Talk:The Magdalen Reading

Implications of Stockholm drawing
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)

Page move
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)
 * Indeed! Virgin and Child with Saints (van der Weyden fragments) is probably not proper WP style, but might be clearer. There are other bits I can add, on workshop vs master's elements etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As good as this work is, the speculation is a v good hook, and its own story. As you say, there should prob be a clarifier in the title. Ceoil  13:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Three possible fragments from Virgin [?] and Child [?] with an unknown number of uncertain Saints [?] (mostly van der Weyden or workshop) (as imagined by art historians in the 1970s) Ceoil  13:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That'll do nicely! Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, but if I get blocked on AN/I for this mess, your going down too. Ceoil  14:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've though this over a fair bit and decided to give the alterpiece a seperate page, and not morph this one. The alterpiece article will likely be very technical and speculative, and the MM fragment is far more notable in its own right and does not desreve to be buried within it. But have a lot of material now for the larger work, the difficulty will be rational for incuding Wards reconstruction. Have asked J Milburn who said - if there was significant discussion of the modern reproductions, rather than just "some modern artists have attempted to recreate it", then the use of the modern reproductions in the appropriate section (though the lead should remain a free image, perhaps a compilation of the original pieces) would probably be appropriate. That sounds fair, hopeful and entirely possible to me. Ceoil  04:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hair / headdress
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)
 * Okay - will look for it again and post here. Purely speculative of course, but the plucked forehead was high fashion, high status, and a saint wouldn't, I don't think, be depicted in the haute couture of the 16th century, although her dress is nice. The unbound hair signifies that she's not married and also is an icon for MM's sexuality and her past as a prostitute - I think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In your own time, dear. Tap, tap, tap ;). Also wondering outloud, is there a name for the type of headress she is wearing, and does it, as I suspect denote class, status. Ceoil  04:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I think it's unusual. I think she's wearing a coif under the veil which is a modified wimple but her neck isn't covered. Because she was saint and sinner she's depicted as both, I think. Saintly in that her hair is covered (mostly), sinner in that her hair is showing and her neck is bare (showing skin). At least that's my interpretation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right...depicted as both, there are only one or two strands loose. Thanks for the coif and wimple info. Ceoil  05:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually think her hair is completely unbound even though van der Weyden only shows a little hair. The high res image shows it better on both shoulders - but the thing about binding hair, braiding, plaiting, whatever, is that it's either bound or not - no in-betweens. An unmarried woman might have had her hair unbound during this period - a chaste married woman, not at all. Still searching for sources on this - am a bit slow atm. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems right, but the Magdalen, like royal saints like Catherine of Alexandria, may be shown in high-fashion. A few decades later the fancy clothes of the Magdalen can become rather a parody as here. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This Titian shows her in exile, hair unbound, with her book resting on a skull. Btw - Johnbod that is a great image - early 16th century haute couture gone crazy! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

White headdress signifies mourning for upper class 15th century women. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Her headdress appears to be finished with fluted pleats. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

points
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)

Davies 1954
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)
 * Sounds right. Ceoil? 1957 is right for the work in the references. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for spotting. Ceoil  22:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments
Starting to work my way through the FAC & am leaving a few comments here.
 * Ward explains the reason for the pre 1438 & most likely 1435 date, so perhaps cite to him with an explanatory note?
 * Certainly, Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The biblical quote wasn't in the iconography section as written, but would be nice to keep if we can find the correct verse, otherwise can we do without it?
 * I think "in which the eyes of sinners turn contrite and tearful when forgiven by Jesus." is an artistic convention, a source for which has already been asked for in the FAC. The sentence needs clarifying. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can find Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence comes from the source, but will rework the section to clarify. The source does not mention the bible verse. Can't remember when or why that was added. TK   (talk)  16:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably more later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do have access to a high res version of the painting but need to find.

