Hello TC,

You write: "If you don't see what the Church objected to then I don't expect you to see this other."

Well, I'm with you on the points about the Virgin portrayed lying down, showing her bare feet, and so on. I believe there was an objection to the lighting in the picture, too. It's the hidden phallic symbolism I'm having problems with.

You write: "PS I notice you didn't write for my analysis."

Ah, yes. That was the fault of my cat, Tilly. I was in the middle of writing that post when she arrived in the study (spare room, actually) to let me know that her food bowl was empty, and had been for, oh, at least seven seconds.
She gained my attention by meandering to and fro between the keyboard and the monitor - and 'nonchalantly' getting closer to the keyboard with each pass...
As you will appreciate, this is not conducive to concentrating on what one is writing.
So, not asking you for a copy of your analysis of this painting was an unavoidable error, not a slight. Perhaps you can e-mail me a copy, because I am genuinely interested to know what it is you, Sue, and others can see, and I can't.
Perhaps I can then decide whether we are dealing with fact or 'phallacy' (sorry, folks. I simply couldn't resist it)

Regards,

Alex