Sr. Ann writes:
David Mo, Hugh Farey and others have convinced me by their many thoughtful comments that the Vignon Markings, as presently understood, are invalid. This is particularly true, in my opinion, for the double wavy line on the neck and the topless square or flat-bottomed U as it is sometimes called. If we want to preserve the concept of identifying facial portraits of Jesus derived from the Holy Shroud we need to revise Vignon’s pioneering work. This time we have the benefit of many more examples because of the Internet. The Internet also makes it easier to undertake this work as a multidisciplinary project.
It would be wonderful if an interim report could be prepared in time for the St. Louis Conference. The message being, "Vignon was wrong but we’ll carry on."
This is probably a wrap on the Vignon markings, that is unless Ann’s proposal is implemented. Good idea? Volunteers? The best recent comments seem to be in these three threads:
Sr.(sic) Ann writes:
(…)If we want to preserve the concept of identifying facial portraits of Jesus derived from the Holy Shroud we need to revise Vignon’s pioneering work. (…)
It would be wonderful if an interim report could be prepared in time for the St. Louis Conference. The message being, “Vignon was wrong but we’ll carry on.”
I’m sorry Ann, but it will be a waste of time.
First of all, an inquiry as you propose would have to be carried on by a competent team of Art historians. I’m not an expert on medieval Art at all, but I know that some essential features of Byzantine Art have been ignored by Vignon and other zealous amateur inquirers (1) and the mistakes due both to the inexperience as the lack of method can invalidate their efforts. Internet aids, but is not the answer.
But last but not least, if this imaginary team will arrive to conclude that there will be some relevant similarities between the Byzantine Art and the Shroud, we have not resolved our problem because we have no reason to think that the Shroud influenced the Byzantine Arte and not conversely. Even if we can demonstrate similarity between the Byzantine Art and the Shroud this is not the basis for any argument in favour or counter authenticity, because the Byzantine influence in European Art arrives till the fall of Constantinople (1453). Sindonism and scepticism will be compatible with it.
Hence, I think the relations of the Shroud with Art is an interesting and curious issue, but not relevant to the authenticity case.
Footnote (1): I’m thinking in Erwin Panofsky: Meaning in the Visual Arts as a striking instanceof this oversight.
Damn, what is with this WordPress: “Duplicate comment detected: it looks as though you’ve already said that”
Dan, have you received my e-mail?
David Mo, due to the WordPress error, I reply here:
You are in a mistake. Jesus beardless and with the short hair was an icon that persisted till the first centuries of the Middle Age. And John the Baptist was ever presented with long hair and sometimes with a curl on the front. This has no necessary relation to the Shroud nor the actual appearance of Christ but to some theological conventions. Jesus with a beard and long hair was assimilated to the philosophers and Wisdom. Jesus beardless was the symbol of the Life.
Cf: Chavanne-Mazel, Claudine A.: “Popular Belief and the Image of Beardless Christ”, Visual Resources, Vol 19, no 1; 2003; p. 19-24. It is on line, I think.
First thanks for the article, it is indeed interesting.
It shows clearly that the further from Constantinople, the dominance of long-hair, bearded, skinny Christ comes later. But this dominance since the 6th century is undisputable, and some exceptions confirming the rule cannot change that! And all the theories that development of such image occurred without influence of the Shroud are in fact nothing but pure academic speculations based on no evidentiary basis at all!
We enlarge arbitrarily the rank of our survey. For example, we accept the Pantocrator of Taüll but not the Pantocrator of the Cristo de la Luz of Toledo. Why? Because we think the first accomplish (??- I doubt a lot) some Vignon Marks and the latter not a single one.
That’s not true. There are several marks on the latter (http://www.arteguias.com/imagenes/cristoluzpinturas.jpg ), for example 1, perhaps 2 or 3, 12, 15, maybe more. Are you blinded or simply lying?
How long the influence of the Shroud reached ? How? These are some important points to an historical hypothesis never specified in this case.
It lasts up to this day, as I have shown a couple posts above. For practical reason I would consider only the period 500-1350, between discovery of Image of Edessa and the first appearance of the Shroud in Lirey. I hope this criterion is clear. The influence of the Shroud on Christ iconography post 1350 is beyond any discussion, as I will show one day. The influence in a period before 1350 (when , according to the sceptics, Shroud didn’t exist) as well.
In what sense ‘oddity’? I think they are a ‘stilyzed’ sign, perhaps of concentration and power. (‘Stylization’: a natural feature modified in terms of an aesthetic style). But they scarcely ever or never appear as a vertical succesion of signs in form of V+rectangular box+V (2,3,4 marks) in the space between the eyebrows. Not in the Shroud, of course.
They are rarely present all three (usually one or two), but on the Daphne Pantocrator they are all three, very expressly highlighted (why? ad hoc ideas about “stilyzed’ signs, perhaps of concentration and power.” don’t hold water) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Meister_von_Daphni_002.jpg And they are certainly noticeable on the Shroud. Closing eyes and denying this don’t help you, David Mo.
Yes on the non-Christ they are accidental. On the Christ they are related to the Shroud.
Petitio principii. You suppose the Mandylion is the Srhoud. This is far to be demonstrated.
I suppose nothing about the Mandylion at this moment. I simply notice that frequency of the oddities known as Vignon marks is far beyond from what one could expect from mere random occurrences (the case of non-Christ icons). And the very similar oddities can be found on the Shroud. Reasonable conclusion: they are derived from the Shroud.
But of course unacceptable by fanatical sceptics.
Further:
First of all, an inquiry as you propose would have to be carried on by a competent team of Art historians.
Not necessary, and rather not -as the art historian usually are stuck in their theories and paradigms. Some people with fresh insights, outside their circle would be better. Anyway this task is much better suited to be performed by some criminal investigator, experts in facial composite or similar.