Question
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)
 * Just done by an assistant, which many bits of vdW's were. See the comments on the various figures in the Exhumation of St Whatever in Campbell's NG cat. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Saint Hubert. Not very intersesting, no. Ceoil  00:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Still looking for that, but re the red triangle of cloth - on page 32 Ward writes that it was painted out when Catherine was cut out, but it's visible in the drawing. Prob should clarify that, either in the text or in a note. Also Ward dates it at 1437 (p. 27), but I don't know what Campbell says. TK   (talk)  21:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The drawing is colourless, though surely. I'm wondering why the NG did not clean until 1955. Was x-ray not available, or has van der Weydens stock risen so much since than that any artifact would be, not literaly, turned inside out. Ceoil  23:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The curator of the Gulbenkian took Catherine out of the frame to photograph for Ward. On the right edge is a faint form that corresponds with "the leftmost fold of the Evangelist's drapery in the Stockholm drawing." (p. 32) I have no idea how we know his drapery is red. Also according to Ward (p.27) it was x-rayed when it was cleaned in 1955.   TK   (talk)  23:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We know his drapery is red because the right-hand side is in the London picture; "corresponds" means shape here presumably. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course. Thanks. Ceoil  00:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Transfer
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)
 * Campbell's catalogue says the transfer was "Certainly after 1828, probably after 1845, and certainly before 1860" when the NG acquired it (p. 394). He adds that the mahogany is West Indian swietenia. I'll add. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Notes & refs
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)


 * I think you're right, it is quite a few. But I think we have to be consistent: either have 9 notes, move them all to refs, or integrate some into the text if possible. For the moment I've formatted as columns (easily undone) which looks a bit better with shorter bits of text. Let's wait for Ceoil's opinion. I'm don't care as long as it's consistent.  TK   (talk)  01:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont really mind either way. At a push I'd say integrate the two. Ceoil  18:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Ceoil  23:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC requests
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)
 * Had the Campbell book ordered from Waterstones a month ago, went in to collect it yesterday and they had messed up the order. Its promised to get here in a few days, prob thursday. For now I've removed mention of Lucas, and cited the 1811 sale to the snippit, though Darwent is obviously repeating mostly Campbell. Not ideal, but it will hold until I actually have the book itself. I actually had it in my hand in London last month, but it seemed too big and heavy to carry home on the plane (thanks Ryan Air). Ceoil  23:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok - leave it with me - didn't realize you didn't have it yet. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That must be disappointing. I would have gone down to the university library to find it. But anyway, looks like it's done now, so that's good.  TK   (talk)  23:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't say anything, as they had gone to a lot of trouble on price, and I know the guy for a good few years, it was his big favour to me. Plebs in Cork not left in to the University library. 23:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not let in either - or let in I think, but not to borrow. Would have taken pen & paper to take notes, and take a picture with my phone. Anything would be better than the snippet view.  TK   (talk)  23:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you send a copy of the Davies pdf; you might have already sent but have an unfamiliar email client at the moment. Ceoil  01:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, haven't, will do now. TK   (talk)  01:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. 01:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, sending this off to you as well. The wiki servers have been sluggish for me since last night and down for most of today, so only getting to this now.  TK   (talk)  14:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment... I don't know how much of the lead was freshly changed, but some problematic sentences:
 * "often depicted with ... reading".
 * added a comma "often depicted with tears, averted eyes, and reading." Is that ok? Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant here is that the sentence parses as a list beginning with "with": "In Catholic tradition the Magdalen was ... often depicted with [1] tears, [2] averted eyes and [3] reading." 'Often depicted with reading'? This is not idiomatic to me. "Often depicted with tears and averted eyes, reading" would clarify the construction for example. Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "It was not until a thick layer of brown/black paint was cleaned from the panel between 1955 and 1956 that the standing male figure directly behind her, the kneeling figure with her cloak to the back of her, and a landscape visible through a window were revealed." -- this takes a long time to say "revealed". Since it's the lead, could you simply say "much of the background" and move the detail into the body (where it is not currently mentioned, I don't think).
 * Maybe, but that would involve moving most of the para, which then talks about the figures. What do people think? Campbell just says "brown" paint - surely it waqsn't black? So now just "brown". Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sentence could also become active voiced -- "... cleaning revealed ..." -- but would probably need to be split into two if approached that way. Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be made active. Will have a go at it. TK   (talk)  23:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The drawing shows that the semicircular space occupied by the Magdalen was positioned at the lower right-hand corner of the canvas. It indicates that the Magdalen would have been positioned on the lower right corner of the altarpiece." Could the repetition be avoided with "The drawing shows that the semicircular space occupied by (?) the Magdalen was positioned at the lower right-hand corner of both the original canvas [panel?] and the entire altarpiece."
 * Done, slightly differently. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ceoil and I rewrote a few nights ago, but ran into some trouble with edit conflicts which I think may have caused the problems. I wouldn't mind having the detail of the background in the description section. We can take another run through this afternoon.  TK   (talk)  14:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Inspiration

