JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives


MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives


MEDIEVAL-RELIGION@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Home

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Home

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION  March 2008

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION March 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Shroud of Turin

From:

Christopher Crockett <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

medieval-religion - Scholarly discussions of medieval religious culture <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:38:40 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (315 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager