A reader writes to recommend The Veil of Veronica: Fact or Fiction? by John Iannone. Indeed, I read it a couple of years ago and was delighted to read it again. It is a good supplement to the discussions we have been having.
Second cup of coffee mark:
The case against the Veil’s presence in Rome after 1608 stems from some information that Pfeiffer and others have noted:
1. The Veronica that was kept in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome no longer shows any image. Lorenzo Bianchi notes that:
“The few scholars of the past who were able to see it close up, such as DeWaal and Wilpert …saw only a few brown stains. The people who have been able to observe it recently (including Pope John Paul II) found no trace of the image.”
2. Pope Paul V (1617) ordered that no reproductions of the Veronica in the 1600’s (after the cloth was allegedly stolen in 1608) were to be made unless by a "Canon of St. Peter’s." Pfeiffer believes the Pope made this statement because the Veil was stolen. They had no reason to give this order if they were in possession of the Veil in Rome.
3. The eyes on the reproductions of the cloth BEFORE the theft were OPEN. AFTER the theft, the eyes on reproductions of the Veronica are CLOSED. The original Veil showed the eyes open since Jesus was alive at the time Veronica wiped His face.
4. Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644) not only prohibited reproductions of Veronica’s veil but also ordered all existing copies to be destroyed. Pfeiffer believes that these orders by Pontiffs of no duplication and destruction of reproductions indicates that the Vatican no longer possessed the original.
5. As noted by Lorenzo Bianchi in his article “The Veil of Manoppello”:
“The cloth currently in Rome is not transparent, while the 1350 reliquary that contained the Veronica in Rome, kept in the treasury of the Vatican Basilica, consisting of two panes of rock crystal, was evidently intended for an object that could be viewed from both sides. This reliquary, square in shape and of a size compatible with the veil of Manoppello than which it is slightly larger (but we have seen that the veil was trimmed) was replaced by another in the mid 16th century (now lost), itself replaced by the current one. A document testifies to the solemn installation of the new relic, that is, as one assumes, by a forgery – on 21 March 1606, in a niche cut into the pillar of the dome called ‘of the Veronica.’”
The Vatican cloth in Rome is only on view one time per year – the Sunday before Palm Sunday – for a very brief time from a balcony high up in St. Peter’s. People do not see an image. Renowned artist Isabel Piczek once relayed to me that she had the honor of viewing the (purported) veil in Rome as a young girl and claimed she saw no image, only some stains. Other scholars noted above confirmed this same thing.
Further, the Vatican will allow no study of its possession. Vatican custodians have steadfastly refused all requests for any photographs to be taken.
It is true that the image of the St Peter Veronica now, and since some time, has almost completely disappeared. But this favours the hypothesis that the veil is still the same that was in Rome in medieval time. If the present veil was a new copy made at the beginning of 17th century, the image should now be still clearly visible. Indeed looking at the copy now in Vienna (ca. 1617) one may think that already then the original was degraded.
http://veronicaroute.com/1617/04/29/1617/
Possibly the painter of the Vienna copy did not see the eyes in the original, that had faded away, and painted a face with seemingly closed eyes. Other copies followed with closed eyes.
There is no proof that the old frame, still extant in Vatican, had two glasses (or panes of rock crystal). Presently it has one (broken) glass and there is no indication that it had ever had two.
Lastly, needless to say, the Manoppello veil is evidently an earthly painting, not a divine miracle.
If the present veil was a new copy made at the beginning of 17th century, the image should now be still clearly visible.
Who said it was a new copy? It could be an old Mandylion-like icon, put in the place of original Veronica. Or it could be deliberately painted in a way that nothing can be seen.
There is no proof that the old frame, still extant in Vatican, had two glasses (or panes of rock crystal). Presently it has one (broken) glass and there is no indication that it had ever had two.
No indication? Than what was from the back of the frame? Why there is no back cover, which is quite unusual (compare with 1675 frame)? Glass from one side, and empty space from the other!
Lastly, needless to say, the Manoppello veil is evidently an earthly painting, not a divine miracle.
Gian Marco. We are not discussing here whether original Veronica (Manoppello) was divine or man-made artifact. We are discussing here only whether the pre-1600s Veronica is the same as the current Manoppello.
Lastly, needless to say is evidently not an earthly painting, at least not any classical painting we know. The transmitted light photographies show it clearly. The presence of some pigments from touch-ups does not prove it a painting. And I do not worry about the words of militant sceptic Gian Marco Rinaldi, who cannot distinguish between paintings of the transparent Veil and the transparent Veil itself. The real miracle would be if one day he changes his biased views.
See http://manoppello.eu/eng/index.php?go=badania
No indication? Than what was from the back of the frame? Why there is no back cover, which is quite unusual (compare with 1675 frame)? Glass from one side, and empty space from the other!
Maybe not so unusal, as I originally thought, but this is portable frame, and had to have something from the backside. Either an icon on a wooden panel, or a second glass.
Look at this picture of 1350 frame, taken from Falcinelli’s paper. What’s there in the topmost corner?
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/1365/rizg.jpg
From O.K.: “Look at this picture of 1350 frame, taken from Falcinelli’s paper. What’s there in the topmost corner?” I cannot see anything of interest. I have written to Roberto Falcinelli himself and he has kindly sent me another photo with a detail of that corner of the frame. There is only a small splintering in the glass pane. So what?
I add that in the same Frascati 2010 paper by Falcinelli, just above its Fig. 15 that you have reproduced in your link, he quotes a sentence by Giacomo Grimaldi, early 17th century, where one, and only one glass is mentioned. Perhaps there had formerly been two glasses, but where have you found the information?
I have written to Roberto Falcinelli himself and he has kindly sent me another photo with a detail of that corner of the frame. There is only a small splintering in the glass pane. So what?
Could you show that photo? Looking from that Fig. 15 one gets impression there is something (a piece of glass?) in that corner. Looking at the right photo and following course of the cracks, one can get the orientation of the frame on the left photo. Then there is that long diagonal crack going through the whole pane. On the left picture, in that particular corner, it intersects with the line parallel to the other cracks, which create a triangle shape there. But this “crack” is not visible on the right photo, suggesting the “triangle” is in front of the pane. It is definetly not that small splintering visible on the right photo.
Anyway, the frame looks quite symmetrical -and it is likely there were two glasses originally.
O.K., if you contact Roberto Falcinelli, he is ready to share the details of his examination of the frame and his photographic documentation. You find his email address for example in his Frascati 2010 paper that you know (and is available on the internet).
As to the label of the frame in the Museum, Falcinelli tells me that it has been recently changed. Now it reads simply: “Antica cornice [ancient frame] della Veronica, già Volto Santo”
Gian Marco:
Perhaps there had formerly been two glasses, but where have you found the information?
The label in the Museum of Treasure in the Vatican Basilica says:
Arte romanica tarda. In essa, tra due spessi cristalli, era racchiusa fino al sec. XVII la celebre reliquia. Sie noti la perizia con cul sono state medellate le immagini policrome dei Santi nello spessore della cornice che risale forse al sec. XIV
The picture of it is presented by Resch, and also quoted by Badde.