 * Campbell & Stock 2009:444 write "The Magdalen herself was inspired by the Virgin in the Flémallesque Annunciation in the Brussels museum." I assume that this refers to this painting. Is this worth mentioning?
 * Note that the Annunciation in the article gallery is not identical to the one in Brussels. The face in the Brussels picture is much more similar to the Magdalen. Aa77zz (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is the best image we seem to have of the Brussels one. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The sentence on the condition of the painting in the Description section beginning "In 1937, Martin Davies wrote that..." is awkwardly placed. The condition is now also mentioned in the Dating and provenance section where it fits better. Should the "In 1937..." sentence be deleted? Aa77zz (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably deleted if everyone agrees. Certainly moved. Meant to do it sooner but haven't had access here until a few moments ago. The inspiration could probably be added to the caption of the image in the gallery, but will leave that to Ceoil or Johnbod. TK   (talk)  14:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree re 2); I'll add 1) to text too later; I'll check Campbell 1998 etc on it. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The article now appears to be somewhat crowded and it might be better to relegate the Brussels Annunciation picture to the gallery at the bottom. Aa77zz (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, but I moved the Campin, and tweaked the sizes to give more space. Ceoil  20:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the gallery looks more visible now...Modernist (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the gallery but am not so sure about having another image share the limelight with The Magdalen Reading, fwiw. Can the img below MM be moved to the gallery too? TK   (talk)  20:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, I like this better...Modernist (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I liked the 2nd lead image very much where it was. It had a good thematic fit and showed where the page was going. And it looked nice.... Ceoil 20:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the lede needs to be isolated, it has a contemplative visual calmness that is undermined by the proximity of the second image...Modernist (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can go with that Modernist, but I reduced the gallery img sizes from 200 to 140px. A preference thing, I'll defer to your judgement, but not above 180....! Ceoil  22:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 140 is fine with me...Modernist (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is preferable to have the beautiful Magdalen all by herself at the top of the article without Saint Barbara attempting to get in on the act.