But last but not least, if this imaginary team will arrive to conclude that there will be some relevant similarities between the Byzantine Art and the Shroud, we have not resolved our problem because we have no reason to think that the Shroud influenced the Byzantine Arte and not conversely.
Conversly is impossible -there is virtually no way to copy or fake the Shroud. And why forger should copy all those tiny features from Byzantine icons into the Shroud?
So I agree with the statement:
Hence, I think the relations of the Shroud with Art is an interesting and curious issue, but not relevant to the authenticity case.
The authenticity of the Shroud can be established by other means, even without reference to the Byzantine arts. However, the relation between them is obvious, and helps to track down the history of the Shroud.
O.K. Check the enlarged left nostril I mentioned below, it is also in keeping with what we learn from the NT.
On October 16, 2012 at 5:24 pm and 3:38 pm, I wrote:
“A more original illustrative solution than Vignon’s or even Balossino’s must be found to convince Byzantine Art historian (remember the RIGHT picture is worth a TEN thousand words)…”
“Vignon’s pioneering work has to be refined and look/be more convincing in the eyes of conventional Byzantine Art historians although he was probably right…”
Methinks the “iconocryptological solution” would be to overlay/place over the Holy Face of the Manoppello Face (aka the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion) and that of the Holy Shroud of Turin (aka the Holy Face of the “(Sanctissime) Sydoine” AND THEN look for both congruent typological and accidental characteristics in conjunction with Christ face Coptic, Syriac, Byzantine and Roman iconography.
Typo : Methinks the “iconocryptological solution” would be to overlay the Holy Face of the Manoppello VEIL (aka the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion) and that of the Holy Shroud of Turin (aka the Holy Face of the “(Sanctissime) Sydoine” (and/or placed the original faces one over the other de facto).
AND THEN look for both congruent typological and accidental characteristics in conjunction with Christ face Roman, Coptic, Syriac and Byzantine iconography.
O.K.
That’s not true. There are several marks on the latter (http://www.arteguias.com/imagenes/cristoluzpinturas.jpg ), for example 1, perhaps 2 or 3, 12, 15, maybe more. Are you blinded or simply lying?
You are right about the 15 and less or more the 12.
But I would appreciate if you remove your accusation of lying. I have the habit to not discuss with someone who gets overexcited and aggressive. I have not insulted you and I hope you will follow the same rule and we can continue our debate calmly. I think you see some things that there are not and you are falling in a delusive perception. But I do not think you are lying. If this is not clear for you it will be better to leave it.
But I would appreciate if you remove your accusation of lying. I have the habit to not discuss with someone who gets overexcited and aggressive. I have not insulted you and I hope you will follow the same rule and we can continue our debate calmly. I think you see some things that there are not and you are falling in a delusive perception. But I do not think you are lying. If this is not clear for you it will be better to leave it.
Truly saying, I have no doubts what your intentions are -and that completely honest they are not.
That’s not a great problem for me, because I engaged in polemics with guys who were not playing entirely fair. Just for the purpose of showing their cheating.
And unfortunately I think you cheat in this case. You claim there are no Vignon marks on Spanish Pantocrator, while they are actually there, and I don’t think you have not noticed that (otherwise you are poorly prepared for this discussion; choose what you want -dishonesty or incompetence). You won’t mislead me,but you can (and I presume you want!) mislead other, less experienced readers.
You are not stupid, I admit. But deceitful, I think. And one can be deceitful, even without openly lying.
The game is over. I stopped looking for fight when I was at school. I am adult now.
Vignon cannot be dismissed that easily. For instance, how many images have an enlarged left nostril?
OK, you really ought to be consistent. A few days ago you dismissed my wide range of non-Christ portraits carrying Vignon markings because, as they didn’t have shoulder-length hair, they couldn’t possibly be derived from the Shroud. Now you seem to be a staunch defender of the Spanish Pantocrator, even though, as it has short hair, by your own repeated and insistent criteria, it cannot be derived from the Shroud, and therefore any Vignon markings it may posess are accidental! But that it would be unkind, one would feel like asking you the question you asked of Mo, wouldn’t one?
Hugh:
OK, you really ought to be consistent. A few days ago you dismissed my wide range of non-Christ portraits carrying Vignon markings because, as they didn’t have shoulder-length hair, they couldn’t possibly be derived from the Shroud. Now you seem to be a staunch defender of the Spanish Pantocrator, even though, as it has short hair, by your own repeated and insistent criteria, it cannot be derived from the Shroud, and therefore any Vignon markings it may posess are accidental!
To every rule, there are some exceptions.For example, the Mandylion from Skylitzes (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Surrender_of_the_Mandylion_to_the_Byzantines.jpg )has no recognizable shoulder-lenght hair, but surprisingly it has two strands of hair.
We can say that one “Christ style” dominates from the 6th century, but what about Michelangelo? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Michelangelo%2C_Giudizio_Universale_03.jpg
When I said: “Jesus without long hair is not Jesus”, of course I meant general, not absolute rule. And frankly, I expected that sceptics would be trying to play red herring with it. That would show how despearate measures they need to utilize.
There are not absolute criteria, and even Vignon marks have some flaws, though no one has yet suggested better system. What one needs is some common sense, which is dismissed by so favored byt he sceptics overconcentration on particular elements.
Are there multiple Vignon marks on Byzantine potraits of Christ? They are there in majority of cases, and no one except most prejudiced sceptics deny this. Are there Vignon marks on non-Christs? Yes, sometimes, but they are minority. It is obvious that on non-Christs they cannot be derived from the Shroud -but in the case of the Christs they can, and are -the frequency of their presence is simply too high, and there are other notable similarites with the Shroud (beard, long hair, similar proportions etc.). Possible minor differences (ears, no blood traces) can be easily, and rationally explained. And that’s the whole philosophy.
As to the Spanish Pantocrator, one can argue that there is long hair, hidden at the back of the head- it is definetly not short hair.
