Diego Velázquez (1599 – 1660), Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, 1618, oil on canvas, 60 x 103.5 cm, National Gallery, London

Phyllis:
What do we ourselves bring to the experience of looking at a work of art? And what do we ourselves bring when we seek to understand a story in the Bible? Today we’re going to explore the importance of becoming aware of what has shaped the artist or the writer, and aware of what is shaping us. Aware of what we can call ‘context’, at least the context of the actual painting of the picture, or the writing of the story, and aware also of our own context. And there may be other contexts to become aware of as well.

This painting we’re seeing now gives us a good opportunity to explore simultaneously the idea of context for understanding both art and the Bible. Because this is a painting about a story in the Bible, one we’ve already heard read this morning. It’s a painting by Diego Velázquez, entitled Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, painted in 1618.

Peter:
Hold on, how do you and I know it’s about Mary and Martha? It doesn’t immediately look like that story to me – there are too many people in it. And was it always entitled Christ in the House of Martha and Mary?

Phyllis:
Don’t be difficult. Artists should always be allowed a bit of creative licence. But you’re right; the painting wasn’t always called Christ in the House of Mary and Martha. It may have just been called  Kitchen scene. So even the title of a work of art can shape the way we approach it.

Peter:
Just as the names that have been given to some of the parables shape the way we approach them. Like ‘The Good Samaritan’ which we heard read last Sunday – nowhere in the parable is the Samaritan called ‘good’, and were no other Samaritans ‘good’? Or like ‘The prodigal son’ – that concentrates our attention on the younger son, whereas in actual fact all three figures in the parable are important. But let’s get back to the context of this painting.

Phyllis:
I think we could talk about two contexts, the personal context of the artist who painted it, Diego Velázquez, and the time and place in which it was painted – in 17th century Seville in Spain

First, the artist’s personal context. Velázquez was born in 1599 in Seville in southern Spain, a wealthy city with a thriving artistic community. In 1617, Velázquez finished his apprenticeship and was granted the right to set up his own studio. A year later, in 1618, he married, so this painting was made in the same year that he was married.

It’s an early work painted before his rise to becoming court artist to King Philip IV, King of Spain in the 1620s. During his early years in Seville, Velázquez produced traditional religious works, as well as ‘bodegones’ – meaning ‘tavern scenes’ or paintings of everyday life, often combined with a still life as seen in the objects on the table here. These genre scenes show everyday people. 

In this work we see Velázquez combining the two subjects: the religious story with the genre scene of everyday life. The painting’s layout is influenced by Flemish paintings and engravings which also combined kitchen scenes with biblical subjects and where still life objects were often symbolic. (viz. The Four Elements: Fire, painted by Beuckelaer, 1570, which Velázquez may have seen as an engraving).

Peter:
And he may also have been happily watching his new wife dutifully cooking him dinner.

Phyllis:
I’ll ignore that. Then there’s the 17th century Seville context. Seville was one of the most important religious and wealthy commercial centres in Spain. Trade with the New World was based in Seville. It was also an important centre for the Spanish Inquisition. Velázquez trained under Francisco Pacheco, his future father in law, and the writer of a Treatise on Art which has a biography of Velazquez in it.

But Pacheco was also the art censor for the Spanish Inquisition during the time of the Counter Reformation. His Treatise on art includes rules for the orthodox treatment of Christian subject matter, setting doctrinal standards for religious painting, a serious matter in Spain during the Inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition Tribunal gave Pacheco responsibility for inspecting the art of his colleagues in Seville to check if it fitted the set repertory of iconographic standards for religious painting. For instance, art had to be didactic, focus on the importance of the passion stories, and be realistic. Pacheco believed that the main aim of painting was to inspire people ‘to adore and love God and to cultivate piety’. So the Counter Reformation was very prescriptive in its approach to art-making.

Following on from that, we need to think about the part that art plays in the tradition of the interpretation of scripture. Here we see not only an artist interpreting the message of scripture himself within the traditions of the art making of his period, but also an artist following the prescriptions of the Inquisition about how scripture was to be portrayed.

# detail of two foreground figures

So the two figures in the foreground (seen in contemporary 17th century Spanish dress) could be symbolic. They may symbolise a Martha and Mary from Velázquez’s own time. The painting may be what is called a vanitas, influenced by Flemish art at the time – a moralising painting reminding us of our mortality – with the old woman a counter to the youthfulness of the maid, as a sharp reminder of the fact that we will all die and must live our lives with the aim of salvation always at the forefront.

Or extending this idea – the maid could be a rather unhappy contemporaneous Martha with an older woman who is reminding her of the story in the Bible of Martha and Mary and Jesus, as she is pointing to the scene (whether through an aperture or in a picture on the wall). The painting teases us, invites us to exercise our imaginations about what’s going on.

