Over in the Religion and Philosophy Forum there is an ongoing scientific discussion about the authenticity or not of the shroud of Turin. A lot of science has been brought in, but mostly it is a fantastic example of an irresistible force meeting an immoveable obstacle, which is why it has engendered nearly 9000 posts. Recently, I have been trying to widen the discussion by taking the 14th century origin of the shroud as a given, and attempting to find out more exactly where, how and why it was made than is currently understood. It has been suggested that that this aspect of the topic should be raised in the History Forum rather than the Religion one, so here it is.
The shroud is a long thin piece of cloth, about 4m x 1m, which seems an odd shape for a shroud, but just right for an altar piece. It is made of a very fine herring-bone weave linen, which seems an odd choice for a painting, but a good one for showing respect to Christ. It carries the images of two prone figures, lying head to head, one back and and one front. This is wholly without parallel in medieval art, but makes sense if one wanted to fill the long thin piece of cloth rather than just have a single image in the middle and bare space on either side. The image is very faint and indistinct, and does not appear on the reverse side of the cloth. I don't know of any contemporary technique which replicates that, or any similar example of it, although modern imitators have shown that it is possible. The image shows a naked man with a noble expression and his hands crossed over his groin, rather like a cross between a late Byzantine upright image and early 'man of sorrows' iconography. The image has a variety of blobs, flows, trickles and stains of a dark red material which may be blood, paint or a mixture of the two, illustrating the wounds of Christ.
So:
Does anyone know, or can anyone guess, whether the shroud was more likely to have been made in France, Italy or Turkey, or anywhere else, and why?
Does anyone know of any other medieval image consisting of a very thin, very indistinct colour which does not penetrate the cloth?
Does anyone know of any other medieval image showing the same man twice?
ps. Let me emphasize that this thread is intended to assume that the shroud is an artificial image from the 13th century or later. For discussion about whether this assumption is justified, please go across to the Religion and Philosophy Thread.
The shroud is a long thin piece of cloth, about 4m x 1m, which seems an odd shape for a shroud, but just right for an altar piece. It is made of a very fine herring-bone weave linen, which seems an odd choice for a painting, but a good one for showing respect to Christ. It carries the images of two prone figures, lying head to head, one back and and one front. This is wholly without parallel in medieval art, but makes sense if one wanted to fill the long thin piece of cloth rather than just have a single image in the middle and bare space on either side. The image is very faint and indistinct, and does not appear on the reverse side of the cloth. I don't know of any contemporary technique which replicates that, or any similar example of it, although modern imitators have shown that it is possible. The image shows a naked man with a noble expression and his hands crossed over his groin, rather like a cross between a late Byzantine upright image and early 'man of sorrows' iconography. The image has a variety of blobs, flows, trickles and stains of a dark red material which may be blood, paint or a mixture of the two, illustrating the wounds of Christ.
So:
Does anyone know, or can anyone guess, whether the shroud was more likely to have been made in France, Italy or Turkey, or anywhere else, and why?
Does anyone know of any other medieval image consisting of a very thin, very indistinct colour which does not penetrate the cloth?
Does anyone know of any other medieval image showing the same man twice?
ps. Let me emphasize that this thread is intended to assume that the shroud is an artificial image from the 13th century or later. For discussion about whether this assumption is justified, please go across to the Religion and Philosophy Thread.
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=262877&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire