The painting “Adoration of the Magi” by di Nardo portrays the three Magiapproaching he baby Jesus and the Virgin Mary. However, there is much more toit than just this familiar scene from Judeo-Christian lore.
When approachingthis painting in order to analyze it iconographically, it is necessary to firstlook at all aspects of the form. If this aspect is ignored, it provides for anincomplete analysis of the painting. Once this is looked at, the iconography ofthe painting becomes much clearer, and it is easier to compare the painting tothe actual biblical text from which it was derived (Gospel of St. Matthew 2:1? 2:12). When approaching the painting the first thing I noticed was the oddperspective. There are several vanishing points.
Also, all of the figures seemto be placed on one plane. Because of this, the two figures that represent Jesusand Mary seem to be hovering weirdly above the ground. This, I believe, drawsthe viewer’s attention to these two figures, since they are the main focus ofthe painting. Due to the influence of my culture, I recognized the figures asJesus and Mary immediately. However, despite this, there are a few indicators asto who the people represented in the painting are.
When viewing the painting, itis obvious that the figures of mother and child are the main point because thegazes of all of the people in the represented center on the child, including themother’s. Also, the weird hovering effect also directs the viewer’sattention to these two figures. Both Mary and Jesus have halos, but this is notnecessarily a distinguishing factor seeing as how there are also four otherfigures in the painting that have halos. However, the halo that surrounds thehead of the baby Jesus has a slightly different pattern than those that theother figures possess.
This lets you know that for whatever reason, this childis set apart from all other figures in the painting. So, even if the viewer isof another culture or religion and doesn’t see the significance of the femalein the picture being clothed in blue and red, or the significance of the”blessing” position in which the baby is holding his hand, he can see thatfor some reason, this child is being distinguished from all other people in thepainting. Another aspect of the form that draws your attention to the Virgin andJesus is the triangular set up of these two figures along with Joseph andanother Magus. The triangle that is formed has Mary and Jesus at the peak, yetagain, drawing the viewer’s attention to these two figures and reinforcing thefact that they are of some significance. When comparing the painting to the textin the Bible that describes the same meeting of the Magi with the baby Jesus andMary, there are several differences.
There are certain things that I noticedthat not only go contrary to the painting, but to popular culture’s idea ofthis story. First, in the Bible, the Magi are referred to as, chief priests andteachers of the law. They were not “kings” as they are often referred to inChristian culture. In fact, in di Nardo’s depiction, all of the Magi arewearing crowns, showing this misunderstanding.
Another thing that is assumed bydi Nardo in his painting, as well as by popular culture is that there were threeMagi. There is nothing mentioned in Matthew 2:1 ? 2:12 that makes reference tothere being exactly three Magi. What I noticed that might have lead to thismisconception, however, is that the Magi brought gifts of “gold, incense andmyrrh. ” This is the only thing that I saw that could have lead to the beliefthat there were three Magi ? one Magus for each gift. There are also extrapeople in the painting whom I could not identify.
There is no mention of anyonein the bible besides Jesus, Mary and the Magi. There is not even any mention ofJoseph who is clearly depicted. Also, the gifts that the Magi are holding in thepainting by di Nardo, are all the same and look as though they are gold, ratherthan gold, incense and myrrh. Whether these are merely containers with the truegifts inside of them, I do not know, but even if they are, this still straysfrom the original biblical story, because it gives no mention of the gifts beingpresented in golden cases. Another aspect that is different in di Nardo’spainting than it is in the Bible, is that in the painting, the Magus that bowsdown to worship Jesus has removed his crown and placed it on the ground in frontof Jesus.
There is no mention of this in the Bible. This goes along with themisrepresentation of the Magi as kings or Wise Men. There is also an additionalpart added by di Nardo that is not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible simplystates that the Magi “saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed downand worshiped him.
” (Matthew 2:11) However, di Nardo portrays one Magus bowingdown and kissing the baby Jesus’ feet. Another outstanding difference betweenthe Bible and di Nardo’s depiction of the story is that when the Magi go topay respects to Jesus, he, Mary and Joseph are living in a house at that time. They did not visit Jesus on the night of his birth in a manger, contrary to yetanother convention. Di Nardo clearly portrays the scene as taking place in amanger, shown by the prominent horse and cow placed centrally in the picture. Itis also clear that the scene is taking place out of doors because there aregrasses and weeds growing out of the ground.
The Bible clearly states that theMagi went into a house, showing that this was not the newborn Jesus that theywere visiting, but a child who was several months old. There is also one detailmentioned in the biblical version that di Nardo, for whatever reason, chose toleave out of “Adoration of the Magi. ” The Bible makes a big point that theMagi followed a star to find Jesus, and that the start stopped over the housewhere the baby Jesus was. However, in di Nardo’s representation, the sky isclear and golden. The several differences between the painting and the actualstory in the Bible show the vast misconceptions (or if these were notmisconceptions, at least misrepresentations) of di Nardo when painting thispicture. However, these misconceptions were not di Nardo’s alone.
Whetherthese were commonly held beliefs at the time that “Adoration of the Magi”was painted, I do not know. What I do know however, is that when I initiallystarted looking at the painting I did not notice anything “wrong” with it. In fact, I was going to change my selection on the belief that the painting was”too straight forward. ” It was not until I started carefully looking at thenotes I had taken about the picture and the notes I had taken about the versesin Matthew that I noticed these subtle differences. I had never read thatsection of the Bible before and through years of Christmas songs, and setting upthe manger with Wise Men and the baby Jesus in my living room at Christmas time,I had come to believe that that there were three Wise Men. They were “threekings from Bethlehem.
” They visited Jesus in the manger with the cows and thesheep. This shows that what is conventionally believed is not necessarilyaccurate. We see this clearly in “Adoration of the Magi,” which initiallylooks perfectly okay to the popular Judeo-Christian eye, but upon closerinspection holds many of the common misconceptions of the three Wise Men.
