Madonna of the Yarnwinder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
| Madonna of the Yarnwinder (copy) |
| Workshop of Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1501 |
| Oil on canvas |
| 50.2 × 36.4 cm |
| Private collection, New York |
The Madonna of the Yarnwinder (c. 1501) is the subject of several oil paintings after a lost original by Leonardo da Vinci. They depict the Virgin Mary with the Christ child, who looks longingly at a yarnwinder which the Virgin could use to measure off yarn. The yarnwinder serves as a symbol both of Mary's domesticity and the Cross on which Christ was crucified, and may also suggest the Fates, understood in classical mythology as spinners. At least three versions are in private collections, two of them in the United States, including the one previously known as "The Landsdowne Madonna".
The original painting was probably commissioned by Florimund Robertet, the Secretary of State for King Louis XII of France.
[edit] Buccleuch version
The version of this painting often regarded as the most likely to be by Leonardo is in the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch and hung in his home in Drumlanrig Castle, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland until stolen; he has said it will be returned to public display there.
In 2003, it was stolen by two thieves posing as tourists. "Don't worry love, we're the police. This is just practice" two tourists from New Zealand were told, as the thieves exited a window carrying the Leonardo.[1] The painting was recovered at a lawyer's office in Glasgow in October 2007 after police officers, from four anti-crime agencies, raided a meeting of five people. A spokesman for the law firm said: "There is absolutely no impropriety whatsoever. There is an interesting, but benign, explanation, but no wrongdoing has been done on their part."[2] Four arrests were made, including two solicitors from different firms. The Scotsman, describing the Glasgow firm as "one of the country's most successful and respected law firms" quoted a source as saying their arrested member "was not involved in any criminal act, but was acting as a go-between for two parties by scrutinizing a contract which would have allowed an English firm to 'secure legal repatriation' of the painting from an unidentified party."[3] John Scott, 9th Duke of Buccleuch had died just a month before the recovery, which came as a complete surprise to the family.[4]...
[edit] References
- ^ Guardian article on the 2003 theft
- ^ The (London) Times, citing the Glasgow Daily Record, October 5, 2007.
- ^ Scotsman and Times online, October 5th, 2007 and BBC
- ^ Interview of 10th Duke, BBC News, October 4th, 2007
[edit] External links
 |
This painting-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
