Talk:Madonna in the Church

Reminders

• Pacht 12 - gold as transcendental light.
• Need the origional latin words.

There you go:

Est enim haec speciosior sole et super omnem stellarum dispositionem luci conparata invenitur prior. (For she is more beautiful than the sun, and above all the order of the stars: being compared with the light, she is found before it). Source: [1].

This holy (literally!) site confirms the passage is the Book of Wisdom 7:29-30. Vatican.va

--CocoLacoste talk 02:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Tks, would be great if you could copy across. I got less done tonight that I wanted, was distracted, but handing over to you now if your still interested. Best. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Y Done, but check if I put it in the right place and if the Bible was well cited.

The Cambrai Madonna: apparently, "Notre-Dame-de-Grâce" is part of the painting's name, not that Canadian neighbourhood you've linked it to – "Virgin of Tenderness" is a rough translation. And it belongs to The Met. Looky here [2]. Tried to find it on the Met site, but it's like a needle in a haystack. Cheers, --CocoLacoste talk 11:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

PS, Met site: [3]. I gave up after page 10, in case you'd like to track it down. There are just 100 pages. Have a ball!

We use Eleusa icon for this type currently. The painting belongs to Cambrai Cathedral, & was loaned to the Met's exhibition. Is File:Cambrai, Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Grâce, icône F 581.jpg this pic better? It was painted around 1340, & in 1440 given in Rome to a Cambrai canon, who took it north. Installed in the Cathedral in 1451, & a huge hit thereafter - believed to have been painted by St Luke. The Cathedral is called "Notre-Dame-de-Grâce", now anyway, but I think this isd the French name for the icon-type too. The painting has an artixcle in German WP: here. #349 in the Met catalogue. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Cocolacoste sweetheart, I'm considering spliting the description sect into pure descr and iconography, what do you think? Plus if I can find more on the theft of the origional frame, would be a good hook. Nice work this morning from you. Ceoil (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't quite follow. You mean pure description and iconography as a concept? Anyway, that subsection isn't that long. It's fine, methinks, at least for now.

Absolutely! The history of the theft is one of the missing bits. Another thing that would do nicely is the original name of the painting – in Dutch or French, if ever it had one. I'm anything but an expert, I insist.

There is little record of the artists, not to mention their paintings titles. "Madonna in the Church" is fairly generic no, and anyway, anything more loaded would make it less easy fpr the doner to project on. And we do say "are names given to". Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The frame contains a gilded silver closure, which implies that it was once attached by hinges and clasps. Pural, and both?

How could I know?! I don't work at an ironmonger's or Ikea. Seems a tad odd, though: clasps, as far as I know, are very similar to hinges. What do you fix hinges with? Nails? Screws? Or the hinges joined the 2 panels together and they used the clasp to close it (like those to close a girlie diary?)? Rewording depends on your answers. If you leave just hinges, make sure first if it was joined by two (like, say, a door) or just one. --CocoLacoste talk 12:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I would think the normal thing would be hinges in the middle, & two clasps, in girlie diary style, to shut it when travelling, in Lent, or maybe all the time so it needed to be opened to view. Not sure what a "gilded silver closure" means (one side of a clasp?) - more detail needed. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"gilded silver closure" - condactory sources. Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The frame contains a gilded silver closure, which implies that it was once attached by hinges and clasps. Pural, and both?
• In the tracery behind her, embedded wooden carvings
• The panel is thought to have been created as the right wing of a diptych - we say it from a donor diptych but also that Philip comissioned. Makes no sense.

We say (over-confidently?) it might have faced a missing donor portrait, but this term also tends to be used for portraits in religious paintings that were not in fact donated anywhere straight away, but kept as personal possessions, as was presumably the case here. Johnbod (talk)

This is interesting, and ties into the idea of the workshop as production line hinted at. Its a gaping hole and contradiction in the page, but this is a very good steer. Ceoil (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And yes I accept "over-confidently". Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Btw, see Diego de Guevara for a V&C+portrait diptych from the Burgundian court, a generation or more later. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the work yourself and Wetman did on de Guevara at the time, and how naturalistic depiction is. Going back to the mid 1400s and fast forwarding 10-15 years, it was really van der Weyden's market. He had the V&C down pat. Ceoil (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Harbison page nnumbers

Until today the refs contained:

• Harbison, Craig. "Realism and Symbolism in Early Flemish Painting". The Art Bulletin, Volume 66, No. 4, Dec 1984. 588–602
• Harbison, Craig. "The Art of the Northern Renaissance". London: Laurence King Publishing, 1995. ISBN 1-78067-027-0
• Harbison, Craig. Jan van Eyck: the play of realism. London: Reaktion Books, 1997. ISBN 0-948462-79-5

I changed the "Play of Realism" to the 1991 edition I have, as there were no 1997 refs showing. I've now noticed that some of the refs given as "1995" are in fact to the "Play of realism" - unless there is a fantastic coincidence. Fortunately the pagination seems identical between 1991 & 1997, with pp. 158-187 the main pages on the painting (Chapters 17 & 18). I'll continue changing these to 1991 if no-one objects. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Work away Johnbod; plus myself and C were aware that that the chopping and changing we did in the last few days upset some of the ref placement, so Im planning on going back over it all. Really lovely work bty, just got back and am delighted to see such quality additions. Ceoil (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm finding the "Play of realism" dated 1995 over at the Antwerp Madonna too. That might be Lithoderm. Btw, what is Joly 1998 - not in "sources". Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Its a JSTOR article TK found re the Ghent Altarpiece. I can send you a copy if your interested, plus she scanned large tracts of Pächt, but beware, 15MB file. Maybe I could drop it somewhere, its certainly wroth reading. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

