Chapter 25

That noble type is realised againIn perfect form; and dedicate—to whom?To a poor Syrian girl of lowliest name—A hapless creature, pitiful and frailAs ever wore her life in sin and shame!R. M. Milnes.

That noble type is realised again

In perfect form; and dedicate—to whom?

To a poor Syrian girl of lowliest name—

A hapless creature, pitiful and frail

As ever wore her life in sin and shame!

R. M. Milnes.

The saint, whether she were ‘the lowly Syrian girl’ or the ‘Princess of Magdala,’ would be equally astonished to behold herself thus honoured with a sort of pagan magnificence in the midst of a luxurious capital, and by a people more remarkable for scoffing than for praying. Even in the successive vicissitudes of this splendid edifice there is something strange. That which is now the temple of the lowly penitent was, a few years ago,Le Temple de la Gloire.

Let us now turn to those characteristic representations with which painting and sculpture have made us familiar, and for which both Scriptureand legendary tradition have furnished the authority and the groundwork. These are so numerous and so infinitely varied that I find it necessary here, as in the case of St. Jerome, to arrange them under several heads.

The devotional representations may be divided into two classes. 1. Those which represent the Magdalene as patron saint. 2. Those which represent her penitence in the desert.

The historical subjects may also be divided into two classes. 1. Those scenes from Gospel story in which Mary Magdalene figures as a chief or conspicuous personage. 2. The scenes taken from her legendary life.

In all these subjects the accompanying attribute is the alabaster box of ointment; which has a double significance: it may be the perfume which she poured over the feet of the Saviour, or the balm and spices which she had prepared to anoint his body. Sometimes she carries it in her hand, sometimes it stands at her feet, or near her; frequently, in later pictures, it is borne by an attendant angel. The shape varies with the fancy of the artist; it is a small vase, a casket, a box, a cup with a cover; more or less ornamented, more or less graceful in form; but always there—the symbol at once of her conversion and her love, and so peculiar that it can leave no doubt of her identity.

Her drapery in the ancient pictures is usually red, to express the fervour of her love; in modern representations, and where she figures as penitent, it is either blue or violet; violet, the colour of mourning and penitence—blue, the colour of constancy. To express both the love and the sorrow, she sometimes wears a violet-coloured tunic and a red mantle. The luxuriant hair ought to be fair or golden. Dark-haired Magdalenes, as far as I can remember, belong exclusively to the Spanish school.

1. When exhibited to us as the patron saint of repentant sinners, Mary Magdalene is sometimes a thin wasted figure with long dishevelled hair, of a pale golden hue, falling over her shoulders almost to the ground; sometimes a skin or a piece of linen is tied round her loins, but not seldom her sole drapery is her long redundant hair. The most ancient single figure of this character to which I can refer is an old picture in the Byzantine manner, as old perhaps as the thirteenth century, and now in the Academy at Florence. She is standing as patroness,covered only by her long hair, which falls in dark brown masses to her feet: the colour, I imagine, was originally much lighter. She is a meagre, haggard, grim-looking figure, and holds in her hand a scroll, on which is inscribed in ancient Gothic letters—

The gothic letters

Ne despectetisVos qui peccare soletisExemplo meoVos reparate Deo.[298]

Ne despectetis

Vos qui peccare soletis

Exemplo meo

Vos reparate Deo.[298]

91 Mary Magdalene (Donatello)

Rude and unattractive as is this specimen of ancient Art, I could not look at it without thinking how often it must have spoken hope and peace to the soul of the trembling sinner, in days when it hung, not in a picture-gallery to be criticised, but in a shrine to be worshipped. Around this figure, in the manner of the old altar-pieces, are six small square compartments containing scenes from her life.

The famous statue carved in wood by Donatello, in point of character may be referred to this class of subjects: she stands over her altar in the Baptistery at Florence, with clasped hands, the head raised in prayer; the form is very expressive of wasting grief and penance, but too meagre for beauty. ‘Egli, la volle specchio alle penitenti, non incitamento alla cupidizia degli sguardi, come avenne ad altri artisti,’ says Cicognara; and, allowing that beauty has been sacrificed to expression, he adds, ‘but if Donatello had done all, what would have remained for Canova?’ That which remained for Canova to do, he has done; hehas made her as lovely as possible, and he has dramatised the sentiment: she is more the penitent than the patron saint. The display of the beautiful limbs is chastened by the humility of the attitude—half kneeling, half prostrate; by the expression of the drooping head—‘all sorrow’s softness charmed from its despair.’ Her eyes are fixed on the cross which lies extended on her knees; and she weeps—not so much her own past sins, as the sacrifice it has cost to redeem them. This is the prevailing sentiment, or, as the Germans would call it, themotiveof the representation, to which I should feel inclined to object as deficient in dignity and severity, and bordering too much on thegenreand dramatic style: but the execution is almost faultless. Very beautiful is another modern statue of the penitent Magdalene, executed in marble for the Count d’Espagnac, by M. Henri de Triqueti. She is half seated, half reclining on a fragment of rock, and pressing to her bosom a crown of thorns, at once the mourner and the penitent: the sorrow is not for herself alone.

92 Mary Magdalene (Lucas v. Leyden)

But, in her character of patron saint, Mary Magdalene was not always represented with the squalid or pathetic attributes of humiliation and penance. She became idealised as a noble dignified creature bearing no traces of sin or of sorrow on her beautiful face; her luxuriant hair bound in tresses round her head; her drapery rich and ample; the vase of ointment in her hand or at her feet, or borne by an angel near her. Not unfrequently she is attired with the utmost magnificence, either in reference to her former state of worldly prosperity, or rather, perhaps, that with the older painters, particularly those of the German school, it was a common custom to clothe all the ideal figures of female saints in rich habits. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries such representations of the Magdalene are usual both in Italian and German Art. A beautiful instance may be seen in a picture by Signorelli, in the Cathedral of Orvieto, where she is standing in a landscape, her head uncovered, and the rich golden hair partly braided, partly flowing over her shoulders; she wears a magnificent tunic embroidered with gold, over it a flowing mantle descending to her feet; she holds the vase with her left hand, and points to it with her right. If it were not for the saintly aureole encircling her head, this figure, and others similar to it, might be mistaken for Pandora. See, for example, the famousprint by Lucas v. Leyden, where she stands on clouds with an embroidered coif and flowing mantle, holding the vase in her left hand, and lifting the cover with her right (in the sketch it is reversed): and in the half-length by Leonardo, or one of his school. The want of a religious sentiment gives such figures a very heathen andPandoralook, so that the aureole alone fixes the identity. This is not the case witha noble Magdalene by Dennis Calvert, in the Manfrini Palace at Venice. She is standing in a fine bold landscape; one hand sustains her ample crimson drapery, the other holds her vase; her fair hair falls in masses over her shoulders, and she looks down on her worshippers with a serious dignified compassion. This is one of the finest pictures of the later Bologna school, finer and truer in sentiment than any of the Caracci and Guido Magdalenes.

In this her wholly divine and ideal character of saint and intercessor, Mary Magdalene is often most beautifully introduced as standing near the throne of the Virgin, or as grouped with other saints. In two of the most famous pictures in the world she is thus represented. In the St. Cecilia of Raphael, she stands on the left, St. Paul being on the right of the principal figure; they are here significant of the conversion of the man throughpower, of the woman throughlove, from a state of reprobation to a state of reconcilement and grace. St. Paul leans in deep meditation on his sword. Mary Magdalene is habited in ample drapery of blue and violet, which she sustains with one hand, and bears the vase in the other. She looks out of the picture with a benign countenance and a particularly graceful turn of the head. Raphael’s original design for this picture (engraved by Marc Antonio) is, however, preferable in the sentiment given to the Magdalene: she does not lookoutof the picture, but she looksup:shealso hears the divine music which has ravished St. Cecilia. In the picture she is either unconscious or inattentive.

In the not less celebrated St. Jerome of Correggio she is on the left of the Madonna, bending down with an expression of the deepest adoration to kiss the feet of the infant Christ, while an angel behind holds up the vase of ointment: thus recalling to our minds, and shadowing forth in the most poetical manner, that memorable act of love and homage rendered at the feet of the Saviour. Parmigiano has represented her, in a Madonna picture, as standing on one side, and the prophet Isaiah on the other. Lord Ashburton has a fine picture by Correggio, in which we have the same ideal representation: she is here grouped with St. Peter, St. Margaret, and St. Leonardo.

There are two classes of subjects in which Mary Magdalene is richly habited, and which must be carefully distinguished; those above described,in which she figures as patron saint, and those which represent herbeforeher conversion, as the votary of luxury and pleasure. In the same manner we must be careful to distinguish those figures of the penitent Magdalene which are wholly devotional in character and intention, and which have been described in the first class, from those which represent her in the act of doing penance, and which are rather dramatic and sentimental than devotional.

