A special ping to freepers 'shroudie' and 'swordmaker', both authorities on The Shroud of Turin, to clarify the 'Holy Face' image. Thank you!
My opinion... and the peer reviewed research... has not changed. Here are the comments I have made on the Manappelo Veil on past threads:
To: NYer
This is not a new story. Pfieffer reported his find about seven years ago, if I recall correctly.
As to what I think.
First of all, the entire story of a woman named Veronica and her veil are somewhat suspect... the woman's very name means Vera - "True" - Icon - "Image" in a combination of Latin and Greek. While a woman may have offered her veil for Jesus to wipe his face on while carrying his cross on the Via del a Rosa, the likelyhood of her name being "Veronica" is doubtful.
Secondly, the material that the Manoppello image is on is not one that would likely be used for a sweat cloth... it would not absorb anything... or even your average veil. It is an extremely rare and costly cloth, far more costly than silk. It is still the rarest cloth on Earth. The cloth is Byssus, made from the cillia of the pinna nobilis Sea Urchin. As far as we know, there is only one living weaver of Byssal cloth still around. The cloth produced from these filaments can be woven even finer than silk and is extremely light and warm, but attracts moths which eat it. It was said that a pair of women's gloves could fit into half a walnut shell and a pair of stockings in a snuffbox. 2000 years ago it was something that was pretty much reserved for royalty.
Thirdly, most Shroud scholars are of the opinion that the various traditions of the "Veronica" and the "Mandylion" as seperate cloths arise out of the possibility that the shroud, to hide the brutal nature of the assault on Jesus' body, had been kept in a frame folded twice in four or, as it was referred to in many early references, "tetradiplong". When folded, doubled four times end over end, it is possible to have a section of the Shroud that shows only the face exposed.
Fourthly, the image on the cloth at Matoppello is hardly an exact match for the image on the Shroud... there are some distinct differences... for example, where is the mustache?
The differing widths of faces is not as important because the shroud's image is artificially narrowed by artifacting of the bleaching method which resulted in darker Linen bands on each side of the head and the face on the Shroud may be actually wider and rounder than previously thought.
Fifth, the depiction of teeth and eyes in the "veil" is problematic... There is no way they could have been created by contact... and bear an artistic appearence. These may have been added or enhanced by pious, well meaning "restorers" of a later period... or be originals from the artist who may have created the veil. The whites of the eyes are actually whiter than the imageless parts of the transparent cloth...
Lastly, the Manoppello Veil has not been subjected to any kind of scientific examiniation beyond light and ultraviolet photography. Neither of which is sufficient to determine the presence or absence of pigments. I believe the whiteness of the eyes and teeth indicate that pigments are indeed present. I would want to see much more done before making a positive judgement such as this article makes.
28 posted on
06/09/2006 5:58:11 PM PDT by
Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!")
To: NYer; GregoTX; StJacques; wagglebee; monkapotamus; Alex Murphy; exdem2000; Suzy Quzy; ...
Fiirst of all, RE: Reply #31, GregoTX and Suzy Quzy, that picture and the one attached to the article are both of the "Veronica's Veil" relic and reliquary that are kept in the Vatican in Rome, not the Manoppello Veil, which is housed in the Sanctuary of the Holy Face, in Manoppello (Literally "Haystack"), Italy, which is about 150 miles north of Rome.
Since I had not visited this topic in sometime (like about five years) I decided to go digging. Here is what I have found.
I find I was somewhat wrong in my discussion above... there has been more scientific work done on the Manoppello Veil that I was not aware of... and it proves that it is not as Pfeiffer describes... and in fact probably has identified WHAT it is, HOW it was created, and WHO it is, and WHO did it! Not only that, the work of art that it is was spoken and written about by its creator and its owner contemporary with its creation... along with a description of the work.
- The statement that there are no paints or pigments is untrue. The Veil (although still not allowed to be removed from its mounting) has now been investigated with multiple scientific instruments... and microphotographs show pigments and adhesions from pigments on the veil. These pigments have soaked completely into the fibers of the cloth and are thus easily seen from both sides.
- The material might not be the far rarer Byssus but rather Cambric, a fine cotton developed in France in the 15th Century for use in veils and fine needlework. One textile expert who has examined the Veil through its glass coverings has stated categorically that it is Cambric. However, both Byssus and Combric have similar appearance so until the cloth can be removed from its glass and examined under a stronger microscope, it could be either.
- The statement that the features "match" those on the Shroud was made by a Nun who used a transparent ruler and measured through the glass and then compared to a photograph of the Shroud... hardly a "scientific" approach to prove anything... and as I pointed out the lack of mustache is glaring. In fact, although there are some superficial similarities, they are merely that: superficial. However, this statement has been taken as "factual" and "proved" when it is anything but.