 * Have any of you found a scholarly source explaining why this painting dates from "between 1435 and 1438" as stated in the lead?  Aa77zz (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree re the image. Regarding the date, we have Ward, but think we're waiting for the Campbell book to show up at the bookseller for Ceoil. I checked at the library for the university nearest to me which does have it, so if he doesn't have it very soon I will take a trip there and have a look at the book. Should we add Ward for the time being? He says it must be before 1438.  TK   (talk)  20:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see 1435 ion some snippit views on google books but dont want to go that route. There is, but its from Medieval clothing and textiles, Volume 3 By Robin Netherton, Gale R. Owen-Crocker. I'll prob cited to the bit on the gold bar page holder, but not the dating. I'd prefer to hold out until the Master of passions book. Ceoil  20:57, 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...".
 * But again a snippit. Ceoil  20:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The snippits are very annoying. For Master of Passions I searched for 1435 & Magdalen and get the title to the catalogue entry but the page is blank. We do know from everything we're finding it's in the 1435 to 1438 range but would prefer to wait for the book. If that doesn't clarify then change the date to 1437 per the above snippit of Campbell and per Ward. TK   (talk)  21:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1435 is when he was made painter to the city of Brussels, 1438 the usual accepted date for the Descent, and most think the Magdalen came beforehand, Panofsky above excepted. Ceoil  21:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have added a footnote - "The National Gallery gives 'before 1438'.[ref NG] Ward estimates 1437 based on similarities to Robert Campin's Werl Alterpiece of that year. See Ward (1971), 28."
 * I'll develop this to a seperate section when I have enough, with a note on attribution, as covered, again, by Ward. Ceoil  21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Overpainting?
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)
 * Sure, from the Davies. I positioned it so its below himself, and opposite Catherine. I would love to reproduce Ward's construction, but I'd say chances are slim, and anyway that aspect is underdeveloped, for another article. Ceoil  00:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the long sentence in the lead in my sandbox but it's still not great. Want to copy in but would have already had an edit conflict. Can you have a look & do the copying and rewriting? TK   (talk)  00:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its fine. Do it. Ceoil  00:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its fine. Do it. Ceoil  00:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Frames

 * Yesterday, in original research, I discovered that the Magdalen Reading is displayed without a frame. Could this factoid be slipped into the article?The wooden panel is held onto the wall by brackets that have been carefully coloured to match the adjacent oilpaint.


 * The article suggests that the bust of St Catherine in the Museu Calouste Gulbenkian, is mounted in a frame. Are we sure of this? I've looked at the web site but wasn't able to confirm this detail. Aa77zz (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On the second point, I've reworded in past tense per the source. John Ward writes that in 1970 or 1971 the curator took the panel out of the frame to photograph, but he doesn't tell us whether it was re-framed. TK   (talk)  12:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We can certainly mention the first point, with a date, but in general it's best to avoid saying whether, where and how an object is displayed, as that can change any time on a curatorial whim, though the NG display is probably there for a longish haul. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
Well done...Modernist (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks for helping Modernist. Ceoil  16:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nicely done! Wish I'd been able to help with this one! Kafka Liz (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers Liz. Ceoil  12:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Other depictions of what?
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)
 * I've retitled the section and removed one. The section could be more coherent, needs some work yet. Thanks. Ceoil  15:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Saint Catherine in the Stockholm drawing
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)
 * "In the Stockholm drawing [Saint Catherine] is shown holding a book before the infant Christ."
 * "The Stockholm drawing contains a narrow blank gap to the right of the bishop with a few indistinct lines that could represent the lower profile of the kneeling figure of Saint Catherine."
 * Thanks - yes, done. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits to the references
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)


