The Magdalen Reading is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 22, 2011. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Found this in a google books search, page 16 - Reading women = sexuality. Don't know what to think of that, but it references van der Weyden's Magdalen. [1]. Anyway, thought I'd share. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 01:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I posted this on Ceoil's Talk. Now I realise it belongs on Talk of Magdalen Reading:
The book Rogier Van der Weyden: Master of Passion by Lorne Campbell & Jan van der Stock, 2009, Davidsfonds/Leuven, illustrates the NG Magdalen, the Gulbenkian St Joseph (?), St Catherine (?), and the Stockholm drawing, "Virgin and Child with St John the Baptist, St John the Evangelist, and a Bishop Saint". This book is catalogue of exhibition Rogier van der Weyden, Master of Passion at Leuven M Museum, Sep-Dec 2009. In catalogue, NG Magdalen and Gulbenkian St Joseph are no. 56 (p.441) and identified as "Two Fragments from a Virgin and Child with Six Saints". Stockholm drawing is no. 57 (p.445), and commentary on drawing suggests that NG Magdalen and Gulbenkian Joseph "both represent the altarpiece's right-hand side – which is not worked out in the drawing – the Stockholm drawing and the Lisbon fragment provide an image of its left side". Thus the Stockholm drawing shows the whole of robe of St John the Evangelist, which appears on left side of NG Magdalen. And head of Gulbenkian Joseph fits onto body which is behind NG Magdalen. Catalogue states "The pen drawing is regarded as a copy after an altarpiece by Rogier van der Weyden with a seated Virgin and Child surrounded by a number of saints". In the Stockholm drawing, the figures are (left to right) Bishop, St John the Baptist, Virgin and Child, St John the Evangelist. There is a line between Bishop and St John the Baptist, and catalogue suggests that is where Gulbenkian Catherine (?) might have fitted.
The implications of this drawing for article is cloak on left of Magdalen is that of St John the Evangelist. Commentary on Stockholm drawing in Leuven catalogue (p.447) also states "To the left of the Magdalen fragment not only is part of a red garment visible - whose drapery folds correspond well with John the Evangelist's cloak on the Stockholm drawing - but the Evangelist's right foot and the right corner of the Virgin's settle can also be seen".
Johnbod commented on Ceoil's Talk: Campbell's big NG catalogue has both the Stockholm drawing & a reconstruction drawing of the whole altarpiece, based on Ward (pp 398-99). I'll edit up from this but not today. ...so I'll wait for Johnbod's edit, and then make suggestions if I spot anything. Mick gold ( talk) 14:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll move this to Virgin and Child with Saints (van der Weyden), or some variant of that title, and change the direction to the whole piece. I say this because I'm not so sure of the correct article title and would appreciate input, rather than article history hell. Ceoil 13:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
TK, you said on my talk in late Dec that the fact that her hair was unbound was very 'significant' or in other words damning, and Campbell touches on this though not to a great extent in the books I have, so far. The fact that she is not given a high forehead is also telling I suppose. Can you remember where you found that. ta. Ceoil 03:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
White headdress signifies mourning for upper class 15th century women. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 03:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Should the "Description" section come before "Altarpiece fragment"? It's a better lead-in to the main body of the article. Also, the last paragraph of "Altarpiece fragment" would be better as the first paragraph. Riggr Mortis ( talk) 21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Footnote 4: Davies and Ward have published, in 1954 and 1971 respectively, diagrammatic reconstructions of the altarpiece based on evidence available of the time
The References section does not include a 1954 publication by Davies. Should the date be 1957? Aa77zz ( talk) 14:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Starting to work my way through the FAC & am leaving a few comments here.
