Completed Continental European before 1800 18 Is the subject of this painting the Virgin as the Woman of the Apocalypse, rather than the Immaculate Conception?

DUN_DAGM_TEMP_NO_4126-001.jpg
Topic: Subject or sitter

This is a copy of a painting by Carlo Maratta of 1663 in the Cappella de Sylva in the Chiesa di Sant’Isidoro, Lazio, Rome. I have been unable to find a photograph of the work in situ, but the Zeri Foundation entry confirms the artist and the location. https://bit.ly/33TMYL9

That entry agrees with the Dundee title but it is worth considering whether this is in fact an Immaculate Conception. Renderings of that subject would not normally include the Christ child, as the conception concerned is that of the Virgin. Instead, the iconography here more resembles that of The Virgin as the Woman of the Apocalypse, as in the linked Rubens sketch. https://bit.ly/2UuC63m

There is no NICE Paintings entry for this work.

Completed, Outcome

This discussion is now closed. It was agreed that the present title of ‘The Immaculate Conception’ is appropriate, although the iconography is related to that of the Virgin of the Apocalypse.

The discussion about the iconographies of the Immaculate Conception and Virgin of the Apocalypse helps to explain the theology behind them, while showing how hard it is to separate them, since the former has referred to the latter since the fifteenth century.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to the discussion. To anyone viewing this discussion for the first time, please see below for all the comments that led to this conclusion.

17 comments

Jacinto Regalado,

Another image of the picture in situ (scroll down a bit):

http://idlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com/2010/12/madonna-of-immaculate-conception.html

The presence of the Child is atypical, but all else fits, and I think this has always been called and accepted as an Immaculate Conception. It lacks multiple elements of the Woman of the Apocalypse seen in the Rubens version. I suppose it could be considered a kind of iconographic hybrid, but it seems closer to its traditional identification than to the apocalyptic Mary.

Magdalena Lanuszka,

Immaculate Conception idea was actually depicted since 15th century in reference to Woman of Apocalypse. In late gothic examples Virgin was always with Child, while many Early-Modern images depicted Virgin solo - I am not sure though that this may be distinguished definitively, as artists of all centuries may have referred to medieval pictorial tradition. Also, the Immaculate Conception indeed concerned that of the Virgin, but the whole theological idea was based on Virgin's future motherhood (she was supposed to have been chosen to give sinless flesh to Messiah, so her Immaculate Conception was justified due to future Incarnation of Christ, he presence of Child actually does make sense in those depictions). In case of the late-gothic prototypes both names of this type are used by scholars: "Mulier amicta sole" and "Immaculata"; both are correct.

1 attachment
Jacinto Regalado,

Also, at least right now, the basic Art UK entry attributes this picture to Italian School without mentioning Maratta (unless one manages to get to the "More information" section, which many users would not)

Jacinto Regalado,

Evidently, Maratta preferred to include the Child in this subject. Thus, the title of Immaculate Conception is appropriate as currently given in the Art UK entry (which now credits Maratta as the source). It would appear that this discussion can be closed.

Al Brown,

Based on the evidence given in the contributions so far, I agree with Jacinto that the current title should be retained and the discussion closed - with the agreement of the collection.

A note could be added to explain the iconography further.

Whaley Turco,

"Vergine con Bambino che appaiono a S.Isidoro" di Andrea Sacchi (1622).
"Virgin and Child appearing to Saint Isidoro" by Andrea Sacchi (1622).

Mark Wilson,

The truth is that so much of the iconography for the Immaculate Conception was taken from the Woman of the Apocalypse - notably "clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars" - that you can't really separate them. And it looks as if the original of this picture has always been known as an Immaculate Conception, so that must be the right title.

At the same time depictions of this subject including the Christ Child seem pretty unusual in this period. Mary is usually capable of trampling snakes underfoot all on her own in front of an audience of slightly grumpy putti:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception#Artistic_representation

and even the guest appearance by the hovering dove of the Holy Spirit isn't that common. Maratta seems to be one of the few who regularly includes a Christ Child:

http://www.viaesiena.it/en/mendicanti/itinerario_o/chiesa-sant-agostino/la-chiesa/la-devozione-mariana-o/immacolata-concezione-ago

The 1663 original was created during the pontificate of Alexander VII who had issued an Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception on 1661:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VII#Theology

and Maratta received many commissions from him, so the iconography of the picture for Sant' Isidoro is going to be as approved as you can get. But, despite the papal backing, images of Mary on her own prevailed. Perhaps the Church was uneasy about such a unmediated image of female power, but the faithful preferred it.