 * I went ahead and added OCLC and JSTOR information for greater convience to the readership. Also, some numbers were ambiguous; did "53" mean the volume, issue or page number? -- Eisfbnore talk 21:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * They clearly are not ambiguous because the page numbers exist. If we have consensus to change the referencing style, I'd do it per MLA with volume & issue (one bolded, one not) but it's not necessary. Also the Jstor links & Oclc links are not necessary. All that's required is the author. These journals are hosted on different database - who are we to push our readers to a specific datasource.? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, I did bold the volume number of the last cite, but it was reverted by another editor. Also, I didn't "introduce" the JSTOR templates; I only added a few more. This revision used a JSTOR template, at a point before I have edited the article. Of course, the links to WorldCat and JSTOR are not necessary, but they are certainly helpful. -- Eisfbnore talk 22:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I did at one point as well. But it's not necessary. If the main contributors to the page decide it's necessary, we'll change it. Otherwise, leave it alone. Please. It's extremely annoying to spend a long time working on getting the sources exactly right, taking it to FAC, having it reviewed, making the changes, and then have someone come along and impose what they think is right on the page. Let's get consensus. You've been bold; I've reverted; time to discuss now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your confusing a preference with law, please respect the format decided upon by the 3 incumbants of this page, two of which have reverted you, one of whom is talking to you now. Its no big deal, is a small formatting choice. Live and let live. Ceoil  22:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I certainly do think it's time to discuss now, which is why I haven't performed a single revert at this article. I also concur with you in that it is annoying to have a properly formatted bibliography changed from one acceptable format to another. However, in this case the bibliography wasn't completely properly formatted, as the readers would have to guess what "53" and other numbers meant. I was therefore bold and added boldingtouché! to the number "53" so that the readers could understand what it meant (I used the already featured JSTOR link to find out myself what "53" meant; perhaps you'll understand how useful it is now?). This was, as already mentioned, reverted by another editor. I discussed it with them, upon which another editor stated that they considered the "vol." annotation more useful than simple bolding. I therefore went ahead and added "vol." to a few cites in this article, along with a couple of helpful links to WorldCat and JSTOR. This edit was also reverted, on the grounds that it was "not necessary". As mentioned, I fully respect the editors' of this page choice of formatting citations, but when helpful information is removed simply because "it's not necessary", I would think that it is suffering from article ownership. -- Eisfbnore talk 22:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not convincing, and actually boring now. Only a fool cites OWN in a case like this. Drop it, please. Ceoil  23:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you didn't do it consistently throughout the page, and made mistakes. The sources were formatted consistently, but not the way you want them. It would have been better to have posted here. I have all the papers in hardcopy - don't need a jstor link, and can plug in volume and issue. But I don't want to do it when someone demands it be done. I'm ignoring the ownership dig. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Reading means what?
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)
 * Agree thats its vague. Will have a look back at the sources. Ceoil  13:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Needs rewording; will work on it. In other words, reading = privacy = seeing the word = penitence. Something like that. Will have to dig up the source again and fix. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can help here, know what the sentence intendeds to say. Ceoil  00:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be nice. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I remember working on that sentence, but honestly can't put my hand on the sources at the moment. I think if I trawl through history to find the earliest version it might spark something. For now I've removed part of the sentence. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've found it and fixed it. I hope it's more clear now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand it better now. Tom Harrison Talk 01:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Master of the Koberger [ ]"
The "Master of the Koberger" what? An illustrator for the printer Koberger? Too garbled to fix.--Wetman (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Charles Darwent, in the article's linked reference to an exhibition review, refers to this draughtsman of the documentary drawing as "the Master of Girart de Roussillon". Doesn't ring a bell for me, but who am I to know?--Wetman (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll pull up the source. Have been working and no time except for the few moment earlier. Truthkeeper (Talk) 20:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In John Ward's essay about the reconstruction he is referred to Master of the Koberger Ründblatter. I'll fix. Truthkeeper (Talk) 20:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is actually the Master of the Coburger Rundblätter.--Edelseider (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"glass of rosary beads"
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)


 * Found the older version in my sandbox: at one point it was "of Joseph's beads", which was rewritten but a word was left out. Thanks for finding and mentioning. I've fixed. Truthkeeper (Talk) 17:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Truthkeeper, I should have got it. Perfectly transparent glass beads are unlikely in the 1430s; in this aristocratic context they are more probably intended for rock crystal, as mentioned in passing further down in the article.--Wetman (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now clarifed in the lead, many months later. Ceoil (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dismemberment
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)


 * Will get Ceoil on it. Nothing in the sources I have available, but he has more. Truthkeeper (Talk) 21:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Accoring to Campbell 1998, the breaking up was probably after damage to other parts of the alterpiece in Brussels either during 16th c iconoclast troubles, or the bombardment in 1695. The overpaint likely added for the reason given by Wetman. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"... pale skin, high cheek bones and oval eyelids typical of the idealised portraits of noble women of the period."
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/w/index.php?title=The_Magdalen_Reading&diff=400780496&oldid=400779494. Amanda Jane Mason (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The citation provided in response to the above is a fiction. The only relevant passage is a reference not to The Magdalen Reading but to  Portrait of a Woman where mention is made of the enlarging of the eyes to achive a sense of intimacy so characteristic in that portrait. There is no mention at all of pale skin and high cheeks bones, nor of "idealised portraits of noble women of the period".