He's exaggerating. I didn't really scan large tracts of anything. I'd completely forgotten about Jolly - found it right before I went awol. In Dhanens I've found the Latin from the original frame, lots about the provenance, well actually she devotes a chapter to this painting, but it's a big book, can't scan, and I'm still awol. I'll take notes when I can. Probably best to do in bits and pieces. I'll link to my sandbox when notes have been posted. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Tks Truths, your modestly belies your....{shutting up} Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Harbison 2012?
This is what notes 2 and 22 read, but there's no mention of such a book under Sources. A slip-up, surely? --CocoLacoste talk 03:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This the 1995 book; I have a 2012 edition, is where the confusion arose. My deep shame. Ceoil (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Inscription on the lost frame

I've done a bit of research and found out it is the 1st two verses of the sixth strophe from "Dies est lætitiæ", a song in Piae Cantiones. According to this (rather dodgy yet useful) site ([4]), it's a compilation of Latin traditional church and school songs, and it's mentioned in the Oxford Book of Carols. Two versions for the song title, though: it's "Dies est læticiæ, Ecce novum gaudium" here ([5]), but plain "Dies est lætitiæ" on Mats Lillhannus's site ([6]) – where "Ecce novum gaudium" appears as another song. Can look into it if you think it's worth.
Got the Latin text too.
Is all this worth mentioning, including, etc.? – bearing in mind the book Truthkeeper mentions above.
Cheers, --CocoLacoste talk 08:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cocolacoste. I think its probably worth putting in as a mention now, but I'd hold off on doing any heavy research until the new year when TK is back. Its possible that her source will cover it, if not then we can start looking again. Bty, nice work since I looked last. Best. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Lost frame inscription per Elisabeth Dhanens:

• FLOS FLORIOCOLORUM APPELLARIS MATTER HEC EST FILLIA PATER EST NATUS QUIS AUDIVIT TALIA DEUS HOMO NATUS ETCET.
• Also in the same book she writes: "On the seam of the mantle some letters, probably from the passage in Wisdom 7:29, "Hec est speciosior sole ...." which is found on the frame of the Madonna with Canon van der Paele and that of the Dresden triptych, also on the arch framing the Virgin in the Ghent altarpiece"
• Source: Dhanens, Elisabeth. Hubert and Jan van Eyck. New York: Tabard Press. 1980. ISBN 0-914427-00-8
• Hope this is helpful. I haven't yet had the time to look at the article so don't know whether or not it's redundant. Best wishes for the holidays to you all. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much, TK. This clarifies things a bit. All the best, --CocoLacoste talk 19:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Turin-Milan Hours

Parking this here for now. Would be good to show the scale of figures in a gothic church and Dhanens suggests the background is similar. No room though. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a lovely image but a terrible reproduction. But I think van E is, as he usually does, laying with the scales of things - the church looks too small for the figures, for example those piers of clustered columns would not I think need to be nearly that thick in a small church like that. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding - I've encountered a problem. One source (Dhanens) writes that Hulin de Loo believed Hubert the artist based on the similarities with the Turin-Milan Hours, while Otto Pacht writes that de Loo believed Hand G to have been Jan and not Hubert. How to resolve? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

From our article: " Hulin de Loos thought these [Hand G] the work of Hubert van Eyck, who, like most art historians of the time, he also thought the main artist of the Ghent Altarpiece. He thought the less exciting, but similar, Hand H might be Jan van Eyck." I've added a ref to the 2nd sentence (Châtelet, 39 - actually it sounds as if de Loos was pretty sure of this) but a quick look doesn't give a specific one for the first one, that de Loos thought H=Hubert. So maybe Pacht was muddled. Actually Châtelet has a bibliography with terse comments on p. 194, showing Hulin de Loos publishing on the MS between 1902 & 1932, so his views might have shifted, Châtelet 198 says "Master H was first accorded a distinct identity by Hulin de Loos, though at that time the latter took him to be Jan van Eyck". Others: Haselhoff 1903 G=Jan; Friedlaender 1916, G=Jan, Tolnay 1932, Jan not involved, and so on. All very fiddly! Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Johnbod. I'm hoping it's me that's muddled - it all made sense until I re-read my notes but possibly I wrote the wrong name. I'll have to re-order Pacht from the library and I think leave it as is for now. It's always very fiddly with Hubert and Jan. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding: it's me who is muddled. Pacht believes the Master of the Turin Hours to be Hubert - I must have made a typo or something. So this is moot. But - I did find a section in Pacht about scale which will be helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

1499

Tk, noticing the scrunching imgs/txt ratio also, holding this here, till I find a less dreadful res version. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Master of 1499

Yeah, the page is a bit full, but I've come across more in the sources (not yet sandboxed) so the text will grow - I think. If I can get back here. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I made it loud and clear to those buying x-mas presents they were to be northern 15th c, so have a few things too. Sorry for the tardyness. We'll get there. Ceoil (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we will. I only popped in for a few moments tonight - can't edit now. But hoping my time will free up soonish. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Two words...external auditors. Will pay better attention soon.......Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sides

I moved that picture to right, because it does give a strange impression to the left. Layout is usually made pict to left, content text to right. I realized that there was some controversy and argumentation, so feel free to revert, regards. Hafspajen (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thats fine. I prefer left myself, but not really pushed either. Ceoil (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Translation

A lot of thanks for your work, now translated into French. --Ferdine75 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)