Talk:Holy Face of Lucca

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled][edit]

What Christ is wearing is a colobium. I made this tabard in order to make a link. --Wetman 06:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but tabard doesn't contain the connection, such as it is. The Byzantine collobium wasn't open at the sides, as the later tabard is. Earlier collobium in the West seems to be just a fancy word for a tunic, and tabard a humbler one. The distinctive feature of the Eastern collobium, as seen in crucifixions, is two vertical stripes of decoration running down from either shoulder. This gives it imperial/royal connotations. This doesn't appear in Western examples, except I think a couple of Ottonian MS ones. Nor apparently on the original Volto Santo. The original feature of the Volto Santo is the belt, which no earlier crucifixion has, from East or West. Johnbod 12:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would "ankle-length tunic" do? Would you edit into the article your understanding? --Wetman 14:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added ankle-length. The trouble is, Schiller my main source doesn't really have an understanding, but as far as I'm concerned, being a life-size carving gets 20 points deducted on the Byzantine-ness scale, and having a full-length gown only adds about 3. Of course a lot depends on the date - if it really was from before 754 it would pre-date the Gero cross & all the other German ones. The long hair spread out widely across the shoulders also seems always more pronounced in the West. I don't know if you've seen the discussion on this point I had with Stbalbach on the Wilgefortis talk page. As the original is now missing I think art historians are naturally reluctant to stick their neck out as to its origin. Schiller declines to speculate - "nothing is known of its origin", but does say "it was probably made during the late C11". I certainly think it shouldn't just be described as "Byzantine" or probably so, as though Constantinople was once full of such objects, which is certainly not the case. Glad to see the article, btw - I had it vaguely on my to-do list, but of course you've made a better job of it! Johnbod 17:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added to the article near the end as well Johnbod 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry III and the Holy Face of Lucca[edit]

I have edited out an existing reference to a 'favourite oath of Henry III', as it seems to be in error for William II, and I have altered and expanded the relevant footnote: see my comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_III_of_England#By_the_Face_at_Lucca.21 for further explanation, and an invitation to further comment or correction. Nortonius (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was, I think, from Matthew Paris, who knew Henry III well, but did not I think chronicle William's period. There seems no reason for you to assume it was a mistake, but if you can ref William, I think you should add that here. ok you have done Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Nortonius' idea that the oath was used by William Rufus come from? --Wetman (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Schaff refed in the article. Not clear who his source is. I think it is fine now. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I left enough of a trail, maybe I should shortcut it: see mention of the oath, and the relevant footnote, on William II of England's page, under the heading 'Relations with the church, and personal beliefs'; also, I wasn't assuming it was a mistake, see my Talk post for Henry III of England, cited above, hope that helps... Nortonius (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "corpus of a crucifix"?[edit]

What is a "corpus of a crucifix"? Marnanel (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the body (rather than the cross). from the latin. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
aha! thank you. Marnanel (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wretchedly badly written[edit]

This article is badly written. It needs to be taken in hand by someone who knows something about the topic and is capable of writing clearly and grammatically. Either that or divine intervention.Campolongo (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Holy Face of Lucca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holy_Face_of_Lucca&oldid=1207630785"