 # whole image again

Interestingly, the painting has in fact sometimes been thought of as having a second painting within it, a painting of the story of Jesus and Martha and Mary on the wall of the kitchen. Or it has been understood as a kitchen scene with a mirror in it reflecting the folk we see here. Velazquez liked to experiment with paintings within paintings.

The full title of the painting is Kitchen Scene with Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, but this was not the original title. As you said earlier, the present title influences the way we approach the painting.

Peter:
I understand that restoration work was done in 1964 on the painting, at the National Gallery in London. And it revealed that, rather than a painting within the painting, or a mirror on the wall, what we see at the back right is actually an aperture or kitchen hatch in the wall, opening into the next room, with a view of three figures there.

# hatch with scene of Jesus, Martha and Mary

So this picture of Christ in the House of Martha and Mary is a kitchen scene, but on the back wall is an actual hatch opening from the kitchen revealing Christ addressing Mary,  with Martha in the background.

Now when Martha complained to Christ that she was left to prepare the meal alone while Mary sat listening to him, Christ is understood to have replied: ‘Mary has taken that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.’

# whole image again

Phyllis:
To convey the scriptural message, rather than an idealised painting, Velázquez has used real models in his studio. So here we see un-idealised figures – the reddened hand of the hardworking maid, the wrinkled brow and veined hand of the older woman, the practical clothing they are wearing.

This was consistent with the ideas of Counter Reformation Spain in that the realistic figures are accessible to the viewer who can empathise with them and view them as historical fact. This places the picture very much into the context of 17th Century Spain.

# still life details on the table

The still life items too are amazingly realistic, and were probably painted from the artist’s own household, as they appear in other genre paintings by Velázquez from the same time.

On the table are a number of foods, perhaps the ingredients of an Aioli; garlic mayonnaise made to put on fish. We see eggs, chilli pepper and garlic cloves, and a jar of oil, as well as the fish. These are being prepared by the maid who represents Martha.

There’s painstaking attention to surface appearances. Look at the variety of textures and light effects – from the metallic sheen of the brass mortar and pestle to the glazed and matt finishes of the earthenware dishes and jug, to the amazing matt white of the two eggs and the sheen on the fish.

# whole image again

An intense beam of light falls from an unseen source into the dark kitchen. The dramatic contrasts of light and shade model both the figures and the objects giving them a 3 dimensional solidity.

Peter:
What I want to know is what the older woman is saying to the kitchen maid. Perhaps something like: ‘It looks like Mary’s not going to help you. So you’re on your own again. And by the way, you do realise, don’t you, that there are twelve disciples coming to dinner as well?’

Anyway, we need to think of the painting in this 17th Century context: it’s an early work by the artist in the year that he married and a painting made in the wealthy trade and religious centre of Seville where the effects of the Inquisition were being felt.

Incidentally, let’s not forget that part of that context is the position of women in 17th Century Spain. A couple of years ago I was in the ancient university town of Salamanca – a sort of Spanish Oxford – and there seemed to be a lot of women around. I doubt whether there would have been any women students there in 17th Century Spain, let alone lecturers in Art History. In those days women knew their place – the place God, or at least men, had assigned to them.

Let’s turn now to the context of the scriptural sources for this subject matter – the context of Luke’s story written in the 1st century. 

The account of Jesus in the house of Martha and Mary comes after the story in Luke chapter 10 where Jesus is seen resolutely journeying to Jerusalem, appointing his seventy helpers to spread the word, as he knew that his time on this earth was to be short. So there’s a sense of urgency here.

It also follows the parable of the Good Samaritan, where Jesus teaches about what it means to be his follower. So Jesus was at this time focusing on teaching about ministry, knowing that his time on this earth was short.

The story of Martha and Mary is set in Bethany just over 3 kilometres east of Jerusalem. In John’s Gospel, you remember, Martha and Mary were the sisters of Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead.

But before we explore this Scriptural context, we need to deal first with some problems about the text itself.  You see, the text of the story is what we call ‘corrupt’. In other words, the original manuscripts have variant readings of what Jesus actually said. The four main ones are:
1. Martha, Martha, Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken from her (some very brief words from Jesus)
2. Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; but one thing is needful. For Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken from her
3. Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but few things are needful, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken from her. And then one from a scribe copying manuscripts who has both (2) an (3 ) in front of him and decides to play safe:
4. Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but few things are needful, or one, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.    

The scholars opt for either the 2nd or 3rd, and argue for ever. And it can affect our interpretations – of which there are a number.