But that it would be unkind, one would feel like asking you the question you asked of Mo, wouldn’t one?
In the case of David Mo, I hardly believe he didn’t notice marks 12 & 15 at last. So either he was dishonest, or so blind, that his opinion was absolutely irrelevant.
The game is over. I stopped looking for fight when I was at school. I am adult now.
So had you grown up, please stop your anti-Shroud provocations with cherry-picked arguments. That will be fine, thanks.
Dont be childish. Your tantrums won’t silence me. I will continue giving my opinions, wrong or not, and if they bother you I suggest you do not read them.
You’re welcome.
When you overlay the Holy Face of the Manoppello VEIL (aka the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion) and that of the Holy Shroud of Turin (aka the Holy Face of the “(Saintisme) Sydoine” you can get a skewed nosed Christ face much like the one on half a dozen of Justinian II’s solidus obverse (685-695 CE).
…besides a few Vignon’s markings.
I applaud the determination of your defence, OK, but surely the watchers on the hillsides can see you’re fighting a losing battle. Every new example demonstrates the arbitrariness of the Vignon markings right across Byzantine portraiture. Almost every portrait, divine or secular, has three or four, and very few, if any, divine or secular, have nine or more. Most have something in between. A great many omit the glaringly obvious ones (long hair, divided beard) in favour of barely detectable irregularities (square and Vs), which seems perverse. Of course more Christs than non-Christs can be adduced to demonstrate the markings, but that is because there are vastly more Christ than non-Christ portraits over all.
It’s no use coming up with all exceptions to the rule and then pleading for common sense, as my common sense clearly shows that the Vignon markings are a delusion.
Of course more Christs than non-Christs can be adduced to demonstrate the markings, but that is because there are vastly more Christ than non-Christ portraits over all
Don’t you know the simple procedure of normalization? Dividing by the overall number of samples?
Where are those 10 Moses and 10 John Chrysostom portraits with 7+ Vignon marks?
And one more think:
Every new example demonstrates the arbitrariness of the Vignon markings right across Byzantine portraiture
‘Arbitrary’ does not mean ‘irrelevant’. The choice of 15 marks is somehow arbitrary (to the certain degree), but not unrestricted (that is one cannot choose anything what he wants). It is possible to choose similar, but a little bit different set, and the conclusions would be similar.
Arbitrary does not necessarily mean irrelevant, I agree, but in this case, as it is increasingly clear that none of the Vignon marks, singly or in any combination, are exclusive to portraits of Christ, I think they are irrelevant as a method of determining whether those portraits were derived from the Shroud.
And another thing:
A great many omit the glaringly obvious ones (long hair, divided beard) in favour of barely detectable irregularities (square and Vs), which seems perverse.
There is nothing strange in that. Different people pay attention to different things.
I remind that Mandylions and Pantocrators aren’t photocopy reproductions. They are paintings which have a message for faithful to deliver: the Holy Face of Jesus looks in this or that way -without giving full description. It is a wink for believers, something like flirting with observer -but not going all out. No full access to the mystery.
The icons in fact, reflect something of the personality of their writers. One notice this, another that. One shows divided bear, while being not interested in the strand of hairs, another opposite. One may notice curious square between the brows, another does not, instead will pay attention to the enlarged nostril. And so on.
And those strange features are present even on the modern Mandylion copies:
http://www.touchofart.eu/Greta-Maria-Lesko/gmar2-Mandylion/
http://czasnawnetrze.pl/art-collection/sztuka-we-wnetrzu/15654-tempera-obrazy-z-jajem-techniki-malarskie
http://lodztrojmasztowa.bloog.pl/id,337752810,title,Ikona-modlitwa-wschodu,index.html?smoybbtticaid=612b9f
http://tadeo-art.pl/index.php?id=21&ID=887
They are certainly not random ornaments -and they have significance.
Arbitrary does not necessarily mean irrelevant, I agree, but in this case, as it is increasingly clear that none of the Vignon marks, singly or in any combination, are exclusive to portraits of Christ, I think they are irrelevant as a method of determining whether those portraits were derived from the Shroud.
There is also this factor, that some of the Vignon marks might have been imitated on other non-Christ images. Similar things happened with epitaphios, they were initially related to the Christ and his death and suffering, but the idea was further projected on Theotokos and her Dormition; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epitaphios_%28liturgical%29#Epitaphios_of_the_Theotokos
But the idea certainly is rooted in the Christ images. While not exclusive, singly or in any combination, the Vignon marks are most frequent on them.
Hugh:
I think they are irrelevant as a method of determining whether those portraits were derived from the Shroud
I ask you a question, if they are not derived from the Shroud, then from what? You may find some more or less plausible hypothesis for some marks -but for all 15? And of course similarities between the Shroud and Byzantine icons do not end on the Vignon marks. they rather just begin.
This “watcher on the hill-side” does not believe that Vignon was wrong at all. I consider that O.K. makes a valid point that many of the Christ icons do show Vignon markings, and when they occur, they are consistently more frequent than such markings on non-Christ portraits. It would not be uncommon for artists to imitate such features as Vignon markings in portraits of their other subjects. Who can enter the mind of an artist? Artistic styles often seem to follow a fashion.
I have previously referred to Ian Wilson’s paper showing several slides of a wide range of Christ icons and representations said to be of the mandylion. Ian Wilson – “Discovering more of Shroud’s Early history”, Valencia Conference 2012; Paper and slide show:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/wilsonvppt.pdf
Unfortunately many of these examples have suffered the ravages of time and neglect, and are sometimes indistinct.
Both Vignon and Wuenschel together identified some 20 characteristic markings, and Wilson in his books reduced the number to 15. I would agree that we now need to move beyond Vignon. Clearly the basic idea was to identify those characteristics that were often repeated in the icons, particularly those that had some claim to be representations of the mandylion. But it should not be surprising if such characteristics may sometimes be repeated in other sacred non-Christ portraits, as imitating artistic style.
