medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
This is really interesting, Chris - well articulated and such. . .
I read something once, years ago, that suggested a bronze sculpture might have been heated in order to scorch the cloth - again, seems like a lot of work
in relation to potential benefits. The loss of paint idea seems extremely plausible, however, but if there is no paint. . .
wasn't there some later painting done to the thing?
The image arrangement always seemed somewhat peculiar to me as well.
George the Less
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:02:37 -0400, Christopher Crockett wrote:
>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
**********************************************************************
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
|