Probably more later. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 14:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
A possible representation of Saint Catherine of Alexandria, it is of lower quality than the other two known fragments. - Thoes that mean unfinished? If so that would cast the splitting in a different light to what I'd thought. Ceoil 20:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Re the information requested for the transfer, here is a snippet view of the transfer date. In case I'm the only person who can see this, or it disappears as gbook pages do, it says: "The Magdalen Reading was transferred in the nineteenth century on to a mahogany panel; the presence of artificial ultramarine in the transfer ground indicates that is was transferred after 1830. It was certainly originally on oak since another fragment from the altarpiece, still on the oak panel, survives in Lisbon". (Source: The National Gallery Technical Bulletin, volume 18, 1997, The National Gallery.) I can't find any information on who did the transfer or where it was done. TK (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
We now have 6 "notes" & I think 3 "refs" that are not just citations (all added by me, I'm afraid). None of them are really long. Personally, unless it is a note of several hundred words, I prefer everything in the same section, & I think 9 short notes is rather too many. But I don't feel strongly. Thoughts? Johnbod ( talk) 01:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the recent FAC requests, I don't know what sources you guys have, but I've found a Davies pdf (unfortunately from 1937) with a short para on the condition of the painting; a page from Campbell (extremely hard to read) about the 1811 sale, but maybe not readable since we live in different countries. Anyway, it can be used to cite the 1811 sale, but I can't read the page well enough (Snippet view!) to see whether he mentions the false attribution. Also maybe of interest is this information about flaxseed oils; although I do think we need to be careful of falling into the trap of adding too many factoids. Also, we can at least cite the dating to Ward, the only good source I have available, unless one of you has access to information in Campbell. Anyway, I'm in and out for the day, but if no one else gets to these earlier or responds, I'll make some changes tonight. TK (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment... I don't know how much of the lead was freshly changed, but some problematic sentences:
Thanks, Riggr Mortis ( talk) 04:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
From Rogier van der Weyden: Volume 1, Brussels. Musée communal, 1979: "This Saint Joseph fragment is undoubtedly the missing part of the London picture , as the folds of his garment and the ... Panofsky placed the painting of Mary Magdalene Reading after 1436-37, that is after the Descent from the Crosss...".
Is the black & white image from the one of the pdfs I sent? Trying to get this right in my head and it would help if I actually read them and looked at the images ... TK (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Well done... Modernist ( talk) 16:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
What are the depictions of the "other depictions" section depicting? If its supposed to be other depictions of Mary Magdalen, the Mérode Altarpiece depicts the virgin Mary, not Mary Magdalen. This needs some explanation at the least. Otherwise, it is quite confusing. Kaldari ( talk) 02:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The article currently contradicts itself:
Clearly the figure which is holding the book before Christ is not Saint Catherine, since it is (#1) a man, and (#2) standing rather than kneeling. The first sentence should probably be removed. Kaldari ( talk) 02:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If there were problems, which there were none, the source check at FAC would have mentioned them. The recent edits to the references aren't necessary, but worse they introduce inconsistencies, which do have to be eliminated per FAC, and templates, that the main article contributors didn't use. I'll be working on them. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 21:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure I understand "By the medieval period, reading became synonymous with seeing and was understood to involve withdrawal from public view." That she is reading signals she is penitent, or that she is reading signals she is unseen, or that she separates herself from her surroundings? From the previous paragraph I expected the article to say reading had become synonymous with weeping, but I have no idea if that is so. Maybe someone with a better grasp can clarify. Tom Harrison Talk 13:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The "Master of the Koberger" what? An illustrator for the printer Koberger? Too garbled to fix.-- Wetman ( talk) 16:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
What is a "glass of rosary beads"? One sees the rosary beads in the saint's hand. Something's been lost here and I can't tell what.-- Wetman ( talk) 17:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Surely one of the sources must make the more obvious suggestion that the painting was dismembered to retrieve some value after main areas had been irreparably damaged. Rogier's reputation before 1811 was not high enough to cut up a painting for increased value, as our article says. The brown overpainting of the background, it should be noticed somewhere, made out of this palpable fragment a complete and autonomous work of art, which improved its nineteenth-century market value.-- Wetman ( talk) 18:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I see this has been in the article almost from the start. It does need a citation I think. Incidentally the original edit talked about eyebrows https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Magdalen_Reading&diff=400780496&oldid=400779494. Amanda Jane Mason ( talk) 04:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
"I despised pale girls except the ones who had faces
Which blossomed to pink of the rose with a quiet blush.
Venus herself prefers this tint before other,
The Cyprian loves her flower wherever it grows.
Bright golden hair and a lowered milk-white neck
Seems to be found rather more with an innocent face.
Eyebrows coal black, bold features, langurous eyes
Would set my heart on fire whenever I saw them.
I have loved bright-red, slightly pouting lips,
Which when I tasted them gave me a full round kiss."
I've added a quote from Panofsky, which at least directs the reader to a sensible observation about the image.
To introduce the portraits here is quite wrong. These all (including the donor portraits) date from a later period, when to a certain extent Roger had returned to the Gothic tradition and where equally no doubt he was at pains to flatter his subject and achieve the effect of "pious nobility" that Lorne Campbell refers to.