The time sequence and geographical dispersion of such characteristics would be important to detect any changing trend or development. Whether this can be done on an objective basis may be awkward, as there would be often some reliance on variable subjective perceptions, as is already too evident in the recent discussions.
The project is essentially one that ought to rely on artistic expertise, and it seems unfortunate that few such experts have demonstrated much interest in committing themselves to such a project, but have been content to rely on the received wisdom of their skeptical predecessors.
There has to have been a discernible development in the representation of Christ icons, which can be analysed and stated in an authoritative way. Perhaps it does need a multi-disciplinary approach as suggested by the initial correspondent. Like all such projects it requires time, interest, serious research, hard work and commitment, of the type that Paul Vignon was prepared to devote to it 80 years ago, before there was ever any concept of the internet and its advantages.
Well I agree with that, of course.
daveb of wellington nz
May 14, 2014 at 6:21 pm
This “watcher on the hill-side” does not believe that Vignon was wrong at all. I consider that O.K. makes a valid point that many of the Christ icons do show Vignon markings, and when they occur, they are consistently more frequent than such markings on non-Christ portraits. It would not be uncommon for artists to imitate such features as Vignon markings in portraits of their other subjects. Who can enter the mind of an artist?
Icons of Christ do show Vignon Marks? This is a confusing expression. Some icons of Christ show some combination of Vignon’s marks and other icons of Crhist show different combinations. Some Vignon’s marks are clearly visible (for example 15) and other are subjective. Some marks are visible only in some phtographies with some specific contrast. Etc.
I have done my personal inquiry about Vignon’s marks on 44 instances of Christ’s images from Sixth Century to Fourteenth Century. This is a very imperfect study (as Wilson, and others) because I can not keep in mind thousand of manuscripts, woods, icons, frescoes, etc. I have focused my study on some instances of Byzantine images or influenced by Byzantine Art, iIncluding those usually quoted by sindonists.
Only marks 1, 10, 11, 12 and 15 are regularly present in these images and can see clearly. The marks 5, 6 7 or 8 are practically inexistent, the same as the combination 2, 3 and 4. The mark 13 has two different ways of representation. In the same form as in the Shroud, i.e. has a soft curve (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Painting/Fajum44.jpg) , is scarcely represented in the examples I have consulted. It is more frequent as an angular form (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Painting/Fajum2.jpg).
First problem: Marks 1, 10, 11 and 13 in both forms are common marks to a lot of portraits of these times and even before. Then, we have only two marks that can be considered identifying of Christ: 12 (divided beard) and 15 (lock of hair).
But in some portraits of John the Baptist (for example) we can see the same lock of hair. Evidently here it doesn’t represent any blood stain, but only a lock of hair. Why do you think that the same lock of hair represents a blood stain in the Byzantine representation of Christ? Have you any reason to think so? Surely not. I haven’t heard any explanation of this arbitrary interpretation.
So, even in the supposition that the 15 Vignon’s marks were present in the Shroud (and I don’t see more of six or seven), there is not any “extraordinary coincidence” between these marks and the Byzantine iconography of Christ when we examine better the facts.
Only marks 1, 10, 11, 12 and 15 are regularly present in these images and can see clearly. The marks 5, 6 7 or 8 are practically inexistent, the same as the combination 2, 3 and 4. The mark 13 has two different ways of representation
It is true that some of the marks are more frequent than others (see the table at the end of my presentation http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/shroudvignonpantocratorsmandylions.pdf ), but this not mean that those are not present on some (sometimes very significant) examples (for example Sinai for 5 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg and Hagia Sophia for 6,7, 8 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Christ_Pantocrator_Deesis_mosaic_Hagia_Sophia.jpg )
The combination of 2, 3, 4 is present on multiple examples, although rarely all three (Daphni is the most striking example http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Meister_von_Daphni_002.jpg )
The mark 13 can be represented in various ways, but the most important point is that it is represented.
First problem: Marks 1, 10, 11 and 13 in both forms are common marks to a lot of portraits of these times and even before. Then, we have only two marks that can be considered identifying of Christ: 12 (divided beard) and 15 (lock of hair).
I agree that marks 1,10,11,13 can be quite common on several portraits (though not all, and not in any context or style like in the case of the Christ), but then, even if we agree to your deeply sceptical interpretation, we have marks 12 and 15 as decisive factor (that means 12 & 15 +those mentioned before) during examination.
But in some portraits of John the Baptist (for example) we can see the same lock of hair. Evidently here it doesn’t represent any blood stain, but only a lock of hair. Why do you think that the same lock of hair represents a blood stain in the Byzantine representation of Christ? Have you any reason to think so? Surely not. I haven’t heard any explanation of this arbitrary interpretation.
One should remember that John the Baptist was born just a half year before his cousin Christ, so he is often portayed in the fashion similar to the latter. So in some occasions, he “inherited” the lock from Jesus. And that’s nothing unimaginable. See this modern icon of St. Joseph with baby Jesus ( http://lodztrojmasztowa.bloog.pl/id,337752810,title,Ikona-modlitwa-wschodu,index.html?smoybbtticaid=612b9f , below Pantocrator). Baby Jesus has a lock of hair, so has Joseph, who is clearly portrayed in a manner similar to adult Jesus. It has some improtance in this particular artistic expression.
So, even in the supposition that the 15 Vignon’s marks were present in the Shroud (and I don’t see more of six or seven), there is not any “extraordinary coincidence” between these marks and the Byzantine iconography of Christ when we examine better the facts.”
I can see all 15, (and can suggest some more) and there is clearly the coincidence, contrary to the other figures not related to the Shroud, like Moses, Elijah, St. Nicholas, Constantine or any other.
(…) I would agree that we now need to move beyond Vignon. Clearly the basic idea was to identify those characteristics that were often repeated in the icons, particularly those that had some claim to be representations of the mandylion. But it should not be surprising if such characteristics may sometimes be repeated in other sacred non-Christ portraits, as imitating artistic style.
