Replies

I think that this is it here.

THANK YOU!!

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.

Wow... I'm not sure if what I'm looking at is the image; it's not what I expected it to look like at all; for instance, the veil hardly covers all of it... and, of course, it looks nothing at all like that sily, cartoonish image that's already been posted. But it DOES look a LOT like the shroud, including the moustachio (aw, hack, I'll spell it mustache and you'll all know what I mean.)

But my eyes are very good at seeing images in chaos; I also see a dove (OK, actually, it looks more like an eagle) rising above his brow which I'm sure someone would've mentionned if it were objectively present.

Nevermind... I just saw monkapotamous' comparison... it's there all right... and Wow, it looks exactly the same!

Veronica's veil is displayed annually in St. Peters basilica - I am led to believe! - have you any idea which date?