2. The penance of the Magdalene is a subject which has become, like the penance of St. Jerome, a symbol of Christian penitence, but still more endeared to the popular imagination by more affecting and attractive associations, and even more eminently picturesque,—so tempting to the artists, that by their own predilection for it they have assisted in making it universal. In the display of luxuriant female forms, shadowed (not hidden) by redundant fair hair, and flung in all theabandonof solitude, amid the depth of leafy recesses, or relieved by the dark umbrageous rocks; in the association of love and beauty with the symbols of death and sorrow and utter humiliation; the painters had ample scope, ample material, for the exercise of their imagination, and the display of their skill: and what has been the result? They have abused these capabilities even to licence; they have exhausted the resources of Art in the attempt to vary the delineation; and yet how seldom has the ideal of this most exquisite subject been—I will not say realised—but even approached? We have Magdalenes who look as if they never could have sinned, and others who look as if they never could have repented; we have Venetian Magdalenes with the air of courtesans, and Florentine Magdalenes with the air of Ariadnes; and Bolognese Magdalenes like sentimental Niobes; and French Magdalenes,moitié galantes,moitié dévotes; and Dutch Magdalenes, who wring their hands like repentant washerwomen. The Magdalenes of Rubens remind us of nothing so much as of the ‘unfortunate Miss Bailey;’ and the Magdalenes of Van Dyck are fine ladies who have turned Methodists. But Mary Magdalene, such as we have conceived her, mournful yet hopeful,—tender yet dignified,—worn with grief and fasting, yet radiant with the glow of love and faith, and clothed with the beauty of holiness,—is an ideal which painting has not yet realised.Is it beyond the reach of Art? We might have answered this question, had Raphael attempted it;—but he has not. His Magdalene at the feet of Christ is yet unforgiven—the forlorn castaway, not the devout penitent.

The Magdalene doing penance in her rocky desert first became a popular subject in the sixteenth century; in the seventeenth it was at the height of favour. There are two distinct versions of the subject, infinitely varied as to detail and sentiment: either she is represented as bewailing her sins, or as reconciled to Heaven.

In the former treatment she lies prostrate on the earth, or she is standing or kneeling at the entrance of the cave (in some of the old illuminated missals the upper part of her body is seen emerging from a cave, or rather a hole in the ground), the hands clasped, or extended towards heaven; the eyes streaming with tears; the long yellow hair floating over the shoulders. The crucifix, the skull, and sometimes the scourge, are introduced as emblems of faith, mortality, and penance; weeping angels present a crown of thorns.

In the latter treatment she is reading or meditating; the expression is serene or hopeful; a book lies beside the skull; angels present the palm, or scatter flowers; a vision of glory is seen in the skies.

The alabaster box is in all cases the indispensable attribute. The eyes are usually raised, if not in grief, in supplication or in aspiration. The ‘uplifted eye’ as well as the ‘loose hair’ became a characteristic; but there are some exceptions. The conception of character and situation, which was at first simple, became more and more picturesque, and at length theatrical—a mere vehicle for sentiment and attitude.

1. The earliest example I can remember of the Penitent Magdalene,dramaticallytreated, remains as yet unsurpassed,—the reading Magdalene of Correggio, in the Dresden Gallery. This lovely creation has only one fault the virginal beauty is that of a Psyche or a Seraph. In Oelenschläger’s drama of ‘Correggio,’ there is a beautiful description of this far-famed picture; he calls it ‘Die Gottinn des Waldes Frömmigkeit,’—the goddess of the religious solitude. And in truth, if we could imagine Diana reading instead of hunting, she might have looked thus. Oelenschläger has made poetical use of the tradition that Correggio painted this Magdalene for a poor monk who was his confessoror physician; and thus he makes Silvestro comment on the work:—

What a fair picture!—This dark o’erhanging shade, the long fair hair,The delicate white skin, the azure robe,The full luxuriant life, the grim death’s head,The tender womanhood, and the great book:—These various contrasts have you cunninglyBrought into sweetest harmony.

What a fair picture!—

This dark o’erhanging shade, the long fair hair,

The delicate white skin, the azure robe,

The full luxuriant life, the grim death’s head,

The tender womanhood, and the great book:—

These various contrasts have you cunningly

Brought into sweetest harmony.

But truer, at least nobler in sentiment, is the Magdalene by the same painter (in the Manfrini Palace, Venice), of the same size and similarly draped in dark blue; but herestandingat the entrance of her cave. She leans her elbow on the book which lies on the rock, and appears to be meditating on its contents. The head, seen in front, is grand and earnest, with a mass of fair hair, a large wide brow, and deep, deep eyes full of mystery. The expression of power in this head pleases me especially, because true to the character, as I conceive it.

Doch ist es schön von einem Weibe, mein’ ich,Einmal gefallen wieder sich zu heben;Es gibt sehr wen’ge Männer, die das können!Yes! it is good to see a hapless woman,That once has fallen, redeem herself! In truth,There be few men, methinks, could do as much.Correggio, Act i. Scene 1.

Doch ist es schön von einem Weibe, mein’ ich,Einmal gefallen wieder sich zu heben;Es gibt sehr wen’ge Männer, die das können!

Doch ist es schön von einem Weibe, mein’ ich,

Einmal gefallen wieder sich zu heben;

Es gibt sehr wen’ge Männer, die das können!

Yes! it is good to see a hapless woman,That once has fallen, redeem herself! In truth,There be few men, methinks, could do as much.Correggio, Act i. Scene 1.

Yes! it is good to see a hapless woman,

That once has fallen, redeem herself! In truth,

There be few men, methinks, could do as much.

Correggio, Act i. Scene 1.