- It is a work of art by a famous artist... in fact, it is a self portrait... and it was a gift by the artist to another famous artist, both of who spoke of it in letters and the gift recipient showed it to others who also wrote of seeing it and described it.
Albrecht Durer (1471-1528) was very fond of self portraits and often sent his own to others. Sometime in the early 16th Century, he sent a self portrait to his friend Raphael (1483- 1520) that was painted on a transparent cloth, visible from both sides and was described by Raphael and those who saw it as "miraculous".
"According to Vasari, Dürer’s self-portrait was painted in watercolour on a canvas so extremely fine that it could be seen from both the front and the back side. It was truly a piece of virtuosity, which beside immortalizing the artist’s features was clearly intended to show his painting skills."
Wolfram Prinz
Raphael, using the same technique and same Byssus cloth, painted his OWN portrait and sent it to Dürer.
“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
Various persons who saw both Dürer's and Raphael's "miraculous" self-portraits described them as being made from either Byssus or Cambric. There is no consistency to the reports of either material.
Self Portrait of Raffaello Santi (Raphael)
c.1514
Raphael Self Portrait Gift to Dürer
now known as "Veronica's Veil"
C. 1500-1503 (?)
- Iconographic analysis of the Manoppello Veil finds that there are numerous points of conguity and similarity with the known self-portrait of Raphael, much more than with the face on the Shroud of Turin. While none of the exemplar self portraits are guaranteed to be "life size" neither can we assume that the Veil is "life size" but the positioning, eyebrow , eye shape, lips, expression, and beard styles do provide an amazing number of point of consistency.
Source of much of this information is the following PDF file by Roberto Falcinelli. Check out the photographs at the end.
The Veil of Manoppello: work of art or authentic relic?
This is still research in progress but it looks very solid. As an aside, Albrecht Dürer is one of the "suspects" among those who maintain the Shroud of Turin in a "self portrait" by an artist of the period.
36 posted on
06/09/2006 10:15:29 PM PDT by
Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!")
To: GregoTX; monkapotamus; Suzy Quzy; NYer
Sorry about posting the wrong picture. I wast aware that there was two veils called Veronica's Veil.
Not your fault... pictures of the Manoppello "Veronica's Veil" are extremely hard to find... and are not too well labeled when you do find them. Even the Catholic Exchange that published the article published a picture of the wrong "veil" reliquary.
The Official "Veronica's Veil", kept in St. Peter's Basilica, Rome.
The Manoppello "Veronica's Veil", kept in the Sanctuary of the Holy Face, Manoppello, Italy.
There is a distinct difference. The Manoppello Veil is either the extremely rare Byssus cloth that was generally reserved for royalty 2000 years ago, or Cambric, a 16th Century French cotton that bears a very close resemblance to Byssus, but still a very costly cloth that would likely be used by a wealthy medieval woman to coyly "veil", but not hide, her face, neither of which is likely to be encountered on the Via De la Rosa. On the other hand, The Vatican's Veil appears to be (from those who have observed it closely) plain linen, something you would expect an average woman out shopping to wear to cover her head in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. Which is more likely to be the "true" Veronica's Veil?
My considered opinion is that:
- Contrary to Pfieffer's theory, which is based purely on coincidence of dates and a 10 year later report of a broken reliquary glass, NOTHING was stolen from the Vatican during the reconstruction of Veronica's Chapel in 1608.
- In the previous century, someone, probably unaware of the provenance of the object, came into possession of the 100 year old, "miraculous," self-portrait of Raphael painted on either Cambric or Byssus, either of which were often used to make very fancy veils.
- That person saw this "miraculous" portrait and jumped to the conclusion that it was the "True" Veronica's Veil. It became their most valued possession.
- The owners of the "veil" used it to "ransom" a soldier from a nobleman of Manoppello. He obviously thought it extremely valuable. Perhaps the soldier was imprisoned because he bragged of his family's possession in the hearing of the "nobleman".
- The nobleman kept the "Veil" for 30 years, and in 1638, donated it to the local church, perhaps in anticipation of his own death.
- The church elders were, of course, delighted to acquire such an important relic to attract pilgrims and donations to their parish.
Thus was born the second Veronica's Veil. The original, and probably true "Veronica's Veil" never left the Vatican and is the relic that is venerated there today.
Monkapotamus' side-by-side comparison is good... I just wish we had a better view of the cloth inside the glass.
70 posted on
06/10/2006 5:47:50 PM PDT by
Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!")
This is where the research now stands.
38 posted on
08/21/2006 10:28:15 PM PDT by
Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!")