Why? Le tus suppose that a commission of experts (experts, I agree!) can establish some evident connexion (nor subjective, nor imprecise) between the Shroud and the standard Byzantine representation of the Mandylion. How do you can establish if is the Shroud the origin of this standard representation of the Mandylion or the standard representation of the Mandylion the origin of the representation of Christ in the Shroud?
None of these possibilities can be established by only an analysis of artistic forms. This is my first and main point.
Why? Le tus suppose that a commission of experts (experts, I agree!) can establish some evident connexion (nor subjective, nor imprecise) between the Shroud and the standard Byzantine representation of the Mandylion. How do you can establish if is the Shroud the origin of this standard representation of the Mandylion or the standard representation of the Mandylion the origin of the representation of Christ in the Shroud?
I repeat what I wrote on May 14, 2014 at 4:03 am:
Conversly is impossible -there is virtually no way to copy or fake the Shroud. And why forger should copy all those tiny features from Byzantine icons into the Shroud?
The authenticity of the Shroud can be established by other means, even without reference to the Byzantine arts. However, the relation between them is obvious, and helps to track down the history of the Shroud.
None of these possibilities can be established by only an analysis of artistic forms. This is my first and main point.
I agree. But after scientific examination, we can exclude artistic origin of the Shroud. The Shroud is not a piece of art, period. So only one way is possible:from the Shroud to the Byzantine icons.
DM: Why do you think that the same lock of hair represents a blood stain in the Byzantine representation of Christ? Have you any reason to think so?
OK: One should remember that John the Baptist was born just a half year before his cousin Christ, so he is often portayed in the fashion similar to the latter. So in some occasions, he “inherited” the lock from Jesus. And that’s nothing unimaginable.
This is not any reason. This is an ad hoc supposition. You and I can “imagine” a lot of things. But they are mere speculation before we be able to provide a proof of them. Meanwhile a lock of hair is a lock of hair and two locks of hair are two locks of hair.
The mark 13 can be represented in various ways, but the most important point is that it is represented.
Absolutely incorrect. You can not match two portraits because they represent two eyes, a brow, a mouth or some wrinkles in the neck. If it were so, we will match any portrait to another. You can match two portraits if the features are represented in the same form. And the form of the wrinkle in the neck of the Shroud (that actually is not) is very different of the wrinkle of the neck of the most part of Christ’s images we are analyzing. But these latter are very similar to many roman portraits. I think you will be able to extract the adequate inference.
And why forger should copy all those tiny features from Byzantine icons into the Shroud?
The sole feature common to the Shroud and the standard representation of Christ in the medieval art that might be clearly observable is the divided beard. All the other are based either on subjective vision or ad hoc inferences. Or they are not distinctive of Christ, but present in many other portraits. Without entering in some evident differences between the Shroud and the standard representation of Christ. There is no much to speculate about forgers.
Advice: When you present a series of examples of Art pictures is technically advisable to identify them. You speak of a table in your presentation but I don’t see any one.
Advice: When you present a series of examples of Art pictures is technically advisable to identify them. You speak of a table in your presentation but I don’t see any one.
Sorry, this was a link to the old version. Here is updated: http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/pantocratorsmarks.pdf
This is not any reason. This is an ad hoc supposition. You and I can “imagine” a lot of things. But they are mere speculation before we be able to provide a proof of them. Meanwhile a lock of hair is a lock of hair and two locks of hair are two locks of hair.
There is a lot of speculation floating around, and even more in the views of art historians. The only solid materials are the Shroud and the icons.
DM: Why do you think that the same lock of hair represents a blood stain in the Byzantine representation of Christ? Have you any reason to think so?
They have similar shape, simply. And the easiest way to represent this epsilon shape on the glorious Pantocrators and Mandylions is with the use of hair lock. Of course the audience don’t know the true nature of it. Painters, if the whole Shroud had not been fully unveiled, perhaps also.
And the form of the wrinkle in the neck of the Shroud (that actually is not) is very different of the wrinkle of the neck of the most part of Christ’s images we are analyzing. But these latter are very similar to many roman portraits. I think you will be able to extract the adequate inference.
That wrinkle, or rather the whole base of the neck visible on the Shroud, can be interpreted in various ways, and both representations you showed can be justified. Just look carefully at the neck area on the Shroud. Just look a little bit below that wrinkle, there some U-shaped area, similar to the mark 2.
The sole feature common to the Shroud and the standard representation of Christ in the medieval art that might be clearly observable is the divided beard. All the other are based either on subjective vision or ad hoc inferences.
And those ad hoc intreferences are indeed in those places on the shorud -isn’t that remarkable? As to the subjective vision, everyone has it’s own. Isn’t it possible that some Byzantine artist had their subjective visions very similar to what some Shroud researchers claim (that means, they paid attention to the same tiny curiosities)?
O.K.
May 15, 2014 at 9:58 am
Sorry, this was a link to the old version. Here is updated:http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/pantocratorsmarks.
Thank you.
There is not strange that you find a massive range of ‘occurences’ of Vignon/Wilson’s marks because you handle incomprehensible norms of comparison. Some examples:
– The Holy Faces of Genoa (XVIII and XIX) and Vatican have a beard divided (????).
– The Christ of the Shroud has rings under de eyes. (???) And leptons.
– You do a ‘liberal’ intrpretation of mark 14 (rings under the eyes). But then, almost all the roman portraits of adult men, specially philosophers and emperors, have the same mark. It is not a characteristic feature of portrait of Christ! Nobody needed to copy nothing, but follow a pictorical convention thoroughly established.
– You believe that two or three hairs sometimes almost invisible (VIII) are “similar” and “inspired” by a strong spiral form of blood(Shroud). (???) In Spain we say that this analogy “está traída por los pelos” ( is farfetched; literally: ‘brought by the hair’). Never better said. Have you any reason to suppose the first artist’s intention that converted the blood to hair or it is a mere supposition?
