DOI Heft:
Nr. 3-4
DOI Artikel:Murawska-Muthesius, Katarzyna; Secomska, Krystyna: Mary Magdalen, the counter reformation and the Caravaggisti: are there any more paintings by Antiveduto Gramatica in Poland?
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18945#0125
9. Bernardino Luini, Martha
Rebuking Mary for her
Vanity, c. 1516, The
Rotschild Collection, Paris,
(Phot, öfter
M. Ingenhoff-Danhauser,
Maria Magdalena, op. dt.)
that of remonstrance and rebuke”, the figure of Mary “decked and smiling”,
shows her “as yet unconvinced, unconverted”.42 For Cummings, however, the
painting embodies perfectly the distinction between vita activa and vita
contemplativa.43
The mondanità, or at least the ambiguity of Luini’s Magdalen, could not
satisfy the demands of the leading theologians of the post-Tridentine era, St.
Ignatius Loyola, St. Teresa of Avida, or St. François de Sales. The
representations of the Magdalen’s worldly life and elegant dresses were
condemned by the guardians of Counter Reformation decorum in the visual
arts: Molanus, Gilio and Paleotti, who did not want to see “in the image of
a saint an indecent portrait of a prostitute”.44 The Counter Reformation 42 43 44 * * * *
42 Mrs. Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art, London 1870 (lst.ed. 1848), p.370.
43 Cummings, “The meaning...,” op. cit., p.575.
44 G. Paleotti, Discorso intorno alle imagine sacre e profane, Bologna 1582; ed. P. Barochi, Trattati
d’arte del Cinquecento fra Manierismo e Controriforma, II, Bari 1961, p.266. On the post-Tridentine
iconography of the Magdalen, see E. Mâle, Lart religieux de la fin du XVIe siècle, du XVIIe et du
XVIIIe siècle. Etude sur l’iconographie après la Concile de Trente, Paris 1951, pp.294-295; F.
Bardon, “Le thème de la Madeleine pénitente au XVIe siècle en France”, Journal of the Warburg
115
Rebuking Mary for her
Vanity, c. 1516, The
Rotschild Collection, Paris,
(Phot, öfter
M. Ingenhoff-Danhauser,
Maria Magdalena, op. dt.)
that of remonstrance and rebuke”, the figure of Mary “decked and smiling”,
shows her “as yet unconvinced, unconverted”.42 For Cummings, however, the
painting embodies perfectly the distinction between vita activa and vita
contemplativa.43
The mondanità, or at least the ambiguity of Luini’s Magdalen, could not
satisfy the demands of the leading theologians of the post-Tridentine era, St.
Ignatius Loyola, St. Teresa of Avida, or St. François de Sales. The
representations of the Magdalen’s worldly life and elegant dresses were
condemned by the guardians of Counter Reformation decorum in the visual
arts: Molanus, Gilio and Paleotti, who did not want to see “in the image of
a saint an indecent portrait of a prostitute”.44 The Counter Reformation 42 43 44 * * * *
42 Mrs. Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art, London 1870 (lst.ed. 1848), p.370.
43 Cummings, “The meaning...,” op. cit., p.575.
44 G. Paleotti, Discorso intorno alle imagine sacre e profane, Bologna 1582; ed. P. Barochi, Trattati
d’arte del Cinquecento fra Manierismo e Controriforma, II, Bari 1961, p.266. On the post-Tridentine
iconography of the Magdalen, see E. Mâle, Lart religieux de la fin du XVIe siècle, du XVIIe et du
XVIIIe siècle. Etude sur l’iconographie après la Concile de Trente, Paris 1951, pp.294-295; F.
Bardon, “Le thème de la Madeleine pénitente au XVIe siècle en France”, Journal of the Warburg
115