I do not know why this lovely Manfrini picture should be so much less celebrated than the Dresden Magdalene: while the latter has been multiplied by copies and engravings, I do not remember a single print after the Manfrini Magdalene. There is a bad feeble copy in the Louvre;[299]I know no other.

2. There is a celebrated picture by Timoteo della Vite, in the Bologna Gallery. She is standing before the entrance of her cavern, arrayed in a crimson mantle; her long hair is seen beneath descending to her feet; the hands joined in prayer, the head declined on one side, and the whole expression that of girlish innocence and simplicity, with atouch of the pathetic. A mendicant, not a Magdalene, is the idea suggested; and, for myself, I confess that at the first glance I was reminded of the little Red-Riding-Hood, and could think of no sin that could have been attributed to such a face and figure, beyond the breaking of a pot of butter: yet the picture is very beautiful.

93 Mary Magdalene (Timoteo della Vite)

3. The Magdalene of Titian was so celebrated in his own time, that he painted at least five or six repetitions of it, and copies and engravings have since been multiplied. The eyes, swimming in tears, are raised to heaven; the long dishevelled hair floats over her shoulders; one handis pressed on her bosom, the other rests on the skull; the forms are full and round, the colouring rich; a book and a box of ointment lie before her on a fragment of rock. She is sufficiently woeful, but seems rather to regret her past life than to repent of it, nor is there anything in the expression which can secure us against a relapse. Titian painted the original for Charles V. His idea of theposewas borrowed, as we are told, from an antique statue, and his model was a young girl, who being fatigued with long standing, the tears ran down her face, and Titian attained the desired expression.’(!) His idea therefore of St. Mary Magdalene was the fusion of an antique statue and a girl taken out of the streets; and with all its beauties as a work of art—and very beautiful it is—thischef-d’œuvreof Titian is, to my taste, most unsatisfactory.

4. Cigoli’s Magdalene is seated on a rock, veiledonlyby her long hair, which falls over the whole figure; the eyes, still wet with tears, are raised to heaven; one arm is round a skull, the right hand rests on a book which is on her knees.

5. The Magdalene of Carlo Cignani, veiled in her dishevelled hair, and wringing her hands, is also most affecting for the fervent expression of sorrow; both these are in the Florence Gallery.[300]

6. Guido, regarded as the painter of Magdalenespar excellence, has carried this mistake yet farther; he had ever the classical Niobe in his mind, and his saintly penitents, with all their exceeding loveliness, appear to me utterly devoid of that beauty which has been called ‘the beauty of holiness;’ the reproachful grandeur of the Niobe is diluted into voluptuous feebleness; the tearful face, with the loose golden hair and uplifted eyes, of which he has given us at least ten repetitions, however charming as art—as painting, are unsatisfactory as religious representations. I cannot except even the beautiful study in our National Gallery, nor the admired full-length in the Sciarra Palace, at Rome; the latter, when I saw it last, appeared to me poor and mannered, and the pale colouring not merely delicate, but vapid. A headof Mary Magdalene reading, apparently a study from life, is, however, in a grand style.[301]

94 Mary Magdalene (Murillo)

7. Murillo’s Magdalene, in the Louvre, kneeling, with hands crossed on her bosom, eyes upraised, and parted lips, has eager devout hope as well as sorrow in the countenance. 8. But turn to the Magdalene of Alonzo Cano, which hangs near: drooping, negligent of self; the very hands are nerveless, languid, dead.[302]Nothing but woe, guilt, and misery are in the face and attitude:shehas not yet looked into the face of Christ, nor sat at his feet, nor heard from his lips, ‘Woman, thy sins be forgiven thee,’ nor dared to hope; it is the penitent only: the whole head is faint, and the whole heart sick. 9. But the beautiful Magdalene of Annibal Caracci has heard the words of mercy;shehasmemories which are not of sin only; angelic visions have already come to her in that wild solitude: she is seated at the foot of a tree; she leans her cheek on her right hand, the other rests on a skull; she is in deep contemplation; but her thoughts are not of death: the upward ardent look is full of hope, and faith, and love. The fault of this beautiful little picture lies in the sacrifice of the truth of the situation to the artistic feeling of beauty—the common fault of the school; the forms are large, round, full, untouched by grief and penance.

