medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Hi, John,
Asking for :
>similar double-imaged (with flat-topped heads) textiles that
incontrovertibly _were_ created for one of the purposes
proposed (theatrical prop or processional banner)<
is essentially reducing the possibility to nil. We have lists, we
have illustrations -- we have precious little that remains of either
painted cloth stage-props or banners.
And, sad to say, yes, John, on March 29th you did mention presuppositions.
>I can speak only for myself. I would not take up this query
because it seems to presuppose a fact not in evidence: < (then you
went on to list the known movements of the artifact ending with a
reference to the Bayeuax tapestry.)
The point is not a flat-topped head; it is a flat connection at the
head without any depth or rounding. Both sides are flat along the
entire length, from head to toe, without any allowance for a body to
be within the cloth. As it is, it would accommodate a cardboard
cutout within the cloth -- just. Anything much thicker and the back
and front would not line up.
This cardboard cutout aspect is why I do not believe that the
original intention was to defraud.
All the best,
Rochelle
At 09:27 PM 3/29/2008, you wrote:
>medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>
>Hi, Rochelle
>
>This is all mildly interesting, albeit for the most part very
>familiar. Why you should address this exposition to me, though, is
>perplexing. After all, it was Henk, not I, who said "Pictures
>showing medieval theatricals are, however, extremely rare." I don't
>believe that I've said anything about the relative frequency (or
>lack thereof) of depictions of theatre performances (vel sim.)
>either medievally or in the sixteenth century.
>
>You also say:
> > So, yes, the possibility that the shroud was a stage prop is not nil,
> > whether or not we can come up with a duplicate example of a painted
> > crucified man.
>
>I would be grateful if you would point out where in this thread
>anyone has said that that possibility _is_ nil. If no one has said
>that, what is the point of controverting it? Moreover, as far as I
>am aware, no one writing in this thread has asked for, or even said
>it would be good to have, "a duplicate example of a painted crucified man".
>
>Similarly, in an earlier post today you said:
> > No, I did not presuppose the thing had always been at Turin...
>In the interest of clarity, it would again be good to know if you
>would point out where someone writing in this thread has ever said
>that you _did_ presuppose that the so-called Shroud had always been
>at Turin. Again, if no one had said that, what was the point of
>controverting it? A fleeting or careless reader might think that
>you were responding to some utterance actually expressing such a view.
>
>Best again,
>John Dillon
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|