Jay at Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate posted this today (well, yesterday now) about how he was fortunate enough to see, completely without warning, El Greco's The Holy Family, which happens not only to portray the Holy Family, but what Jay considers "one of the most beautiful portraits of the Blessed Mother ever painted" (with which I am inclined to agree--see Jay's site for a detail) and my favorite of all of the portraits of the Virgin breastfeeding that I have ever seen. Simply beautiful and inspirational. I was saving this one for a really inspirational post, but this seemed like a good occasion.
From an art historical perspective, it strikes me that the Virgin and Child are not arranged in the usual triangular shape, with their two figures closer to heaven. I wonder who the woman is caressing the Infant's head. . . In El Greco's work, the beauty, of course, is in the representation of the faces, and the emotion evoked by his choice of color. This image speaks to me of adoration. I wish I was also fortunate enough to see it in person.
Hmmm. . . Looking at Jay's post again, it appears that the reproduction I have posted is a different version of the painting than the one on display in Jamestown! How interesting!!
9 comments:
I love the way the Christ child is reaching out to grab his mother's hand. And St. Joseph caressing his foot. So tender!
I'd guess the old woman is St Anne, Mary's mother. Look at this other El Greco painting of the Holy Family with St Anne and John the Baptist here.
I'm not sure how others think about paintings, but I tend to think of each scene painted as an isolated masterpiece, and then, if there are other "versions," they are usually "studies" of the subjects--almost drafts. This is clearly different!
It's interesting the slight variations in the positions of the figures in all 3 of the paintings. It's almost a sequence, with family members visiting the scene and then departing. Thanks for the comment and the link, Melanie!
Curious... In the painting that I posted, I did assume that the woman was St. Anne. But if the baby in the one Melanie links to is John the Baptist, it might make more sense that the woman is St. Elizabeth. She might have been as old as St. Anne. What do you think?
How appropriate considering this is National Breastfeeding Month. This picture is great but it does make me think about how cultural responses to breastfeeding have changed throughout time. I was reading a post on "Mothering" website (like the magazine) that chuckled at the notion that modern-day breastfeeding is still considered an act reserved for poor people and hippies. Probably not su much in generations past.
Well, I don't know... Upper class women in previous centuries didn't always breastfeed either--hence, the wet-nurse. Of course, sometimes the poor women who had to work also had wet-nurses. And there were questions sometimes of how well nourished the wet nurses were, or what became of their own babies, or whether they were really breastfeeding the babies or actually substituting other milk for breastmilk, resulting in poorly nourished or ill babies.
But certainly, the practice of having a wet nurse does come to be associated with rich women. Meaning that yes, breastfeeding was for the poor--well before the 20th century!
Now, how to interpret that in terms of representations of Mary breastfeeding? A lot would depend on the cultural assumptions of the painter. There could be an acknowledgment of the historical reality that Mary would have HAD to breastfeed, but then why represent it in a beautiful devotional painting, if it was not something of which the culture approved? It could have something to do with the humility of Mary... An acknowledgment of the closeness of mother & child (but again, why represent this if it was at odds with the culture?)... A way to promote breastfeeding to mothers as an ideal of motherhood... There are a number of possibilities.
Combine this with the fact that these paintings (until perhaps Mary Cassatt, who would not have been representing the Blessed Mother, but rather "Everymother") were painted by men, and not always men who were husbands and fathers. It could be that they were seeking an excuse to paint the female breast, but that's certainly not the case here, and I haven't seen too many paintings of which that claim could legitimately be made.
Another thought... What would the advocates of "modesty" have to say about this representation? Though breastfeeding is not always mentioned by modesty advocates (I'm thinking of a few sewing web sites I have found with prairie dresses & the like), it is frequently the modesty advocates who back and promote homemade nursing clothing. In the context of the painting, however, the exposed breast is a sacred element, with Mary represented as the "New Eve"--unashamed of her body, as before the Fall. I am reminded again, too, of the Christopher West article I discuss in my previous post, in which he has this to say about the women attending the Second World Meeting of John Paul II with Families in Brazil in 1997:
[W]omen from “first-world” nations tended to drape themselves and sit off in a corner, while women from other nations seemed to have no qualms whatsoever about feeding their babies in full view of others. I remember one woman unabashedly roaming the crowd passing all manner of bishops and cardinals with her breast fully exposed while her child held on to it with both hands happily feeding. The only people flinching seemed to be those from the northern hemisphere.
So what do sacred representations of Mary breastfeeding tell us about the relationship of modesty and breastfeeding? Or is it purely cultural? (And, incidently, not widely accepted in our culture, which nevertheless displays breasts freely in other contexts...)
The Church defines modesty as "refusing to unveil that which should remain hidden" (CCC 2521) Now, why should the breast remain hidden when it is performing the duty for which it has been created? It would seem in this case that the problem lies not with the mother who is exposing her breast but with the onlooker who perceives her in a sexual nature. On the other hand, the Church acknowledges that "the forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another" (CCC 2524). In this culture, I think most would agree that womens' breasts are viewed as sexual objects, first, and nourishment for babies second. It would seem, then, in our culture, that it would be necessary to nurse discreetly to prevent "evident risk of unhealthy curiosity" (CCC 2522). But, it also seems, that the more a culture comes to accept breastfeeding as natural and womens' breasts as not purely sexual, then the issue of medesty will become less and less of an issue.
Just to clarify, I don't think it's necessary for a woman to cover up when she is breastfeeding. I think she can do whatever she is comfortable with and that one who might be offended can just look aside and pray to be swayed from temptation.
If men are present when I'm breastfeeding, I usually cover or if the baby insists on pushing up my shirt and the like I'll go to another room. I believe in breastfeeding and even breastfeeding it public but it even makes me uncomfortable to see a woman's whole breast hanging out in mixed company.
Heart to Heart had a post about immodest dress (not breastfeeding but I think some of it transfers). I liked this statement: ...men attest to their dislike of having their sexual drive yanked about by women who are dressed immodestly.
Post a Comment