Maybe it could be noted that the iconography of the picture is both orthodox and unusual.

Kostas Gravanis,

I agree that we cannot separate the iconography of the Immaculate Conception from the Woman (Virgin) of the Apocalypse since the former was modeled after the latter: she is typically standing on the crescent moon, radiating, surrounded by stars (seven or twelve), and sometimes (not always) crushing a dragon or a snake.

About our picture here, we can see that the infant Christ is crushing the serpent’s head with the Cross, so the artist added Christ for a reason. I don't think we can classify the subject as an ‘Immaculate Conception’. It would be more appropriate to name it ‘Virgin of the Apocalypse and Christ Crushing the Serpent’s Head’.

The concept of the ‘woman’s seed crushing the serpent’s head’ derived from the ‘Protoevangelium’ of the Old Testament (Genesis 3:15), a biblical episode that was interpreted by Christian theologians as the first prophecy for the Christian salvation. The seed would crush the serpent’s head and the serpent would bruise its heel.
The ‘woman’ from Genesis has been identified by Christians with Virgin, and her seed with the Savior. The same roles have been applied to the ‘Woman of the Apocalypse’ and her newly born son who is persecuted by the dragon.

It is not clear from the Genesis passage if the person who crushes the serpent’s head is a ‘he’ or a ‘she’, and translators have always disagreed on this…some theologians preferred the idea of a male seed defeating the serpent (that would be the Christ), whereas others believed that it was the woman who did it (that is the Virgin).
That seems to explain why in many pictures it is the Virgin who crushes the snake’s head, whereas elsewhere it is Christ…they sometimes crush the snake with their foot and some other times they use the Cross (as in our case).
When the Virgin crushes the snake’s head then the meaning is typically related to the Incarnation. But when it is crushed by infant Christ then the meaning might be related to the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection or to all of them at once.

In our case here, the use of the Cross could be taken as an allusion to the Savior's crucifixion and sacrifice.

Sorry to confuse things, but my conclusion is that the most accurate title for this picture would be ‘Virgin of the Apocalypse and Christ Crushing the Serpent's Head’ (it is accurate without stepping to theological interpretations).

http://www.artnet.com/artists/ciro-ferri/the-virgin-and-the-infant-christ-crushing-the-tneuCd3ufnxbLvzHfHy1lQ2

https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.125296.html

Jacinto Regalado,

My opinion is that the title should be what it has always been for the original painting and, if the collection wishes, a note could be added to the Art UK entry discussing the iconography in more detail.

The collection has replied: 'Many thanks for confirming that the Art Detective conversation on our Immaculate Conception has now closed. It has been a long and ongoing conversation which my furloughed colleague has followed with interest. We have been kept in the loop throughout and will record all the information outlined on our Collections Management System.'

Mark Wilson,

To quickly jump in before the discussion closes and reply to Kostas: That's a very helpful explanation of the theology behind the iconography of this picture and the various meaning that can be put on it. But I'm not sure it means that the traditional title of the picture needs altering. Rather it illuminates the struggle to define exactly how the Immaculate Conception was presented and how different interpretations of scripture could be used to shift the emphasis.

It's interesting that both the other images you link to come, like the original Maratta, from the mid-17th century. Clearly there is a desire at the time to tilt the imagery around Mary away from any hint of her having her own power and into emphasising that can only from God - whether shown as the Christ Child or the Holy Spirit above her.

To some extent this must be a last gasp of the Counter-Reformation which took on some of the anti-Marian criticism of the Reformation and wished to tone down the idea that Mary or the Saints had any power in themselves. It also took a much more restrictive view of what imagery could be used in paintings. In churches at least - as all those lascivious Caravaggio St Johns remind us private 'devotions' were something else.

The Immaculate Conception and its later derivatives like the Miraculous Medal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_Medal) become the main iconography for representing Mary on her own and the eventual failure of the attempts to add any presence from the Trinity show how even papal backing may not be enough to dictate how the faithful are supposed to see things.

So this is indeed a representation of the Immaculate Conception, but one whose variation tells an interesting story.