Talk:Manchester Madonna

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Saints

	Saints portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Unsourced material[edit]

This is a pretty bold assertion to stand with no source: "The painting's attribution to Michelangelo was in doubt for much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but scholars now consider it an authentic work by the master."

Which scholars? Currently, the page on Michelangelo mentions this as a painting that "may have been" painted by Michelangelo. If the authorship is now undisputed, let's see a source.

In addition, I wonder where the info comes from that the book "probably" contains a prophesy about Jesus' death. zadignose (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The brief NG page seems to confirm both points; it is firmly attributed to M. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that was quick. Thanks! zadignose (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported nonsense[edit]

"In 2017, scholars discovered an extra tooth or mesiodens in the child which is a proof for the attribution to Michelangelo. Moreover, the painting is thematically and iconographically connected to a fresco by Piero della Francesca in Arezzo^[1] The same author has discovered, in June 2018, a self-portrait of Michelangelo and an ichthys in the folds of Maria's cloak, between her arms."

I have no idea how anyone can find an extra tooth in a baby's mouth if the baby's mouth cannot be examined. Looking for a slight swelling in the baby's cheek or lip in the context of a painting is no evidence at all.

Suggesting that the presence of an extra tooth in a painted baby is "proof" that the baby was painted by Michelangelo is patently nonsensical.

Link to a fresco by Piero della Francesca? I know of two panel paintings that similarly show the Madonna and Child with angels (not an uncommon subject) but I know of no Piero fresco of this subject. THe painting in the Frick Collection also has four angels, like the Manchester Madonna.

An icthys between her arms? Well, I can see a slightly fishy shape in the folds of her sleeve. It isn't significant. Besides which, the icthys symbol was not used at this date. It was used during Early Christian times and was reintroduced to the world at the "Fish Mission" which took place at Sydney University in the 1960s.

Self portrait of Michelangelo? This would need some really substantial evidence to back it up.

Amandajm (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Giometti, Sandro (2018). "Michelangelo: Mostrare l'invisibile – displaying the invisible", ed. TAU Todi (Italy), pp. 1–33)

[1] Giometti, Sandro (2018). "Michelangelo: Mostrare l'invisibile – displaying the invisible", ed. TAU Todi (Italy), pp. 1–33)

[1]