Etc., etc.
You should not be blamed by have claimed these nonsense. Vingnon’s theory is based on remote analogies and statements of intentions without any verifiable support.
Paul Vignon 1865-1943: biologist, worked with agnostic Anatomy Prof Yves Delage, prepared anatomy paper based on Pia’s photography, presented to Paris Academy by Delage 1902; Published “The Shroud of Christ” 1902; Paper hailed by British Medical Journal “The Lancet” and by Paris “Figaro” Paris Academy dominated by agnostics and “free-thinkers”; Academy Secretary refuses to publish paper; Delage writes to Secretary expressing his disgust, turns his attention to other interests, Vignon suffers nervous disposition as a result of Academy’s rebuff. Subsequently traveled, studying icons, identified features common to Shroud; Published 1938: “Holy Shroud of Turin: Science, Archaeology, History, Iconography, Logic” Paris Academy relents, awarded Vignon the French Academy Prize.
It would seem that Paul Vignon was better informed 76 years ago than his amateur critics are today. Suggestion – Obtain a copy of Vignon’s 1938 publication, and then comment when adequately informed of his studies, in preference to whistling in the dark!
Sorry, but in History of Art Vignon was so amateur as I am or worse (I have Internet and I have read some books). If am not in a mistake Vignon and his theory had no influence on studies of Byzantine Art. Perhaps, Wesselow?It wouldn’t be a big succes.
I have searched in the pages of Académie des Sciences de France and the Académie de Paris and I have not found any reference to M. Vignon. Can you be more precise about that reward won by M. Vignon? Thank you.
I have find this: http://blog-dominique.autie.intexte.net/blogs/index.php/2006/04/16/yves_delage_paul_vignon_maurice_vernes_e
No reference to any price and rather a gloomy biography of M. Vignon.
David Mo:
– The Holy Faces of Genoa (XVIII and XIX) and Vatican have a beard divided (????).
Criticism acknowledged. However the fact is that it is impossible to determine where beards end and hairs begin on those icons.
– The Christ of the Shroud has rings under de eyes. (???) And leptons.
Yes indeed, it has -some brighter ellipse rings around the eyes.
– You do a ‘liberal’ intrpretation of mark 14 (rings under the eyes). But then, almost all the roman portraits of adult men, specially philosophers and emperors, have the same mark. It is not a characteristic feature of portrait of Christ! Nobody needed to copy nothing, but follow a pictorical convention thoroughly established.
I don’t know what do you mean by the term liberal. I admit that this mark is problematic, as it is unclear what “heavily accented owlish eyes” actually means. Nevertheless, this is a feature that is visible on several icons -those black eyes, like after some boxing fight, or three nights without sleep. The Sinai Pantocrator with its squint eyes is the most striking example. I cannot imagine how they could paint it without the reference to the Shroud.
– You believe that two or three hairs sometimes almost invisible (VIII) are “similar” and “inspired” by a strong spiral form of blood(Shroud). (???) In Spain we say that this analogy “está traída por los pelos” ( is farfetched; literally: ‘brought by the hair’). Never better said. Have you any reason to suppose the first artist’s intention that converted the blood to hair or it is a mere supposition?
Striking, or almost invisible, the most important point is their presence. The Byzantine icons ususally (although not always) have real obsession on this strand of hairs.as they are present even on miniatures http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mandylion#mediaviewer/File:Surrender_of_the_Mandylion_to_the_Byzantines.jpg So there must have been something important in those strands (even if they are just symbollically marked), for, if we forget the blood mark on the Shroud or similar strand on Manoppello (assuming it is identical to Camuliana Image, as Pfeiffer suggest), otherwise unknown reasons.
You should not be blamed by have claimed these nonsense. Vingnon’s theory is based on remote analogies and statements of intentions without any verifiable support.
I have never concealed that Vignon’s system has some weak points -it mixes absolute marks (like 9, 12 or 15) with relative ones (6,7, 14). Besides marks 10 and 11 are usually related. Nevertheless, although flawed as it is, it allows for some basic systematic survey of all those icons, and makes a point, that there are several similarities between Shroud and Byzantine images of Christ. But the matter is of course much more complex, and one cannot stay just with the Vignon only. There are probably the whole famillies of genetically related icons -there is some equivalent of “textual criticism” needed. Each icon has also its own specific similarites to the Shroud, not listed among Vignon marks. One could expand or revise that system. Besides there are some basic similiarites of proportions, and basic feature: long hair, presence of beard and mustache, thin nose, skinny face, and so on.
DaveB:
It would seem that Paul Vignon was better informed 76 years ago than his amateur critics are today. Suggestion – Obtain a copy of Vignon’s 1938 publication, and then comment when adequately informed of his studies, in preference to whistling in the dark!
Do you, or someone else, know what were the remaining 5 of the 20 original Vignon marks?
David Mo:
Sorry, but in History of Art Vignon was so amateur as I am or worse (I have Internet and I have read some books). If am not in a mistake Vignon and his theory had no influence on studies of Byzantine Art. Perhaps, Wesselow?It wouldn’t be a big succes.
Perhaps also Pfeiffer, for example:
http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/PfeifferWeb.pdf
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi09part4.pdf
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi10part3.pdf
Vignon and his theory had no influence on the studies of Byzantine Art? Well Vignon-Wilson theory is in fact real Copernican Revolution in those studies -something that the concrete will never accept. They prefere to stick to their suck out of the thumb theories about Zeus/Jupiter/Serapis, “portrayal of a bearded philospher”, or “popular pressure” -contrary to the hard evidence of the Shroud image. Shame on them!
Dear O.K, are you sure what are you speaking of? Copernican Revolution?? You need much more than a Historian if you will speak of a Copernican Revolution.
