medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Hi, Rochelle
On Saturday, March 29, 2008, at 5:52 pm, you wrote:
> 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.
Which in fact is why I did not _ask_ for such an object but instead merely said that your argument would gain credibility were one to be adduced:
> And that, Henk, may be why others on this list have been unwilling to
> take up Rochelle's suggestion. Though it would gain credibility were
> one able to show similar double-imaged (with flat-topped heads)
> textiles that incontrovertibly _were_ created for one of the purposes
> proposed (theatrical prop or processional banner).
I very much like your suggestion of so-called Shroud's having begun life as a stage prop and/or processional banner. But establishing that as its probable origin will be very difficult. Though perhaps not impossible: it is conceivable that there exists (somewhere and in whatever shape) the remnant of a banner whose images are similarly arranged and whose pertinence to the possible origin of the Lirey/Turin artifact has not been recognized. It wouldn't have to be a double image of a crucified man, of course. Two BVMs or two snakes (Visconti serpents, perhaps) would do as well.
> 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.)
That's rather vexing. I had objected to your statement of 29. March
> No, I did not presuppose the thing had always been at Turin
because that suggested (falsely, in my view) that someone in this thread had said that you had made such a presupposition. Now you adduce a remark of mine about a seeming presupposition of yours but mischaracterize the remark by omitting crucial matter after the colon. Instead of then going on to list movements of the artifact (not _the_ movements, BTW: I omitted most of them), I said what I thought the seemingly presupposed fact not in evidence was. For comparison with your truncated version, here's my statement in its entirety (28. March):
> I can speak only for myself. I would not take up this query because
> it seems to presuppose a fact not in evidence: the creation of the
> so-called Shroud of Turin (hereafter, 'the Shroud') at Turin. Since
> the Shroud has what appears to be a fairly well documented history,
> not involving Turin, from 1357 until its sale to Louis of Savoy in
> 1453 and since it seems to have been primarily at the Savoyard capital
> of Chambéry until the 1570s when it found a new home in Turin (the
> Savoyard capital since 1563), the likelihood that it was actually
> created for the performance of a liturgical drama _at_ Turin seems
> rather small. Would one seek for the origin of the Bayeux "Tapestry"
> at Bayeux?
Note especially:
> it seems to presuppose a fact not in evidence: the creation of the
> so-called Shroud of Turin (hereafter, 'the Shroud') at Turin.
Either all presuppositions are the same or creation at Turin is identical to having always been in Turin or you have mischaracterized my utterance. Someone less charitable might, especially in view of your selective quotation, suspect you of intellectual dishonesty. But that would be contrary to the spirit of this list.
I was, BTW, giving you what I thought was the benefit of the doubt when I said that your query (about cyclical plays at Turin) seemed to presuppose the artifact's creation at Turin. You had asked:
> >I am familiar with the English cycles -- and I know that there were
> cycles performed on the continent, but I do not know if a record of
> cycles performed in Turin exists. Anyone out here know anything
> about touring or guild cycles in Italy back then?
It's more than a little unlikely that an object that had previously been publicly exhibited as a holy relic, that had been sold as such a relic to the duke of Savoy, and that had continued to under Savoyard ownership to be exhibited as a holy relic (to the presumed increase of the dukes' reputation and perhaps of their wealth as well) would thereafter be used, while still in ducal hands, as an ordinary stage prop (it might have been used as a very special one, but I didn't think that's what you were getting at in your query). So I thought that by asking about cyclical performances at Turin you were probably asking about conditions under which the artifact might have originated. My apologies if this were not so.
And with that I would like to let our discussion rest.
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
|