95 Mary Magdalene (Annibal Caracci)

10. Vandyck’s Magdalenes have the same fault as his Madonnas; they are not feeble nor voluptuous, but they are too elegant and ladylike. I remember, for example, a Deposition by Vandyck, and one of his finest pictures, in which Mary Magdalene kisses the hand of the Saviour quite with the air of a princess. The most beautiful of his penitent Magdalenes is the half-length figure with the face in profile,bending with clasped hands over the crucifix; the skull and knotted scourge lie on a shelf of rock behind; underneath is the inscription, ‘Fallit gratia, et vana est pulchritudo; mulier timens Dominum ipsa laudabitur.’ (Prov. xxxi. 30.) 11. Rubens has given us thirteen Magdalenes, more or less coarse; in one picture[303]she is tearing her hair like a disappointed virago; in another, the expression of grief is overpowering, but it is that of a woman in the house of correction. From this sweeping condemnation I must make one exception; it is the picture known as ‘The Four Penitents.’[304]In front the Magdalene bows down her head on her clasped hands with such an expression of profound humility as Rubens only, when painting out of nature and his own heart, could give. Christ, with an air of tender yet sublime compassion, looks down upon her:—‘Thy sins be forgiven thee!’ Behind Christ and the Magdalene stand Peter, David, and Didymus, the penitent thief; the faces of these three, thrown into shadow to relieve the two principal figures, have a self-abased, mournful expression. I have never seen anything from the hand of Rubens at once so pure and pathetic in sentiment as this picture, while the force and truth of the painting are, as usual, wonderful. No one should judge Rubens who has not studied him in the Munich Gallery.

TheHistorical Subjectsfrom the life of Mary Magdalene are either scriptural or legendary; and the character of the Magdalene, as conceived by the greatest painters, is more distinctly expressed in those scriptural scenes in which she is an important figure, than in the single and ideal representations. The illuminated Gospels of the ninth century furnish the oldest type of Mary, the penitent and the sister of Lazarus, but it differs from the modern conception of the Magdalene. She is in such subjects a secondary scriptural personage, one of the accessories in the history of Christ, and nothing more: no attempt was made to give her importance, either by beauty, or dignity, or prominence of place, till the end of the thirteenth century.

The sacred subjects in which she is introduced are the following:—

1. Jesus at supper with Simon the Pharisee.—‘And she beganto wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with ointment.’ (Luke vii. 30.)

2. Christ is in the house of Martha and Mary.—‘And she sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his words; but Martha was cumbered with much serving.’ (Luke x. 39, 40.)

3. The Raising of Lazarus.—‘Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.’ (John xi. 32.)

4. The Crucifixion.—‘Now there stood by the cross Mary Magdalene.’ (John xix. 25; Matt. xxvii. 56.)

5. The Deposition from the Cross.—‘And Mary Magdalene, and the mother of Jesus, beheld where he was laid.’ (Mark xv. 47.)

6. The Maries at the Sepulchre.—‘And there was Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.’ (Matt. xxvii. 61.)

7. Christ appears to Mary Magdalene in the Garden, called theNoli me tangere.—‘Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father.’ (John xx. 17.)

In the first, second, and last of these subjects, the Magdalene is one of the two principal figures, and necessary to the action; in the others she is generally introduced, but in some instances omitted; and as all belong properly to the life of Christ, I shall confine myself now to a few remarks on the characteristic treatment of the Magdalene in each.

1. The supper with Simon has been represented in every variety of style. The earliest and simplest I can call to mind is the fresco of Taddeo Gaddi in the Rinuccini Chapel at Florence. The Magdalene bends down prostrate on the feet of the Saviour; she is in a red dress, and her long yellow hair flows down her back; the seven devils by which she was possessed are seen above, flying out of the roof of the house in the shape of little black monsters. Raphael, when treating the same subject, thought only of the religious significance of the action, and how to express it with the utmost force and the utmost simplicity. There are few figures—our Saviour, the Pharisee, four apostles, and two attendants: Mary Magdalene, in front, bends over the feet of Christ, while her long hair half conceals her face and almost sweeps the ground; nothing can exceed the tenderness and humility of the attitudeand the benign dignity of Christ. As an example of the most opposite treatment, let us turn to the gorgeous composition of Paul Veronese; we have a stately banquet-room, rich architecture, a crowd of about thirty figures; and the Magdalene is merely a beautiful female with loose robes, dishevelled tresses, and the bosom displayed: this gross fault of sentiment is more conspicuous in the large picture in the Durazzo Palace at Genoa than in the beautiful finished sketch in the collection of Mr. Rogers.[305]A fine sketch by the same painter, but quite different, is at Alton Towers. The composition of Rubens, of which a very fine sketch is in the Windsor collection, is exceedingly dramatic: the dignity of Christ and the veneration and humility of the Magdalene are admirably expressed; but the disdainful surprise of some of the assistants, and the open mockery of others,—the old man in spectacles peering over to convince himself of the truth,—disturb the solemnity of the feeling: and this fault is even more apparent in the composition of Philippe de Champagne, where a young man puts up his finger with no equivocal expression. In these two examples the moment chosen is not ‘Thy sins are forgiven thee,’ but the scepticism of the Pharisee becomes the leading idea: ‘This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is.’

