So what do we know about these two paintings already from previous articles?
First, the Haller Madonna is the missing Last Judgment of Dürer’s Apocalypse, his Judgment. Second the Haller Madonna was commissioned by one of the six Haller lineages, but no one knows which, as a reward to Albrecht Dürer for job well done in his Apocalypse publication. Little did they know how art can be used as a weapon when the hatred is volcanic.
Second, the Last Judgment message is being given by Albrecht Dürer, he is making his statement as to what the Last Judgment of the Apocalypse should be under the circumstances of why the Apocalypse was forced upon him to make.
Third, the painting of Lot Fleeing Sodom is an integral part to the whole message of what Dürer’s Last Judgement message is. The messages in both paintings can not be separated and must be interpreted as a whole commentary.
Fourth, there are extremely squeamish subversive messages being given in this actual diptych (which just happens to be on two different sides of the same canvas). Don’t shoot the messenger if you don’t like what you read here.
Fifth, Albrecht Dürer was not working alone either on the Apocalypse or these two paintings. There is definitely a co-artist in the Lot painting and posibly two, with Albrecht’s blessing, which the monogram in the Lot painting tells us. This co-artist continued to work with Albrecht until 1514 and was leaving messages in her own right whether Albrecht approved or not-Margret Dürerin.
Sixth, the original emblem in the lower right hand corner of the Haller Madonna is probably a merchant’s mark but it could me another coded message. Was it one that belonged to the Hallers?, or did they let Albrecht Dürer get away with leaving this merchant mark emblem either as an honor to him or as payment due. After all Dürer had been given so much special attention and dispensation from the laws by the City Council, it’s not unreasonable to consider this idea. The answers are probably buried in the Nuremberg City Archives. Only further research into what is at this emblem will give us answers but the faint outline of a Jewish six painted star can still me seen.
Seventh, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the Christ Child is giving “the finger” (which repeats in in other Dürer artworks, especially Adam and Eva) no matter how anyone wants to ignore the finger position and it’s derogatory meaning, which was as common back then as it is now. The only odd thing is the Christ Child is giving this finger upside down, which happened to be a typical medieval Jewish magical “backward” positioning of the real gesture that should be upright. Jews were as superstitious as Christians and in their magical incantations, everything had to be backward. So Christ’s middle finger is shown upside down instead of right side up. The question remains is Christ giving his mother the “finger” or the world the finger?
Eight, when we enlarge (no pun intended) the penis of Jesus in this painting there’s some very strange symbols. First, even though everyone knows today that Jesus was Jewish, that was ignored in the Renaissance. He should have been depicted circumcised for accuracy and he is not because accuracy was not important to the society, just the propaganda. Now we can chalk up this anomaly to the mores of the day, that representing Jesus circumcised would have been very bad form in such a Catholic society . But by not doing it, we’re back to the issue of Jewish magic being backwards, Jesus should be circumcised, he is not (he wouldn’t have been presented by his Jewish mother Mary publicly until this covenant had been performed, which brings us right back to the backwards Jewish magic symbols).
And now we get into what can be very shocking to people, especially Christians, but the following enlargement from the Haller Madonna has only been enlarged as much as possible to avoid pixilation.
There are two more things extremely strange about the depiction of this Christ Child’s penis. In the blue box on the scrotum there is either missing paint or there is a symbol as yet to be decoded. We will only know when the National Gallery of Art gives us a definitive answers if it’s actually missing paint, then it means nothing, unless the missing paint was done on purpose by someone who “realized.” The red arrow points to something very controversial to discuss. And that is the bump on the side of the sheath on the penis.
Assuming Christ is supposed to represent perfection, and should be represented with a “perfect” penile sheath, normal pictures of baby penile sheaths do not normally have bumps on their sides (trust me I did research this by images-no giggles please, wasn’t my fondest type of research). This type of bump, after being sent to scientists for opinions indicate that this bump could represent a syphilitic lesion that only gets passed to the child when the mother is infected. And that’s where the controversy certainly starts, for that changes the entire story about Virgin Mary, if this is actually representing any type of sexually transmitted lesion. I’ll leave the controversy at that point for others to speculate because it becomes so controversial at this point and my intent is not to be raising emotional religious dogma reactions among viewers.
The final strange thing about the Haller Madonna is the pillow in green and red. The entire pillow is depicted in green and yet there is a purposeful opening that is red. We can see that the underneath part is green so why is Dürer specifically bringing our attention to the inside of the pillow which is red with matching red tassels? What’s the meaning of this red clue? Red and Green were colors of peasant clothing.
The Lot story tells us thus:
The biblical God chose to save the Jews no matter what perils they faced from anyone even with a reprobate like Lot, the Nuremberg City Council and the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian. It appears at least two Dürers painted Lot, Albrecht and the co-artist, his sister Margret, erased from history on purpose, made this painting and possibly three Dürers (Agnes II). Margret is the woman in charge, the oldest and so she becomes the mother of Moab, Agnes II the mother of the Ammonites, a homosexual clue.
The issue of incest is raised since the story of Lot indicates that both maidens have to seduce their drunk father and get impregnated for humanity to continue. Is this evil or not? And did Albrecht commit incest with Margret, the spinster, who never got married as proved by the Nuremberg Death Registries and was forced to go live in Albrecht’s house in 1502 under the nose of his wife Agnes? By 1498, Dürer does tell us in another print that there is not going to be any legitimate children with his wife Agnes and as the offspring of his brother’s marriages died in childhood according to the Nuremberg Death Registries, no legitimate surviving children of the the 18 Dürer siblings survived.
Did this mean Dürer’s legitimate lineage would died out? As co-artists, Albrecht and Margret were working very close together until the first apprentices showed up in 1502. But by 1504 Margret was pregnant by another, wich we find out in Adam and Eva.
If this incest occurred, which could have been on a regular basis, a child of Albrecht and Margret was probably not conceived until 1510-1511, when Dürer starts again in a flurry of activity and we get three of the “backward “d” monograms clues about childbirth in the Small Passion, which indicates Margret’s hand or influence. Was this child the savior for both of them, since Margret already had an illegitimate daughter by her former lover (which will be revealed in Adam and Eva).
The final secret of what these two paintings taken together will be revealed after Adam and Eva is explained and the significance of the three “Backward “d” monograms in the Small Passion.
There is one last issue which I am currently investigating: could any of the pigments used in these paintings give off toxic or poison fumes once the paint had dried? That would have been the ultimate gift of Dürer to his enemies, paint very carefully (as he actually wrote about he did withhis 1521 St Jerome painting-he painted it very carefully), give painting to those who probably would have set them up in a private chapel where they might get damp, ultimately posioning them if dried poisonous pigment can be reactivated, and their families in the end, similar to the Borgias?
Had Dürer learned anything from the Borgias or Medicis while in Venice? At this point perhaps this is true but until I get some reilable scholastic evidence I will only leave this as a tantalizing thought for all-a hypothesis. I’m currently focusing on blue and red, cyanide and arsenic, but the color greens and lead white were very toxic and dangerous. And of course, Bellini was grinding up glass in his pigments, so that’s an extra variable. All help is welcome if anyone knows.
BUY THE BOOK! CRIMES IN THE ART: THE SECRET CIPHER OF ALBRECHT DÜRER
Copyright by Dr. Elizabeth Garner, all rights reserved worldwide, October 2, 2013