But the Copernican Revolution you claim becomes a ridiculous thing if the sole historian you quote is against the method of Vignon with at least a similar argument as I have done here. See “THE SHROUD OF TURIN AND THE FACE OF CHRIST IN PALEOCHRISTIAN, BYZANTINE AND WESTERN MEDIEVAL ART”: “Vignon was a scholar of the natural sciences, of chemistry and biology. His iconographic arguments in regard to the Shroud therefore lack a bit of exact methodology. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the very vast range of the diverse images of Christ nor the variety of details they show”. (p. 12)
Your Copernican Revolution goes in a very bad path.
Nevertheless, thank you for the articles of the Father Preiffer. Though they are not published in an independent review I read them with pleasure. If one will read only peer reviewed articles on this issue, one would not have any work.
Dear O.K, are you sure what are you speaking of? Copernican Revolution??
Yes, Copernican Revoltion. Accepting that the most common image of Jesus since at least 6th century is in fact derived from the Shroud of Turin, would be Copernican Revolution in Christian art studies. It would be like moving from geocentrism to heliocentrism.
But the Copernican Revolution you claim becomes a ridiculous thing if the sole historian you quote is against the method of Vignon with at least a similar argument as I have done here. See “THE SHROUD OF TURIN AND THE FACE OF CHRIST IN PALEOCHRISTIAN, BYZANTINE AND WESTERN MEDIEVAL ART”: “Vignon was a scholar of the natural sciences, of chemistry and biology. His iconographic arguments in regard to the Shroud therefore lack a bit of exact methodology. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the very vast range of the diverse images of Christ nor the variety of details they show”. (p. 12)
and it goes further:
“Vignon is right when he affirms that a resemblance exists between the classic type of the face of Christ and the Shroud face. He is right when he says that certain deformities on the Shroud face are due to the maltreatment Christ suffered during the different stages of his passion. If identical traces are found in art works representing Christ, Vignon reasoned, then these art works must be seen as dependent on the Turin relic. These same disfiguring marks seen on the Shroud face are indeed found on images of Christ but, Vignon added, they are found also on other personages. This, for art historians, is the weak spot in Vignon’s argument. In establishing a connection not only between the Shroud and images of Christ, but also with images of other persons, Vignon went beyond the limits of a method of certainty. He was the first to compare the sindonic face with the diverse art images, the first to introduce a method fundamentally sound (boldings mine), but he did not realize its limitations. Therefore, even though we owe so much to Vignon, we will take a different path.”
Do not take sentences out of context. Copernican model was also imperfect, until Kepler.
BACK TO BASICS and reminder for David Mo : “It is always a VALID (my upper cases) sentence, that all that appears in a more natural or casual way in relation to similar elements in art objects has to be first and considered as the model for the same or similar detail in a work of art”. Pfeiffer
BACK TO BASICS and reminder for David Mo : “It is always a VALID (my upper cases) sentence, that all that appears in a more natural or casual way in relation to similar elements in art objects has to be first and considered as the model for the same or similar detail in a work of art”.
A beautiful sentence. But to apply it we need to be sure that the first is the first, that there are not other possible influences and that we are not in front of an artistic innovation. In the case of Byzantine art and a mysterious image without clear origins as the Shroud the work is not easy and we risk falling in oversimplifications.
Nevertheless, I will wait to read the Pfeiffer’s articles before to engage in a discussion about them.
Father Heinrich Pfeiffer holds an important post in the Vatican’s cultural heritage department and it is a pity that the book he co-authored with Father Werner Bulst has not been translated into English. Here is an interview with him:
http://holyshroudguild.org/uploads/2/7/1/7/2717873/an_interview_with_professor_heinrich_pfeiffer_sj.pdf
To David Mo: you wrote “But to apply it we need to be sure that the first is the first, that there are not other possible influences and that we are not in front of an artistic innovation.”
On June 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm (#58 Reply) and October 16, 2013 at 8:25, 8:29, 10:24 am and 7:10 pm I wrote:
– “Reminder (one): the TS bloodied body image “behaves” like an oversized Rorschach, which makes it hard to discriminate between illusive patterns and real patterns at times.”
– “While the alleged image of teeth is most likely due to banding effect (and tight wrapping-up when the burial shroud was in-soaked with a watery solution), “the teeth optical illusion” (pareidolia) was “faithfully” copied by an artist on the Manoppello Veil to become an “archaeopareidolia” i.e. a data referring to the Turin Shroud as material backing for optical illusions experienced by a Late-Antique/Medieval observer. Besides the Holy Face of the Holy Veil and that of the TS are at exactly the same scale 1:1.”
(An alleged artistic innovation can actually result from a misinterpretation of the TS face as far as the Christ face iconography is concerned. Absent “the skewed nose” we can also “think we see” when we overlay the Holy Face of the Manoppello Veil on the Holy Face of the TS (a pareidolia that is featured on more than half a dozen justinian II soldii), how else do you account for teeth featured on the Holy Face of the Holy Veil ?).
– “Reminder (two): Saints who died in imitation of Christ’s self-sacrifice and martyrdom (i.e. in imitatio Christi) could be depicted with Christ-like and even at times Shroud-like characteristic traits AND/OR (pareidoliac) attributes.”
– Reminder (three): “the geometrical fourfold series of blackened-rimmed L-shaped burn-holes could date back as early as 390 CE (see the of Santa Pudenziana with the mosaic of Christ in majesty). Both cryptically and symbolically reminiscent of the blackened-rimmed burn holes, we can see a black L (for Lumens Christi) marks standing out on the flashing gold pallium of a Resurrected Christ in Majesty (Santa Pudenziana apse Mosaic, ca. 400, Rome).Now the pallium is the Roman evolved form of the Greek himation that was a very large rectangle of fabric that can be draped as a shawl, a cloak, or a head covering and a current 4,20×1,40m for a 6ft tall man was the correct size; sizes totally congruent with the TS man). Also notice the zigzag weave pattern on the left arm pummel.”
