medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: "George R. Hoelzeman" <[log in to unmask]>
> This is really interesting, Chris - well articulated and such. . .
well, we try...
> I read something once, years ago, that suggested a bronze sculpture might
have been heated in order to scorch the cloth
that's interesting, as well.
hadn't heard that one.
however, Bob Drews floated the opine (i don't remember whether it is in his
book or not) that the image could have been made using a statue of some sort,
noting that Irenaeus of Lyon mentions that the "gnostics"(?) had a statue of
Christ which they worshiped (at least that's my dim memory; correct me,
somone).
Drew's thought (as best i recall it) was that the Turin Artifact might have
been some sort of commemorative "relic" created by means of this statue (or
another), using some (now lost) technique which would do the scorching.
personally, i have some difficulty with this notion (and Bob only put it
forward as Rank Speculation), mainly because the Turin Artifact's image is
*so* detailed (depicting "blood" from "nail" wounds in the wrists [*not* the
plams, note] and feet, from "thorn" wounds around the head, from numerous
"flagelation" lacerations on the back, etc.).
how these details could have been "transferred" from a statue --a
"super-realistic" statue, btw-- is somewhat beyond my kenning powers.
bronze, heated hot enough to scorch linen?
butbut the "scorched" image is *so* clear (in its way) and *so* uniform in its
distribution and *so* "complete"
Drew suggested the use of some kind of natrum-like substance, again in a
process which has been lost without a trace.
beyond his specific idea, however, is the fact that the invocation of
Irenaeus' text reminds us of the *vast* amount of What Was Going On which has
been Lost, with hardly an echo.
now *that* is a very, very sobering thought.
esp. for Scholards who might tend to be Puffed Up with their own "knowledge."
>- again, seems like a lot of work in relation to potential benefits.
yes.
which brings us back to Square One.
why "manufacture" such a curious Artifact?
just to Stump a bunch of Medieval Scholards, worldwide, at the beginning of
the 21st century?
doesn't seem like an effecient use of one's time, somehow...
>The loss of paint idea seems extremely plausible, however, but if there is no
paint. . .
to the best of my knowledge, as i said, McCrone's identification of paint
pigments has been sucessfully discredited.
from what i've read of his work, i wouldn't put anything past him, Rest His
Soul.
> wasn't there some later painting done to the thing?
not that i've ever heard of.
certainly no enhancements of any kind.
there was some significant damage done to the non-figural parts of the cloth
during a fire in the early 16th c.
it was kept, folded, in a silver reliquary, which partially melted, burning
holes in it.
repairs were made, new bits of cloth being sewn on as patches over the
burnholes.
it may be that a cloth backing to the whole thing was added at this time
(leaky memory, again).
otherwise, far as i am aware, it's WYSIWYG, just a near-pristine 14th c.
French painting, the date being "proven" by C-14.
> The image arrangement always seemed somewhat peculiar to me as well.
well, yeah.
unique, too.
again, if you're going to manufacture a "fake" relic, *why* would you go so
far *outside* of the "normal," universally recognized iconographical patterns?
would seem to defeat the purpose of the thing --assuming that its "purpose"
was to be accepted as "genuine" by its 14th c. (or, for that matter, 6th c.,
if the Turin Artifact is, indeed, the Mandylion) audience.
a Conundrum, that one.
got me stumped.
for decades.
it's somewhat discouraging to realise that i'm no closer to knowing what's
going on now than i was when Drews first turned me on to the Problem in the
mid-80s.
i don't know what the Turin Artifact *is*.
only what it is *not*.
c
> 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
>
**********************************************************************
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
