Replies

“RummyChick, I think you do have an opinion on the Mannopello veil. I spent almost two weeks researching that “relic” several years ago and I am not going to revisit that research to find those letters which were published in a book in the 1930’s and the letters were between Dürer and Raphael, no others, discussing painting on diaphanous cloths including Cambric and Byssus AND the fact they were exchanging self portraits done with that technique. “

You are wrong about me having an opinion. I am not a very religious person. I am just looking at FACTS to determine possibilities.

You know what comes back when you do a google search about these letters that you claim exist?

YOUR POSTS. There is NOTHING that I can find that backs up this claim. In your post in 2006 you claim

“Raphael, using the same technique and same Byssus cloth, painted his OWN portrait and sent it to Dürer.”

And you use this paragraph to bolster your statement:

“By these and other works the fame of Raphael spread to France and Flanders. Albert Dürer, a remarkable German painter and author of some fine copper engravings, paid him the tribute of his homage and sent him his own portrait, painted in water-colours, on byssus, so fine that it was transparent, without the use of white paint, the white material forming the lights of the picture This appeared marvellous to Raphael, who sent back many drawings of his own which were greatly valued by Albert...”
Giorgio Vasari

He sent drawings. They have notations on them by Durer. NO WHERE..I MEAN NO WHERE ..do I see any claim by Vasari that Raphael sent a transaparent painting to Durer.

I don’t believe it happened. Given what I have read, he would not have sent something like that to Durer. It would have been a very expensive painting to do. He sent Durer drawings from his stock.

I am dubious of your claims because you can’t back them up. When you flat out stated that Raphael sent the Mannopello piece to Durer you quoted from Vasari- WHO SAID NOTHING TO BACK YOU UP.

You cite Roberto Falcinelli work - but he doesn’t even realize that the person in the Expulsion fresco is not Durer- it’s his supposed “enemy” Marcantonio - according to Vasari. It is also NOT Raphael in that painting - according to Vasari.

Falcinelli’s working theory is that it is the veil is Durer’s painting. He then goes on to say that he wonders if Vasari got it wrong. But there is not ANY PROOF that Raphael sent a TRANSPARENT painting to Durer.

The only proof is something you claim you have seen..that no one else talks about.

Not sure what your agenda is..but this I know...Vasari did not say ANYTHING that would indicate that Raphael had made such a painting.

As I have repeatedly said, the Veil could very well be some kind of painting. It does NOT resemble any of Durer’s transparent paintings that are in existance today.

And I still see NO mention of these letters you claim you have seen. I find it VERY ODD that no historian brings them up and no historian other than someone in 1930 claims that Raphael sent a transparent painting to Durer.

I want to see a reference to those letters somewhere other than you.

And I can’t find it.

They may exist. It just seems odd that something of this historical consequence is buried because you are the only one that remembers the 1930’s book.

And NO ONE can explain why the hair lock on the forehead is different on the back from the front. This is impossible on a transparent painting of this nature.

One more thing..I see repeated references to Raphael being impressed with the work of Durer and wanting to try it for himself.

EXCEPT..the references are talking about Durer’s engraving and Raphael had his buddy Marcantonio set about honing the craft of ENGRAVING.

RummyChick, I believe the latest determination is that the Mannopello Veil is painted on Cambric and not on Byssus, so the cost factor would be far less than you imply, but both artists had very wealthy patrons so using Byssus would not have come out of their pockets.

I have no agenda except to follow the science and not to resort to calling on "miracles" to explain away uncomfortable facts that don't agree with a favorite thesis.

As for the locks of hair not matching, that is not difficult to achieve. . . the hair is one area where the pigment is thicker than the facial tones and it was applied on both sides. The locks have a greater thickness than other areas of the image, and one side's lock is used as a substrate for the other's application. Under magnification, the other side's hair can be seen where they don't quite match. There are other areas that don't quite "register accurately as well, in the eyes and teeth, both areas with thick pigments that are opaque because of the heavy application of the pigment necessary for the white to stand out. These mis-registrations, in my opinion, are evidence of artifice, not miraculous creation.

As far as I know, the Mannopello Veronica has not been removed from its reliquary and all examination has been done through the poorly blown glass. The veil itself has never been straightened, measured, checked for thickness at various locations on the cloth, etc., and all examinations have been done in situ, distortions and all. This is not a way to do good science.

Oh, and RummyChick? Not every source is on the Internet. As I told you the letters were in a book which I found by following down a reference I did find on the Internet. That book was in a library at a University... I told you I spent over around weeks researching this because it fascinated me. I check out primary sources when I can. I've long since tossed out my notes on the subject, once I became convinced it was not what it was purported to be.