medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
[Sorry, i hit the damned "Send" button again, instead of the "Save Draft." I'm
going to have to Learn to not do that.]
From: "George R. Hoelzeman" <[log in to unmask]>
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:00:14 -0400, Christopher Crockett wrote:
>>accepting, for the sake of argument, that the Turin Artifact was not a 14th
c. painting and was, indeed, the Mandylion, transferred to Champagne after
the
1204 Sack, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the relic was taken out of
its box in its new home at some point (150+ years later?), found to be *much*
more substantial than was previously realized; the box no longer being
sufficient to display its True Glory, was striped of whatever was of value
and
discarded.
>>the "new" relic was displayed in a spiffy new collegial church built by
Godfrey de Charny, Lord of Liry and (presumably) descendant of the original
Fourth Crusade Looter (whose name i've never seen, btw).
>>that's one possible Screenplay, anyway.
> >c
**********************************************************************
> This raises another question in my mind.
> Events like the "invention of the true Cross" and other dramatic discoveries
(examples of which escape my recollection at the moment) are often
commemorated in art associated with the object itself. Dramatic events
associated with individual saints are often included in borders around their
images.
> With this in mind, would it not seem "logical" that the discovery that the
Mandylion was, in fact, the whole shroud of Jesus would make a dramatic enough
impact that it would be celebrated and immortalized in art (of which there is
apparently none)? It would also seem a hair unlikely that such a dramatic
discovery would go unnoticed or commented on by the very individuals credited
with rejecting the veracity of the Turin artifact. . .
well, i'm not sure when the first depictions of Helena's Invention appeared,
but i can think of no middlevil depiction of, say, the Invention of the Holy
Lance which made possible the 1199 conquest of Jerusalem.
in the case of the Liry/Turin Artifact there are at least two possibilities:
1) it was a 14th c. painting (or even a 14th c. image created by the spiffy
new "scorching" technique);
b) it was the Mandylion, stolen from Constantinople in 1204, brought back to
France, but kept within its unopened Box by the de Charny family for 150 years
(Why? one might ask), until it was taken out, seen for what it really was (all
memory --if any-- of the Reality of Mandylion being lost within the family),
displayed publically, attracting pilgrims, etc. and the Rest is, as we say,
shroudistory.
so, i wouldn't say that the 1350s appearance of the Artifact was so much a
"dramatic discovery" (viz-a-viz the totally unknown Mandylion) as it was
simply a "popping up."
and it definitely did *not* "go unnoticed or commented on by the very
individuals credited with rejecting the veracity of the Turin artifact," if by
that, you mean the Bishop of Troyes (Pierre d'Arcis) in 1389 who held an
Inquiry and this [anti-]Pope Clement (VII?) down in Avignon who went along
with the findings of the Bishop's court and declared the Liry [your use of
"Turin" being anachronistic, btw] "figuram sive representationem Sudarii
Domini nostri" to be a "fraud."
true, as far as i am aware, there is no surviving representation of the L/T
Artifact before its arrival in Savoy, perhaps until its translation to Turin.
but its "cult" (if i may call it that) was quite strong within the Turin
region.
it occurs to me that the strongest argument *against* the Liry/Turin Artifact
being the Mandylion is precisely the fact that what was clearly an important
relic (and certainly one worth stealing) was not, like so many other looted
objects from the 1204 catastrophe, given to a *church* back home --the Head of
Ste. Anne at Chartres springs to mind, among countless others.
how/why on earth would a relatively minor castelan (assuming the theif to be
an ancestor of the more famous Godfrey de Charny) keep such an object
*himself* --or why would his decendants, for generations, do the same, as
well?
what, they thought that the Relic was "just" another, garden variety,
archeiopoetic image and not important enough to bother giving to their local
cathedral??
time for me to re-read Chevalier, i guess.
and, maybe, dig out Drews.
i was hoping it wouldn't come to that.
> George the Less (curiouser and curiouser)
yes, Hopelessly So, or it would appear.
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
|