But what really is relevant here is Descent from the Cross done a year or two previously and where the figures certainly are Flammélesque (i.e. in the style of Roger's master Robert Campin and breaking with the Gothic tradition). The figure on the right is Mary Magdalen and on a score out of 3 for pale skin, high cheekbones and oval eyelids I would make that a round zero (perhaps a ½ conceding the natural tendency of eyelids to ovalness). I'll see if I can find a detail to put it in the gallery.
It's quite lamentable that so much emphasis is placed on Magdalen as harlot. It's not in that tradition at all. Rather it's in the pre-conversion tradition where Magdalen is represented in fine clothing emphasising her wealth. Reading in woman was not all associated with harlotry in medieval times. Nor was it uncommon, and there was a tradition of pious women reading stretching back centuries before, Hildegard of Bingen immediately coming to mind while it's an icon of St. Catherine for example.
However I'm not going to edit the text. I'm fond of my horse, though of course everyone likes being on TV :). 31.6.8.177 ( talk) 09:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
If someone would care to lift the protected template (really Ruhrfish must imagine Wikpedia is mow her private picture book ...) I can now add Lorne Campbell's limited acknowledgment of the Magdalen's sinful past from the National Gallery catalogue. He thinks the cloth-of-gold underdress and the elaborate belt might refer to the Magdalen's sinful past.
He makes a number of other interesting remarks; notably that the Magdalen's eyes are blue, something you can't see even in the high resolution pic Immy uploaded. A number of remarks from Campbell's catalogue entry have been incorporate in the text, the tiny figure a miracle of painting for example, but not that.
" ... in medieval art the Magdalen is usually depicted naked or in richly coloured dress, typically red, blue or green, almost never in white." Naked in medieval art? erm ... I don't really think so. Off the top of my head, Titian's 1565 Penitent Magdalen would be a first there. Still if it's in Ruhrfish's Bumper Book of Saintly Boobs, who am I to quibble? What would Ruskin have said (and he would wished for a lot more than just a waxed bonnet line incidentally - it's not commonly known I believe that Ruskin took over the grooming of Alice Liddell after Lewis Carroll had done with her, though there is an allusion in her BDP)?
Still one mustn't blog on. I'll get one of my lackeys to fill in the details if this stays R's private fief.
Pip, pip! 103.17.199.105 ( talk) 11:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The Magdalen Reading - Rogier van der Weyden.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 2, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-03-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 02:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Magdalen Reading. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Magdalen Reading. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The Magdalen Reading is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 22, 2011. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Found this in a google books search, page 16 - Reading women = sexuality. Don't know what to think of that, but it references van der Weyden's Magdalen. [1]. Anyway, thought I'd share. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 01:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I posted this on Ceoil's Talk. Now I realise it belongs on Talk of Magdalen Reading:
The book Rogier Van der Weyden: Master of Passion by Lorne Campbell & Jan van der Stock, 2009, Davidsfonds/Leuven, illustrates the NG Magdalen, the Gulbenkian St Joseph (?), St Catherine (?), and the Stockholm drawing, "Virgin and Child with St John the Baptist, St John the Evangelist, and a Bishop Saint". This book is catalogue of exhibition Rogier van der Weyden, Master of Passion at Leuven M Museum, Sep-Dec 2009. In catalogue, NG Magdalen and Gulbenkian St Joseph are no. 56 (p.441) and identified as "Two Fragments from a Virgin and Child with Six Saints". Stockholm drawing is no. 57 (p.445), and commentary on drawing suggests that NG Magdalen and Gulbenkian Joseph "both represent the altarpiece's right-hand side – which is not worked out in the drawing – the Stockholm drawing and the Lisbon fragment provide an image of its left side". Thus the Stockholm drawing shows the whole of robe of St John the Evangelist, which appears on left side of NG Magdalen. And head of Gulbenkian Joseph fits onto body which is behind NG Magdalen. Catalogue states "The pen drawing is regarded as a copy after an altarpiece by Rogier van der Weyden with a seated Virgin and Child surrounded by a number of saints". In the Stockholm drawing, the figures are (left to right) Bishop, St John the Baptist, Virgin and Child, St John the Evangelist. There is a line between Bishop and St John the Baptist, and catalogue suggests that is where Gulbenkian Catherine (?) might have fitted.
The implications of this drawing for article is cloak on left of Magdalen is that of St John the Evangelist. Commentary on Stockholm drawing in Leuven catalogue (p.447) also states "To the left of the Magdalen fragment not only is part of a red garment visible - whose drapery folds correspond well with John the Evangelist's cloak on the Stockholm drawing - but the Evangelist's right foot and the right corner of the Virgin's settle can also be seen".
