« Just Thinking | Main | Shorts Day »
May 26, 2006
Who Was That Lady. . . ?
One of my students dropped off a print copy of the Newsweek article on Mary Magdalene — knowing my hopeless entanglement in the da Vinci Code Resistance Movement — and as I skimmed the article, I noticed the painting of Susanna by Jean-Baptiste Santerre on the upper right of page 44 (omitted in the online version, but available online at the Web Gallery of Art).
I’m not an art historian, but the picture certainly looks to me as though it depicts not the Susanna of Luke 8:3 (“. . . Susanna and many other women, who supported [Jesus and the disciples] from their possessions”), about whom we know little. It does depict the Susanna who appears in the “Additions to Daniel,” the extended remix of the Book of Daniel in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. In Susanna 15ff, she secludes herself in the garden to take a bath, and two elders try to rape her. Look closely at the picture in Newsweek or online: a naked woman bathing in a walled garden, with at least one geriatric voyeur in the background. It was a popular motif for a long time, possibly because it gave painters a biblical scene into which they could justifiably paint a beautiful naked woman.
(A) In an article that deals with the relation of a patriarchal institution to women, it would be a step in the right direction if the newmagazine could tell one woman from another. Or are women really just interchangeable, available without regard to their identity for entertainment?
(B) In an article about distinguishing fact from fiction, it would be helpful if the newsmagazine showed that its editorial staff knows its stuff. Where would mainstream media be without blogs to fact-check for them?
Posted by AKMA at May 26, 2006 02:57 PM | Threadorati
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Comments
Do you think that it was omitted in the online version because the mainstream media wanted to use the picture of the naked woman with less chance that bloggers would do their fact checking for them?
Posted by: Trevor Bechtel at May 26, 2006 03:02 PM
Actually if you look closely at the male figure haunting the upper right corner of the painting you can very clearly distinguish the hand of a second individual lurking there as well (look on the prominant figure's left shoulder). This painting does indeed appear to be inspired by the incident from the Daniel literature. I think that Mr. Bechtel may have indeed hit upon the reason for the inclusion of the picture. Nothing like a little sex to help a boring topic like religion along.
Posted by: Colin Toffelmire at May 27, 2006 12:32 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