2. Christ in the house of Martha and Mary. Of this beautiful subject I have never seen a satisfactory version; in the fresco by Taddeo Gaddi in the Rinuccini Chapel the subject becomes legendary rather than scriptural. Mary Magdalene is seated at the feet of Christ in an attitude of attention; Martha seems to expostulate; three of the disciples are behind; a little out of the principal group, St. Marcella, also with a glory round her head, is seen cooking. At Hampton Court there is a curious picture of this subject by Hans Vries, which is an elaborate study of architecture: the rich decoration of the interior has been criticised; but, according to the legend, Martha and Mary lived in great splendour; and there is no impropriety in representing their dwelling as a palace, but a very great impropriety in rendering the decorations of the palace more important than the personages of the scene. In apicture by Old Bassano, Christ is seen entering the house; Mary Magdalene goes forward to meet him; Martha points to the table where Lazarus sits composedly cutting a slice of sausage, and in the corner St. Marcella is cooking at a fire. In a picture by Rubens, the treatment is similar. The holy sisters are like two Flemish farm servants, and Christ—but I dare not proceed:—in both these instances, the colouring, the expression, the painting of the accessories—the vegetables and fruit, the materials and implements for cooking a feast—are as animated and true to nature as the conception of the whole scene is trivial, vulgar, and, to a just taste, intolerably profane.

One of the most modern compositions of this scene which has attracted attention is that of Overbeck, very simple and poetical, but deficient in individual expression.

3. The raising of Lazarus was selected by the early Christians as an emblem, both of the general resurrection, and the resurrection of our Saviour, at a time that the resurrection of the Saviour in person was considered a subject much too solemn and mysterious to be dealt with by the imitative arts. In its primitive signification, as the received emblem of the resurrection of the dead, we find this subject abounding in the catacombs, and on the sarcophagi of the third and fourth centuries. The usual manner of representation shows the dead man swathed like a mummy, under the porch of a temple resembling a tomb, to which there is an ascent by a flight of steps. Christ stands before him, and touches him with a wand. Sometimes there are two figures only, but in general Mary Magdalene is kneeling by. There is one instance only in which Christ stands surrounded by the apostles, and the two sisters are kneeling at his feet:—‘Lord, hadst thou been here, my brother had not died.’[306]

In more modern Art this subject loses its mystic signification, and becomes simply a scriptural incident. It is treated like a scene in a drama, and the painters have done their utmost to vary the treatment. But, however varied as regards the style of conception and the number of personages, Martha and Mary are always present, and, in general, Mary is at the feet of our Saviour. The incident is of course one of the most important in the life of Christ, and is never omitted in theseries, nor yet in the miracles of our Saviour. But, from the beginning of the fourteenth century, it forms one of the scenes of the story of Mary Magdalene. The fresco of Giovanni da Milano at Assisi contains thirteen figures, and the two sisters kneeling at the feet of Christ have a grand and solemn simplicity; but Mary is not here in any respect distinguished from Martha, and both are attired in red.

In the picture in our National Gallery, the kneeling figure of Mary looking up in the face of Jesus, with her grand severe beauty and earnest expression, is magnificent: but here, again, Mary of Bethany is not Mary Magdalene, nor the woman ‘who was a sinner;’ and I doubt whether Michael Angelo intended to represent her as such. On the other hand, the Caracci, Rubens, and the later painters are careful to point out the supposed identity, by the long fair hair, exposed and dishevelled, the superior beauty and the superior prominence and importance of the figure, while Martha stands by, veiled, and as a secondary personage.

4. In the Crucifixion, where more than the three figures (the Redeemer, the Virgin, and St. John) are introduced, the Magdalene is almost always at the foot of the cross, and it is said that Giotto gave the first example. Sometimes she is embracing the cross, and looking up with all the abandonment of despairing grief, which is more picturesque than true in sentiment; finer in feeling is the expression of serene hope tempering the grief. In Rubens’ famous ‘Crucifixion’ at Antwerp, she has her arms round the cross, and is gazing at the executioner with a look of horror: this is very dramatic and striking, but the attention of the penitent ought to be fixed on the dying Saviour, to the exclusion of every other thought or object. In Vandyck’s ‘Crucifixion,’ the face of the Magdalene seen in front is exquisite for its pathetic beauty. Sometimes the Virgin is fainting in her arms. The box of ointment is frequently placed near, to distinguish her from the other Maries present.

5. In the Descent or Deposition from the Cross, and in the Entombment, Mary Magdalene is generally conspicuous. She is often supporting the feet or one of the hands of the Saviour; or she standsby weeping; or she sustains the Virgin; or (which is very usual in the earlier pictures) she is seen lamenting aloud, with her long tresses disordered, and her arms outspread in an ecstasy of grief and passion; or she bends down to embrace the feet of the Saviour, or to kiss his hand; or contemplates with a mournful look one of the nails, or the crown of thorns, which she holds in her hand.

In the Pietà, of Fra Bartolomeo, in the Pitti Palace, the prostrate abandonment in the figure of the Magdalene, pressing the feet of Christ to her bosom, is full of pathetic expression; in the same gallery is the Pietà by Andrea del Sarto, where the Magdalene, kneeling, wrings her hands in mute sorrow. But in this, as in other instances, Raphael has shown himself supreme: there is a wonderful little drawing by him, in which Nicodemus and others sustain the body of the Saviour, while Mary Magdalene lies prostrate bending her head over his feet, which she embraces; the face is wholly concealed by the flowing hair, but never was the expression of overwhelming love and sorrow conveyed with such artless truth.