 * I am therefore restoring the "citation needed" template.




 * I do think it unlikely a satifactory citation can indeed be provided. The remark frankly strikes me as juvenile. Early renaissance ideals of feminine beauty are well attested by Petrarch's "fair-haired, blue-eyed" beauty  Laura in a a tradition set by  Maximianus in the sixth century and destined to last well into the sixteenth:



"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."


 * and indeed you can see that faint blush in Rogier's treatment of The Magdelen Reading.


 * I'll let the text stand for a while to give the editor a chance to respond. Meanwhile I've added an observation about the plucking of eyebrows and eyelashes that I'm surprised hadn't found its way into the article before now. Amanda Jane Mason (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Campbell passage talks of the idealization of his portraits, relating it to his religious figures. It does not have the shopping list, but I have no doubt this could be referenced - along with the high forehead which is covered up in this picture. Far from being "juvenile" the point seems both clearly right and something of a commonplace. Comparisons with highly traditional and conventional literary lists, especially from Italy, should be avoided or treated very cautiously. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I don't think it is "commonplace" and also I happen to think it's not right. It struck me immediately as discordant, which of course is why I asked for a citation. If it is commonplace, then it should be straightforward to find a commonplace citation for it, but I couldn't as indeed it seems other editors can't. I see this editor has also made remarks about Gothic mannerism elsewhere, notably citing elongated features, but I can't really see that this applies in this painting. Campbell doesn't include the Magdalen fragment amongst the portraits incidentally, and he doesn't relate his remarks to Rogier's religious figures - rather he's talking about intimacy and the effect of pious nobility seen especially in his portrait of Philip de Croy. He makes the point that Rogier took his ideal of feminine beauty from his master Robert Campin (citing the images right), who in turn is commonly cited as marking a break with International Gothic. This remark we are talking about, whether juvenile or sophisticated, has been with this article almost from its inception. It often happens that authoritative remarks like these survive in discourses for all sorts of reasons. All I'm asking for is an honest to goodness citation. Amanda Jane Mason (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the 'high forehead' (I corrected a 'long forehead' elsewhere) you say is 'covered' :) in The Magdalen Reading, that is indeed commonplace but equally of course it was an illusion created by shaving the hair line as can clearly be seen in Rogier's Portrait of a Lady. Your fashion conscious medieval maiden of the age went in for bonnet waxing. But in The Magdalen Reading Rogier has let her hair down, and we do have a renaissance image here and not a gothic one. Incidentally Rogier was painting a maiden here, a bride of Christ yes,  no doubt, but a maiden nevertheless because in those days women were still defined in their traditional roles as maidens, wives and mothers. That is a commonplace I would like to see added to the article, and I shall try if I can find a source that explicitly addresses it in The Magadalen Reading Amanda Jane Mason (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, regarding Campbell's observation that Rogier took his ideal of feminine beauty from Robert Campin, our editor whose "pale skin etc." remark I am challenging does actually cite the same point in his article start for the Durán Madonna. Amanda Jane Mason (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)



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)

Lorne Campbell on the Magdalen's sinful past
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)


 * Au contraire, the naked but hair-covered penitent Magdalene was a standard medieval depiction - no doubt the Golden Legend covered that period. Donatello did a very unsexy one. See images below - Commons has plenty more. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

File:The Magdalen Reading - Rogier van der Weyden.jpg to appear as POTD soon
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001230613/http://www.museu.gulbenkian.pt/obra.asp?num=79ab&nuc=a9&lang=en to http://www.museu.gulbenkian.pt/obra.asp?num=79ab&nuc=a9&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526010630/http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/rogier-van-der-weyden-the-magdalen-reading/*/key-facts to http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/rogier-van-der-weyden-the-magdalen-reading/*/key-facts
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101108132323/http://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg39/gg39-45888.html to http://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg39/gg39-45888.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)