Phyllis:
A very significant part of the 1st Century Palestinian context is the social importance of the duty of hospitality, and the social prestige of a household rightly performing (or failing to perform) that duty, and the weight of that duty falling on women.

So one interpretation, building on one of the variants – ‘Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but few things are needful’ – is that Jesus is saying ‘Martha, Mary’s got it right, don’t go to all that trouble, we only need something simple‘.  Who knows? That could perhaps have been what actually happened. But there seems to be more to it than that. It doesn’t explain the reference to the ‘good thing’ which Mary has chosen ‘which shall not be taken away from her.’ And it’s the question about what that ‘good thing’ is or symbolises which has teased the minds of the interpreters down the centuries.

There’s another part of the context, and that’s the fact that women in 1st Century Palestine were not permitted to be disciples of a Rabbi and instructed by him in Torah, the Jewish Law. And so some modern feminist interpreters have said that the real meaning of the story is that Jesus the Teacher was breaking this pattern and treating Mary as a disciple, while Martha was still trapped in the traditional role for women. So for them this is a story about gender equality; they bring their feminism to the story. Of course some equally feminist women get uptight about the story and identify with Martha against Mary, while not seeing the significance of being with Jesus.

Peter:
Not so long after Luke’s Gospel was written, people started to bring their own agendas to the story, agendas arising from their own context. For example, the context of the tension with Judaism (both within and beyond the Church) resulted in two rather similar interpretations:
- Mary is seen as the ‘type’ or exemplar of Gentile Christianity, Martha the ‘type’ of Jewish Christianity, or
- The ‘few things’ Jesus refers to stand for the Gospel commandments of love in contrast to ‘the many things” which stand for the numerous commandments of the Jewish Law. A variant of this interpretation is a contrast between the simplicity of Christ and his disciples, and the petty legalism of Jewish leaders.

Phyllis:
A later interpretation, one which was still part of the context at the time Velazquez was living, was that Mary is the type, the examplar, of the contemplative life, Martha of the active practical life. By the Middle Ages this had developed into the teaching that the monastic life is superior to ordinary lay life. Monasteries were a very important part of medieval society, and of 17th Century Spain. This interpretation of the Gospel story is often still heard, even though modern monks and nuns would repudiate any such superiority, and contemplative prayer is seen nowadays as the potential spirituality of all baptised Christians.

There’s another interpretation arising partly from the Reformation and Counter-Reformation context. During that period there were huge arguments about the relationship of ‘faith’ to ‘works’. But this particular interpretation also plausibly rises from the context of the Mary and Martha story within Luke’s Gospel itself. You see the story in Luke follows immediately after Jesus’ telling of the parable of the Good Samaritan (which we heard last Sunday). Is Luke himself re-contextualising the original Martha and Mary story, to emphasise that practical benevolence is not enough, and must be combined with faith in Jesus and communion with Jesus? 

Peter:
And then there’s the context of the whole sweep of Scripture, in which single-mindedness is commended so that we concentrate on one thing rather than dissipating energies on many. For example, see Ecclesiastes 11.9 ‘Follow the ways of your heart and whatever your eyes see, but know that for all these things God will bring you to judgement’. Mary would thus stand for single-mindedness, whereas Martha was multi-tasking, focussing on lesser material things and in the process losing the plot.

I’m attracted to this interpretation, but I think it’s making too general a point, and ignores the specific context of Jesus’ ministry.  I think that the key to the interpretation of the story may be Jesus’ words in Luke 12:29-31: ‘Do not set your minds on what you are to eat or drink; do not be anxious. These are all things that occupy the minds of the Gentiles, but your Father knows that you need them. No, set your minds on his kingdom, and the rest will come to you as well’. So Mary would stand not simply for single-mindedness in general, but the single-mindedness of those who seek the Kingdom of God above all things. Whereas Martha, who is immersed in her little corner of the workaday world, fails to discern the crucial meaning of the moment, to discern the signs of the times. Jesus is preaching and bringing in the Kingdom of God. Mary is with him, where the action is.

 Phyllis:
 So – you can make your own choice about the options, which by the way are not all mutually exclusive. Where do you find yourself in the story and in the painting? What are you bringing to them? How do they speak to you? Are you a Martha, or a Mary, or both?

And perhaps most importantly – do you really want to sit at the Lord’s feet and be with him? And walk with him into the Kingdom? And are you doing it?

A presentation given by Phyllis Mossman and Peter Stuart, in St Alban’s Anglican Church, Eastbourne, on 18 July 2010.

A sermon preached in St Alban’s Anglican Church, Eastbourne by the Ven Damon Plimmer, on Sunday, 27 June 2010