6. The Maries at the Sepulchre. The women who carry the spices and perfumes to the tomb of Jesus are called, in Greek Art, theMyrrhophores, or myrrh-bearers: with us there are usually three, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and John, and Mary Salome. In Matthew, two women are mentioned; in Mark, three; in Luke, the number is indefinite; and in John, only one is mentioned, Mary Magdalene. There is scarcely a more beautiful subject in the whole circle of Scripture story than this of the three desolate affectionate women standing before the tomb in the grey dawn, while the majestic angels are seen guarding the hallowed spot. I give, as one of the earliest examples, a sketch from the composition of Duccio: the rules of perspective were then unknown,—but what a beautiful simplicity in the group of women! how fine the seated angel!—‘The angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door and sat upon it.’ I have seen one instance, and only one, in which the angel is in the act of descending; in general, the version according to St. John is followed, and the ‘two men in shining garments’ are seated within the tomb. There is a famous engraving, after a design by Michael Angelo, called ‘The three Maries going tothe Sepulchre:’ it represents three old women veiled, and with their backs turned—very awful; but they might as well be called the three Fates, or the three Witches, as the three Maries. The subject has never been more happily treated than by Philip Veit, a modern German artist, in a print which has become popular; he has followed the version of Matthew: ‘As it began to dawn, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.’ The attitude of motionless sorrow; the anxious expectant looks, fixed on the tomb; the deep shadowy stillness; the morning light just breaking in the distance, are very truly and feelingly expressed.

7. The ‘Noli me tangere’ is the subject of many pictures; they do not vary in the simplicity of themotif, which is fixed by tradition, and admits but of two persons. The composition of Duccio, as one of the series of the Passion of Christ, is extremely grand; and the figure of Mary, leaning forward as she kneels, with outstretched hands, full of expression. The old fresco of Taddeo Gaddi, in the Rinuccini Chapel,[307]is also exquisite. Two of the finest in conception and treatment are, notwithstanding, in striking contrast to each other. One is the Titian in the collection of Mr. Rogers:[308]the Magdalene, kneeling, bends forward with eager expression, and one hand extended to touch him: the Saviour, drawing his linen garment round him, shrinks back from her touch—yet with the softest expression of pity. Besides the beauty and truth of the expression, this picture is transcendent as a piece of colour and effect; while the rich landscape and the approach of morning over the blue distance are conceived with a sublime simplicity. Not less a miracle of Art, not less poetical, but in a far different style, is the Rembrandt in the Queen’s Gallery: at the entrance of the sepulchre the Saviour is seen in the habiliments of a gardener, and Mary Magdalene at his feet, adoring. This picture exhibits, in a striking degree, all the wild originality and peculiar feeling of Rembrandt: the forms and characters are common; but the deep shadow of the cavern tomb, the dimly-seen supernatural beings within it, the breaking of the dawn over the distant city, are awfully sublime, and worthy of the mysteriousscene. Barroccio’s great altar-piece, which came to England with the Duke of Lucca’s pictures, once so famous, and well known from the fine engraving of Raphael Morghen, is poor compared with any of these: Christ is effeminate and commonplace,—Mary Magdalene all in a flutter.

I now leave these scriptural incidents, to be more fully considered hereafter, and proceed to the fourth class of subjects pertaining to the life of the Magdalene—those which are taken from the wild Provençal legends of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

1. ‘La Danse de la Madeleine’ is the title given to a very rare and beautiful print by Lucas v. Leyden. It represents Mary Magdalene abandoned to the pleasures of the world. The scene is a smiling and varied landscape; in the centre Mary Magdalene, with the anticipative glory round her head, is seen dancing along to the sound of a flute and tabor, while a man in a rich dress leads her by the hand: several groups of men and women are diverting themselves in the foreground; in the background, Mary Magdalene, with a number of gay companions, is chasing the stag; she is mounted on horseback, and has again the glory round her head: far in the distance she is seen borne upwards by the angels. This singular and suggestive composition is dated 1519. There is a fine impression in the British Museum.

2. ‘Mary Magdalene rebuked by her sister Martha for her vanity and luxury.’ I believe I am the first to suggest that the famous picture in the Sciarra Palace, by Leonardo da Vinci, known as ‘Modesty and Vanity,’ is a version of this subject. When I saw it, this idea was suggested, and no other filled my mind. The subject is one often treated, and here treated in Leonardo’s peculiar manner. The attitude of the veiled figure is distinctly that of remonstrance and rebuke; the other, decked and smiling, looks out of the picture holding flowers in her hand, as yet unconvinced, unconverted: the vase of ointment stands near her. In other pictures there is no doubt as to the significance of the subject; it has been gracefully treated in a picture by Giovanni Lopicino, now in the gallery of the Belvedere at Vienna. She is seated at her toilette; her maid is binding her luxuriant hair; Martha, standing by, appears to be remonstrating with great fervour. There is a pretty picture by Elisabetta Sirani of the same scene, similarly treated.