(” The L letter identifies the clothing as Pallium Lumeni Christi = Lumen Christi in Sindonem = L in Sindonem = Linus Christi. The official first Pope’s name was Linus as secular representative of Christ on earth that is as his vicarius (Peter was not officially Pope). Lumen Christi (Latin: Light of Christ). See also Lumen verum illuminans omnem hominem (antiphon) and Inventor rutili dux bone luminis (hymn).”)
Besides in the apse mosaic, “a 111/112cm width cloth shows stretched as a backdrop just at the back of the throne at Christ shoulder level. Before the 2002 restoration of the Shroud exact width was 111-112cm.The two Christ faces (that of the mosaic and that of the Turin Shroud) are at the same scale 1:1 with congruent spy details: the face of Christ is 4-5cm off-centered on the left just like in the Turn Shroud and the position of the feet on the Pudenziana mosaic is also asymmetrical as on the TS.The latter’s body image, seen under a certain angle and light, looks like translucent straw yellow impression. This is consistent with the use of flashing gold mosaic tiles to feature Christ’s pallium.” So what is first ?
On June 12, 2013 at 2:04 pm I wrote:
“Reminder: As far as the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion and the Holy Face of Holy Himation aka the Turin Shroud connection as relics is concerned, the very word Mandylion is a Byzantine-Greek borrowed from the Arabic mandil (mindil in Syriac) i.e. a “SCARF”. Now Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos comments in his Book of Ceremonies that the loros (or ceremonial LONG SCARF or stole of Byzantine emperors) symbolized the burial shroud of Christ. The (co-)emperor(s) (+(co-)empress(es) + the 12 most important imperial figures + archangels in paintings and mosaics) normally wore it on Easter Sunday. It was draped “himation/achiton fashion” all over his WHOLE BODY: “The men’s version of the loros was a long strip, dropping down straight in front to below the waist, and with the portion behind pulled round to the front and hung gracefully over the left arm. The female loros was similar at the front end, but the back end was wider and tucked under a belt after pulling through to the front again.””
Louis
May 16, 2014 at 11:26 am
Father Heinrich Pfeiffer holds an important post in the Vatican’s cultural heritage department and it is a pity that the book he co-authored with Father Werner Bulst has not been translated into English. Here is an interview with him:
http://holyshroudguild.org/uploads/2/7/1/7/2717873/an_interview_with_profess
I haven’t found too much about Father Pfeiffer. Only Wikipedia in German and this:
https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&query=133660036
I’m considering dedicate an entry in my blog to him and I would like to know a bit more about his bibliography and curriculum, because the list above seems to me too short.
Hi David Mo
Father Pfeiffer used to be on the Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church and a professor at Rome’s Gregorian University.He was also working closely with the Austrian Redemptorist Father Andres Resch, who runs the Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft – Resch Verlag in Innsbruck, Austria. They have conducted research in paranormal phenomena, acheiropita, visions and a lot more and also published a number of books The site is nice, but it is in German:
http://www.igw-resch-verlag.at/
There is something about Pfeiffer’s work on a Mexican website, if you can read Spanish:
http://www.informador.com.mx/entretenimiento/2008/33573/6/heinrich-pfeiffer-desvela-los-secretos-de-miguel-angel.htm
Hope this helps. Anything else, you can contact me by e-mail.
Muy amable. Yes, I can read Spanish. Even I speak Spanish since I was 2 years old. I have more difficulties with German. Let us see if Google aids me.
O.K.
I had wroten: “ [he] is against the method of Vignon with at least a similar argument as I have done”
Pfeiffer wrote: he did not realize its limitations. Therefore, even though we owe so much to Vignon, we will take a different path.”
“At least” I agree with the emphasized words. It is that what I had said.
But what is “sound” in the Vignon’s method is not explained here and I disagree on this. If he means that “these same disfiguring marks seen on the Shroud face are indeed found on images of Christ” I don’t know what “images of Christ” he is refering. If he has in mind the Pantocrator and other icons we had considered here, I absolutely disagree. I don’t know if this point will be explained later in the Pfeiffer’s writings you gently provide us. I’m at work.
David Mo: May 18, 2014 at 4:22 am
“Muy amable. Yes, I can read Spanish. Even I speak Spanish since I was 2 years old. I have more difficulties with German. Let us see if Google aids me.”
Cuidado con Google en la traducción.
I have not followed the comments of people on this page… But here’s my personal opinion on the Vignon’s marking issue:
In William Meacham’s paper « The Authentication of the Turin Shroud », he cites Philip McNair, a Doctor in Philosophy who studied the history of Christianity, who said, very cleverly: “It seems to me otiose, if not ridiculous, to spend time arguing… about the identity of the man represented in the Turin Shroud. Whether genuine or fake, the representation is obviously Jesus Christ.”
And why could this man said this with so much confidence? Because of the great similarity that exist between the Shroud man’s face and the most common depictions of Christ in ancient Byzantine art, starting with the Christ Pantocrator icons. Vignon could have been maybe wrong on some points (in fact, I’m pretty sure he was on a few), but if we look at the global portrait of the situation, he was certainly correct: Most of the ancient Byzantine representation of Christ (and of course, I include the Mandylion in that group) are showing great similarity with the face on the Shroud. So much in fact that it’s certainly not a coincidence due solely to hazard. It’s evident that there’s a connection there that is strong enough to be taken as a good piece of evidence for the presence of the Shroud as early as the apparition of the first known Christ Pantocrator icon, around the year 500 A.D.
“Most of the ancient Byzantine representation of Christ are showing great similarity with the face on the Shroud”. [Implied: some features of the Byzantine art were copied from the Shroud].
“The face on the Shroud is showing a great similarity with most of the ancient Byzantine representations of Christ”. [Implied: some features of the Shroud were copied the Byzantine art].
Why not?