc. You can go around the painting and identify all the figures who are engaged with each other in conversation--not just people talking, but people who are clearly listening to someone else.Jimhale821 (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, I would like to know the source for the statement that the painting was meant to be hung "at 2.50 metres from the refectory floor." The contract between Veronese and San Giorgio Maggiore makes no mention of the height, only that the painting needs to be as big as the wall.Jimhale821 (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Philipp Fehl argues that Veronese uses Pietro Aretino's retelling of the story of the Wedding at Cana in "The Humanity of Christ" as a source for placing Mary and Jesus in the place of honor where the bride and groom would normally go at a wedding. Some of Fehl's argument for the influence of Aretino on Veronese seems overdrawn, but in this one detail Fehl may be right. (Philipp P. Fehl, Veronese’s Decorum : Notes on the Marriage at Cana. p 341, Art the Ape of Nature: Studies in Honor of H.W. Jjanson Harry Abrams NY 1981. Jimhale821 (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Exaggeration?

"The feast is well attended; over 39,395,927 figures crowd the painting".

Umm... I know it's a big painting, but there aren't nearly 40 million people depicted in it. Is this a joke, or vandalism, or what? EuroSong ^talk 11:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of course, plus the wedding did not take place in St Louis. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Illustration is from before 1989

That prominent figure in the left foreground is no longer red, but green See http://www.factum-arte.com/pag/537/Returning--quot-Les-Noces-de-Cana-quot--by-Paolo-Caliari William Avery (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed with up-to-date illustration from Commons. William Avery (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Disputed text

Chas. Caltrop altered the text of the article, changing "before them is an hourglass, a reference to Jesus' statement to his mother in this Biblical scene that "his hour has not yet come". The hour is a theme in John's Gospel account pointing to the hour of his death" to "before them is an hourglass, a reference to Jesus telling his mother that his "hour has not yet come", which is a theme in the Gospel of John, indicating the hour of his death". I reverted the change, and Chas. Caltrop has reverted me in turn a couple more times, unfortunately doing so while logged out, which is disruptive, as I noted on his talk page. I am quite prepared to discuss his change, and indeed leave it in place if other users agree that it is an improvement. This editor does have to stop logging out to edit war, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Construction of Canvas

I've no idea about this, but how many pieces of canvas is it made from, and what sort of frame was it on originally? That seems like a very large painting.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.87.130 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No one is speaking?

Wikipedia text under "Religious Purpose" says that "No one is speaking." And in "A few precisions above," the contributor says no one is actually speaking.

In fact, numerous conversations seem to be going on in the painting. I think it's a very noisy painting. Just going around the table, starting on the left, the man in the green turban is leaning back and talking to one of the servants. At the corner of the table the bearded man in red is talking to the person in the green hood. On their left the man in light blue is busy explaining something to the person in the striped hat. Etc. You can go around the painting and identify all the figures who are engaged with each other in conversation--not just people talking, but people who are clearly listening to someone else.

Jimhale821 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Source for statement about the painting's scandalous nature?

The article states (under "Religious Purpose") that the painting was scandalous. The footnote is a dead link to a Louvre page that doesn't exist. Can anyone provide a source for this statement? Anyone? Anyone? Jimhale821 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A reply

I think the "Religious purpose" paragraph should be deleted, if it has no source.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The two paragraphs under "Religious Purpose" contribute nothing substantial to the article. And I have found nothing in my research to indicate that the painting created any scandal, unlike Veronese's later painting The Feast in the House of Levi (1573). Jimhale821 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Good call. The deletion of off-topic text facilitated logical organization and thematic presentation.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Jesus

We can't say that he's the only one looking at the viewer of the painting, because the fellow in green to Jesus' left is also looking at the viewer. And to say that Jesus is wearing soft Biblical colors misleadingly suggests that Jesus' garb is colored differently than the dress of others at the feast, which is clearly not true. And I'd like to know the source in the Bible for identifying some colors as "biblical" and others as not.Jimhale821 (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent Edit Concerns

Hi User:Chas. Caltrop, thanks working on improving this page. However, I am concerned that some of the changes are not improving the text. In particular, here are some examples from your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wedding_at_Cana&oldid=825045316

• changing “the guests” to the “awaiting guests” does not add clarity
• adding “to the celebrate the bride and bridegroom at their wedding feast” does not add any useful information, and introduced a grammatical error
• regarding contrast of light and shadow, pluralising to “contrasts” is not correct (and introduced a grammatical error)
• it is not clear to me what adding “old” to “architectural elements” is meant to convey
• adding “and above” regarding seating relative to the musicians is not required (already states they are behind, which is accurate) and may be misleading, suggesting that the floor behind is on a higher plane (but it is the same as the musicians).
• you have narrowed “earthly pleasures” to those “of vanity”; and changed “vanity” to “ambition” later. These change the meaning of the sentence, and it is not obvious why such changes should be made, so it would be useful to add a reference that justifies these significant changes.

Now there were a few other changes in this edit that were actual real improvements. But they were small; and this is just one edit out of a long sequence of changes you’ve made to this page. Hence my concerns that the page is undergoing lots of change, but maybe little progress overall - or potentially degrading a little. I don’t want to put you off contributing here (or elsewhere on Wikipedia), but I wanted to explain why some of your changes may get reverted, or further altered.

Thanks Mozzy66 (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Dear Colleague,

I effected those changes based upon the cited sources.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, and thanks I saw what you just did with the earthly pleasures / vanity issue, that is now well improved! Thanks Mozzy66 (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Another recent edit concern

I wonder about the statement that next to the musicians "stands the poet Pietro Aretino considering a glass of the new red wine." The scholar who has studied the influence of Aretino on Veronese, Philipp Fehl, believes that the bearded guest looking up on the right side of the painting is Aretino, and most of the studies who talk about the character studying his glass of wine believe him to be the artist's brother and assistant, Benedetto Caliari. (See Philipp P. Fehl, Veronese’s Decorum : Notes on the Marriage at Cana. P341, Art the Ape of nature: Studies in Honor of H.W.Janson. Harry Abrams NY 1981.)

I'm not convinced that either the wine connoisseur or the bearded guy looking up can be positively identified as Aretino. They both have beards, but that's the closest I can come to that conclusion. Perhaps we would best leave out identifying Aretino completely or at least acknowledge that the identity of the connoisseur is debated.Jimhale821 (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

reply

Dear Colleague:

Read the sources cited herein; thus the changes.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jimhale821, so, specifically the references http://www.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/painting/6/ and https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/wedding-feast-cana support that according to 18th Century legend the one standing there is Aretino, and so that supports what is written in the section *The banquet*, as that bit puts it in the context of this being legend. However, if other scholars dispute this part of the legend, that can probably be a good addition in a following sentence, with appropriate citation.

However, I do agree we should remove the reference to Aretino in the later section headed *bottom-right-quarter* - since it lacks the proviso of being according to legend, and is repetitive. And I also think that caption to the detail image of the musicians should also not refer to Aretino, since that figure is only partly in the image. At the moment the page refers to Aretino 3 times, - and he may not even be in the painting! Mozzy66 (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)