In a message dated 97-10-20 15:42:33 EDT, you write:

> I recall seeing an icon in Rome, one surrounded by metal framing, which 
>  was attributed to Luke;  but my memory of that & other examples mentioned 
>  in my reading is spotty.
>  tom

I'm assuming that what's meant here by "attributed" is that we don't
seriously believe the icon was by Luke (wrong date, wrong place) but people
said it was.  Rather like literary texts were attributed to famous authors
who hadn't actually written them.

If this is a reasonable assumption (correct me if it isn't),  it would be
interesting to see two things.  (A) a list of all works of art attributed to
Luke, (B) citations of all texts that mention his being an artist.  I don't
know what the correlations would be, but might raise interesting questions.
If no paintings were attributed to Luke before a certain date, would that
indicate that the legend of his being an artist developed at about that date?

pat sloane