Johnbod commented on Ceoil's Talk: Campbell's big NG catalogue has both the Stockholm drawing & a reconstruction drawing of the whole altarpiece, based on Ward (pp 398-99). I'll edit up from this but not today. ...so I'll wait for Johnbod's edit, and then make suggestions if I spot anything. Mick gold ( talk) 14:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll move this to Virgin and Child with Saints (van der Weyden), or some variant of that title, and change the direction to the whole piece. I say this because I'm not so sure of the correct article title and would appreciate input, rather than article history hell. Ceoil 13:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
TK, you said on my talk in late Dec that the fact that her hair was unbound was very 'significant' or in other words damning, and Campbell touches on this though not to a great extent in the books I have, so far. The fact that she is not given a high forehead is also telling I suppose. Can you remember where you found that. ta. Ceoil 03:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
White headdress signifies mourning for upper class 15th century women. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 03:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Should the "Description" section come before "Altarpiece fragment"? It's a better lead-in to the main body of the article. Also, the last paragraph of "Altarpiece fragment" would be better as the first paragraph. Riggr Mortis ( talk) 21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Footnote 4: Davies and Ward have published, in 1954 and 1971 respectively, diagrammatic reconstructions of the altarpiece based on evidence available of the time
The References section does not include a 1954 publication by Davies. Should the date be 1957? Aa77zz ( talk) 14:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Starting to work my way through the FAC & am leaving a few comments here.
Probably more later. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 14:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
A possible representation of Saint Catherine of Alexandria, it is of lower quality than the other two known fragments. - Thoes that mean unfinished? If so that would cast the splitting in a different light to what I'd thought. Ceoil 20:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Re the information requested for the transfer, here is a snippet view of the transfer date. In case I'm the only person who can see this, or it disappears as gbook pages do, it says: "The Magdalen Reading was transferred in the nineteenth century on to a mahogany panel; the presence of artificial ultramarine in the transfer ground indicates that is was transferred after 1830. It was certainly originally on oak since another fragment from the altarpiece, still on the oak panel, survives in Lisbon". (Source: The National Gallery Technical Bulletin, volume 18, 1997, The National Gallery.) I can't find any information on who did the transfer or where it was done. TK (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
We now have 6 "notes" & I think 3 "refs" that are not just citations (all added by me, I'm afraid). None of them are really long. Personally, unless it is a note of several hundred words, I prefer everything in the same section, & I think 9 short notes is rather too many. But I don't feel strongly. Thoughts? Johnbod ( talk) 01:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the recent FAC requests, I don't know what sources you guys have, but I've found a Davies pdf (unfortunately from 1937) with a short para on the condition of the painting; a page from Campbell (extremely hard to read) about the 1811 sale, but maybe not readable since we live in different countries. Anyway, it can be used to cite the 1811 sale, but I can't read the page well enough (Snippet view!) to see whether he mentions the false attribution. Also maybe of interest is this information about flaxseed oils; although I do think we need to be careful of falling into the trap of adding too many factoids. Also, we can at least cite the dating to Ward, the only good source I have available, unless one of you has access to information in Campbell. Anyway, I'm in and out for the day, but if no one else gets to these earlier or responds, I'll make some changes tonight. TK (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment... I don't know how much of the lead was freshly changed, but some problematic sentences:
Thanks, Riggr Mortis ( talk) 04:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
From Rogier van der Weyden: Volume 1, Brussels. Musée communal, 1979: "This Saint Joseph fragment is undoubtedly the missing part of the London picture , as the folds of his garment and the ... Panofsky placed the painting of Mary Magdalene Reading after 1436-37, that is after the Descent from the Crosss...".
Is the black & white image from the one of the pdfs I sent? Trying to get this right in my head and it would help if I actually read them and looked at the images ... TK (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Well done... Modernist ( talk) 16:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
What are the depictions of the "other depictions" section depicting? If its supposed to be other depictions of Mary Magdalen, the Mérode Altarpiece depicts the virgin Mary, not Mary Magdalen. This needs some explanation at the least. Otherwise, it is quite confusing. Kaldari ( talk) 02:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The article currently contradicts itself:
Clearly the figure which is holding the book before Christ is not Saint Catherine, since it is (#1) a man, and (#2) standing rather than kneeling. The first sentence should probably be removed. Kaldari ( talk) 02:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If there were problems, which there were none, the source check at FAC would have mentioned them. The recent edits to the references aren't necessary, but worse they introduce inconsistencies, which do have to be eliminated per FAC, and templates, that the main article contributors didn't use. I'll be working on them. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 21:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure I understand "By the medieval period, reading became synonymous with seeing and was understood to involve withdrawal from public view." That she is reading signals she is penitent, or that she is reading signals she is unseen, or that she separates herself from her surroundings? From the previous paragraph I expected the article to say reading had become synonymous with weeping, but I have no idea if that is so. Maybe someone with a better grasp can clarify. Tom Harrison Talk 13:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The "Master of the Koberger" what? An illustrator for the printer Koberger? Too garbled to fix.-- Wetman ( talk) 16:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
What is a "glass of rosary beads"? One sees the rosary beads in the saint's hand. Something's been lost here and I can't tell what.-- Wetman ( talk) 17:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Surely one of the sources must make the more obvious suggestion that the painting was dismembered to retrieve some value after main areas had been irreparably damaged. Rogier's reputation before 1811 was not high enough to cut up a painting for increased value, as our article says. The brown overpainting of the background, it should be noticed somewhere, made out of this palpable fragment a complete and autonomous work of art, which improved its nineteenth-century market value.-- Wetman ( talk) 18:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I see this has been in the article almost from the start. It does need a citation I think. Incidentally the original edit talked about eyebrows https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Magdalen_Reading&diff=400780496&oldid=400779494. Amanda Jane Mason ( talk) 04:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
"I despised pale girls except the ones who had faces
Which blossomed to pink of the rose with a quiet blush.
Venus herself prefers this tint before other,
The Cyprian loves her flower wherever it grows.
Bright golden hair and a lowered milk-white neck
Seems to be found rather more with an innocent face.
Eyebrows coal black, bold features, langurous eyes
Would set my heart on fire whenever I saw them.
I have loved bright-red, slightly pouting lips,
Which when I tasted them gave me a full round kiss."
I've added a quote from Panofsky, which at least directs the reader to a sensible observation about the image.
To introduce the portraits here is quite wrong. These all (including the donor portraits) date from a later period, when to a certain extent Roger had returned to the Gothic tradition and where equally no doubt he was at pains to flatter his subject and achieve the effect of "pious nobility" that Lorne Campbell refers to.
But what really is relevant here is Descent from the Cross done a year or two previously and where the figures certainly are Flammélesque (i.e. in the style of Roger's master Robert Campin and breaking with the Gothic tradition). The figure on the right is Mary Magdalen and on a score out of 3 for pale skin, high cheekbones and oval eyelids I would make that a round zero (perhaps a ½ conceding the natural tendency of eyelids to ovalness). I'll see if I can find a detail to put it in the gallery.
It's quite lamentable that so much emphasis is placed on Magdalen as harlot. It's not in that tradition at all. Rather it's in the pre-conversion tradition where Magdalen is represented in fine clothing emphasising her wealth. Reading in woman was not all associated with harlotry in medieval times. Nor was it uncommon, and there was a tradition of pious women reading stretching back centuries before, Hildegard of Bingen immediately coming to mind while it's an icon of St. Catherine for example.
However I'm not going to edit the text. I'm fond of my horse, though of course everyone likes being on TV :). 31.6.8.177 ( talk) 09:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
If someone would care to lift the protected template (really Ruhrfish must imagine Wikpedia is mow her private picture book ...) I can now add Lorne Campbell's limited acknowledgment of the Magdalen's sinful past from the National Gallery catalogue. He thinks the cloth-of-gold underdress and the elaborate belt might refer to the Magdalen's sinful past.
He makes a number of other interesting remarks; notably that the Magdalen's eyes are blue, something you can't see even in the high resolution pic Immy uploaded. A number of remarks from Campbell's catalogue entry have been incorporate in the text, the tiny figure a miracle of painting for example, but not that.
" ... in medieval art the Magdalen is usually depicted naked or in richly coloured dress, typically red, blue or green, almost never in white." Naked in medieval art? erm ... I don't really think so. Off the top of my head, Titian's 1565 Penitent Magdalen would be a first there. Still if it's in Ruhrfish's Bumper Book of Saintly Boobs, who am I to quibble? What would Ruskin have said (and he would wished for a lot more than just a waxed bonnet line incidentally - it's not commonly known I believe that Ruskin took over the grooming of Alice Liddell after Lewis Carroll had done with her, though there is an allusion in her BDP)?
Still one mustn't blog on. I'll get one of my lackeys to fill in the details if this stays R's private fief.
Pip, pip! 103.17.199.105 ( talk) 11:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The Magdalen Reading - Rogier van der Weyden.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 2, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-03-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 02:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Magdalen Reading. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Magdalen Reading. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)