3. ‘Mary Magdalene conducted by her sister Martha to the feet of Jesus.’ Of this most beautiful subject, I know but one composition of distinguished merit. It is by Raphael, and exists only in the drawing, and the rare engraving by Marc Antonio. Christ sits within the porch of the Temple, teaching four of his disciples who stand near him. Martha and Mary are seen ascending the steps which lead to the portico: Martha, who is veiled, seems to encourage her sister, who looks down. I observe that Passavant and others are uncertain as to the subject of this charming design: it has been styled ‘The Virgin Mary presenting the Magdalene to Christ;’ but with any one who has carefully considered the legend, there can be no doubt as to the intention of the artist. ‘Mary Magdalene listening to the preaching of our Saviour, with Martha seated by her side,’ is one of the subjects in the series by Gaudenzio Ferrari at Vercelli: it is partly destroyed. We have the same subject by F. Zucchero; Mary, in a rich dress, is kneeling at the feet of the Saviour, who is seated under a portico; Martha, veiled, stands near her, and there are numerous spectators and accessories.

4. ‘The Magdalene renouncing the Vanities of the World’ is also a very attractive subject. In a picture by Guido she has partly divested herself of her rich ornaments, and is taking some pearls from her hair, while she looks up to heaven with tearful eyes. In a sketch by Rubens, in the Dulwich Gallery, she is seated in a forest solitude, still arrayed in her worldly finery, blue satin, pearls, &c., and wringing her hands with an expression of the bitterest grief. The treatment, as usual with him, is coarse, but effective. In his large picture at Vienna, with the figures life-size, Mary is spurning with her feet a casket of jewels, and throwing herself back with her hands clasped in an agony of penitence: while Martha sits behind, gazing on her with an expression so demurely triumphant as to be almost comic. There is an exquisite little picture by Gerard Douw in the Berlin Gallery, in which the Magdalene, in a magnificent robe of crimson and sables, is looking up to heaven with an expression of sorrow and penitence; the table before her is covered with gold and jewels. ‘Mary Magdalene renouncing the World,’ by Le Brun, is a famous picture, now in the Louvre. She looks up to heaven with tearful eyes, and is in the act of tearing off a rich mantle; a casket of jewels lies overturned at her feet. This picture is said tobe the portrait of Madame de la Vallière, by whose order it was painted for the church of the Carmelites at Paris, where she had taken refuge from the court and from the world. It has that sort of theatrical grace and grandeur, that mannered mediocrity, characteristic of the painter and the time.[309]There is a Magdalene in the Gallery at Munich by Le Brun, which is to me far preferable; and this, and not the Paris one, I presume to be the portrait of the Duchesse de la Vallière. In a picture by Franceschini she has flung off her worldly ornaments, which lie scattered on the ground, and holds a scourge in her hand, with which she appears to have castigated herself: she sinks in the arms of one of her attendant maidens, while Martha, standing by, seems to speak of peace, and points towards heaven: the figures are life-size.[310]None of these pictures, with the exception of the precious Leonardo in the Sciarra Palace, have any remarkable merit as pictures. The scenes between Mary and Martha are capable of the most dramatic and effective illustration, but have never yet been worthily treated.

5. ‘The embarkation of the Magdalene in Palestine, with Martha, Lazarus, and the others, cast forth by their enemies in a vessel without sails or rudder, but miraculously conducted by an angel,’ is another subject of which I have seen no adequate representation. There is a mediocre picture by Curradi in the Florence Gallery. Among the beautiful frescoes of Gaudenzio Ferrari in the Church of St. Cristoforo at Vercelli, is the voyage of the Magdalene and her companions, and their disembarkation at Marseilles.[311]

6. ‘Mary Magdalene preaching to the inhabitants of Marseilles’ has been several times represented in the sculpture and stained glass of the old cathedrals in the south of France. In the Hôtel de Cluny there is a curious old picture in distemper attributed to King René of Provence, the father of our Margaret of Anjou, and famous for his skill as a limner. Mary Magdalene is standing on some steps, arrayed in loose white drapery, and a veil over her head. She is addressing earnestly a crowd of listeners, and among them we see King René and his wife Jeanne de Laval on thrones with crown and sceptre:—a trifling anachronism of about 1400 years, but it may be taken in a poetical andallegorical sense. The port of Marseilles is seen in the background. The same subject has been classically treated in a series of bas-reliefs in the porch of the Certosa at Pavia: there is a mistake, however, in exhibiting her as half naked, clothed only in a skin, and her long hairflowing down over her person: for she was at this time the missionary saint, and not yet the penitent of the desert.

Back to Index Next