medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: Ms B M Cook <[log in to unmask]>
> Has anyone ever suggested that it was originally an "innocent" fraud ?
what, the Turin Artifact?
my survey of the pros and cons literature on that subject about 15 years ago
(i have not systematically kept up with the stuff which has appeared since
then, some of which --particularly, but not exclusively, on the "shroudie"
side-- has something of the appearance of a rather shabby "cottage industry")
didn't turn up such a notion, at least to the best of my notoriously leaky
memory.
but, the polarization of the opinions surrounding this particular Artifact is
such that it's difficult to see who would entertain such an idea.
certainly not the Shroudies, whose whole psycho-"spiritual" personality would
not admit any level of "fraud" at all (and definitely not "innocent" fraud,
that being an oxmoronic term, from their point of view).
nor, equally, the practitioners of the Religion of Science, the worst of whom
(e.g., the microscopist Walter McCrone mentioned previously in a post by
Michelle A.) almost match the Shroudies in their near-hysterical rantings,
transforming themselves from competent (presumably) specialists in a
particular "Scientific" field into, say, Art Historians, so that they may
expound on the "obvious" fact that the Turin Artifact is just your ordinary,
Garden Variety 14th c. Northern French painting. ("Art History" being, as
every good Scientistical Believer knows, not a real discipline but just some
guys' Opinions about all that Artsy Stuff.)
there's really not much difference between the two factions (or cults), as
best i can make out, especially in the real crap literature --which is,
unfortunately, most of it, by volume.
[btw, McCrone's "analysis" of the visible chemistry of the Turin Artifact's
image has, i believe, been as discredited as has his previous work on the
"Vinland Map"
http://www.shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Article-VinlandMap.html
(note: a Shroudie Site, but factually accurate, as far as i know)]
> By this I mean, could it have been created as a prop for a Mystery Play and
was originally known to be just that but that later it fell into the hands of
those who did not know its origin but recognised its significance and
exploited it - also innocently ?
1) there is considerable evidence that the present, quite faint image on the
cloth is a mere Shadow of its Former Self (as it were) --among other things it
was frequently shown in public in Turin for several centuries, and, i believe,
there is some textual evidence of it having been subjected to a "trial by
[boiling] water," which is enough to take the Steam out of any Image.
even in our own time (more or less) the poor thing has been ManHandled more
than a bit:
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/shroud_turin_bishops.jpg
the image --as it is presently visible-- is indeed so faint that the modren
Contraversy surrounding the Turin Artifact only dates from the fact that a
photograph was made of it as part of the 1898 Monstrance.
developing his plate, the photographer was quite shocked to find that the
image was *much* more legible in the *negative* he had taken than on the
Artifact itself.
that's the reason why the negative (white on black) image is so often
reproduced.
b) the image on the cloth (no matter how it was produced) depicts a man who
was wrapped in it in a quite unusual way:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:EqM_sVRq_TiFQM:http://deseretnews.com/photos/turni110505.jpg
http://www.sillybeliefs.com/images/shroud-1.jpg
theoretically, a prop made for a staging of the deposition/entombment (*are*
there any "mystery plays" of these subjects?) would have been made following
this sort of "model"
http://www.british-israel.ca/cop3.jpg
since the whole point of suchlike a "prop" would have been to produce
something which was *immediately recognizable* to the play's audience.
iii) and, presumably, the image would have been painted, in a straightforward
fashion, using techniques of the period (mid-late 14th c.), namely *paint*,
which is lacking on the Turin Artifact; and following the Standard Iconography
of its time (e.g., nail wounds through the *palms* of the hands, not the
*wrists*, which is what we have on the Turin Artifact).
the 3rd quater of the 14th c. date is, btw, quite a firm terminus for the
Turin Artifact's appearance (or, perhaps, re-appearance) on the Historical
Scene --its provenence is clearly documentable from that date, when it first
"popped up" in a village in Champagne, started attracting pilgrims, was the
subject of an Enquiry by the Bishop of Troyes and declared to be a "fake," the
"artist" who "painted" it having confessed to his work.
only problem is....
there *ain't* no damned paint on the Turin Artifact.
my Vanderbilt mentor, Bob Drews, described it as "a kind of scorch," only
penetrating the cloth a short distance.
> As far as I am aware. I thought this one up for myself, but would not be
surprised if this idea has been mooted and discarded.....
nope, as far as i'm aware, it's your own Baby, Brenda.
congratulations.
c
**********************************************************************
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
|