Jump to content

Talk:Tyrian purple: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 39: Line 39:


The color of the cloak with which Jesus Christ was clothed on the day of his execution has caused some persons to argue that a discrepancy exists in the Bible record with reference to this garment. Matthew said that the soldiers “draped him with a scarlet cloak” (Mt 27:28), while Mark and John say that it was purple. (Mr 15:17; Joh 19:2) However, instead of being a discrepancy, such a variation in describing the garment’s color merely gives evidence of the individuality of the Gospel writers and the fact that they were not in collusion. Matthew described the cloak as it appeared to him, that is, according to his evaluation of color, and he emphasized the garment’s red hue. John and Mark subdued the red tint, calling it purple. “Purple” can be applied to any color having components of both blue and red. So, Mark and John agree with Matthew that the garment was red to some extent. Of course, background and light reflection could have given it different casts. A body of water varies in color at different times, depending upon the particular color of the sky and the reflection of light at a given time. So, when such factors are considered, it is seen that the Gospel writers were not in conflict in describing the color of the cloak that mocking Roman soldiers clothed Christ with on the last day of his human life.
The color of the cloak with which Jesus Christ was clothed on the day of his execution has caused some persons to argue that a discrepancy exists in the Bible record with reference to this garment. Matthew said that the soldiers “draped him with a scarlet cloak” (Mt 27:28), while Mark and John say that it was purple. (Mr 15:17; Joh 19:2) However, instead of being a discrepancy, such a variation in describing the garment’s color merely gives evidence of the individuality of the Gospel writers and the fact that they were not in collusion. Matthew described the cloak as it appeared to him, that is, according to his evaluation of color, and he emphasized the garment’s red hue. John and Mark subdued the red tint, calling it purple. “Purple” can be applied to any color having components of both blue and red. So, Mark and John agree with Matthew that the garment was red to some extent. Of course, background and light reflection could have given it different casts. A body of water varies in color at different times, depending upon the particular color of the sky and the reflection of light at a given time. So, when such factors are considered, it is seen that the Gospel writers were not in conflict in describing the color of the cloak that mocking Roman soldiers clothed Christ with on the last day of his human life.

==End of murex purple production in the byzantine empire? ==

Somebody hasn't read Jacoby well enough.In his 2000 article "The production of silk textiles in Latin Greece" (in Τεχνογνωσία στη λατινοκρατούμενη Ελλάδα [Technology in Latin-Occupied Greece],(Ημερίδα, Αθήνα, 8 Φεβρουαρίου 1997, Γεννάδειος Βιβλιοθηκη), Athens: Politistiko Technologiko Idryma ETBA, 2000) he has found a reference to athenian, euripian and karystian fishermen harvesting purple-giving molluscs at Gyaros - in 1208. He links this to athenian shellfish mounds from the medieval period. Corrected in the main text.

Revision as of 07:58, 23 May 2009

WikiProject iconTextile Arts B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconLebanon B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I know that Wiktionary [1] says that TP is a crimson, but it gives no reference. The swatch I added is a purple, and has a reference that claims to be based on the real Murex trunculus. If anyone can find a reliable reference to support the Wiktionary version, then I'll amend my swatch or add an alternative one. --Heron 11:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster OnLine says that Tyrian purple is "crimson or purple". The American Heritage Dictionary says "reddish". Also, the Wikipedia article on purple says that Tyrian purple "was closer to crimson than our idea of purple", but it gives no reference. --Zundark 10:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just found a more detailed reference at Grove Art Online (OUP) [2] under "Ancient Near East, §II, 6(i): Textiles: Introduction, (b) Manufacture". It says that the Phoenicians made "dark reds" from Murex brandaris at Tyre and "true purple" from M. trunculus at Sidon. I suggest, therefore, that lexicographers are confusing "Tyrian red" with "Tyrian purple". --Heron 12:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Where do you get the phrase Tyrian red from? As you've just said, the colour of the Tyrian dye (that is, Tyrian purple) was dark red. Also, looking in my copy of Chambers I find that the first meaning given for purple is "crimson (hist.)". It seems clear that the meaning of purple has changed over time (which is common for colour names), and that Tyrian purple (from which the word purple derives) was not purple in the usual modern-day sense. --Zundark 10:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. My "M. trunculus = purple" idea came from a Kramer Pigmente swatch [3] that called M. trunculus "Tyrian purple". I think Kremer have misnamed their swatch. Tyrian Red does exist, though, and it looks like this: __________. I worked this colour out by combining this page [4] that equates Tyrian Red to RHS colour code 66A, with this page [5] that equates RHS 66A with RGB #b80049. I now claim that "Tyrian red" and "Tyrian purple" are the same crimson colour from M. trunculus, not to be confused with "Royal purple" and "Imperial purple", which are purple in the modern sense. All that said, I think that as an encyclopedia we must admit that the colour of Tyrian purple is debatable. There are some interesting quotes on this from Classical writers in "The Mutability of Blue" by Ryan J. Huxtable. --Heron 18:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe those quotes could be included in the article. (By the way, I notice that the page that says RHS 66A is RGB b80049 is using a gamma of only 1.4, so it would need to be adjusted in order to be correct for sRGB, the usual RGB colour space). --Zundark 19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. With a gamma of 2.2, I make that #990024, which looks like this: __________. That's closer to Pliny's 'congealed blood'. --Heron 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

As I write, this article contains two uses of BCE (one in a footnote) and two of BC. This ought to be standardised - I haven't done so as I don't know whether there's a convention for articles on this subject to use one in particular. 86.132.143.27 23:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made them consistent. There is no Wikipedia convention on which to use, but BCE is unknown to many people, so using BC makes the article clearer. --Zundark 08:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I've added a photo of 6,6'-dibromoindigo powder against a neutral gray background. In the coming weeks I'll attempt to dye some swatches of cotton and wool using the procedure given by V. Daniels, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A:Chemistry 184 p73-77 (2006). I've only got 250 mg of the stuff but it should be sufficient to dye several 10X10cm piece. I would expect that the dye on cloth will be slightly different than the powdered dye. Daniels reports that the dye comes out slightly redder on wool and more blue on cotton and nylon, with the sequence being wool : silk : linen : cotton : nylon. To my mismatched-socks-looks-ok-to-me eye the powder is a very close match to the bar on the front page comparison chart labeled "Tyrian Purple (Imperial Purple) (Hex: #66023C) (RGB: 102, 2, 60)" __________. The actual color produced by extracting snail juice can vary quite a bit. During the dying process, the water soluble leuco form of 6,6'-dibromoindigo can photodebrominate under UV, which renders the shade more blueish and less purple. Two debrominations yield plain old indigo. Sex, age and species differences in the various Murex shells give different amounts of mono and dibromoindigorubin which are more of a reddish purple. These also can photodebrominate to give the quite red indirubin. I'll dig out the references and add this if it seems appropriate. Hey, this is my first edit so cut me some slack. --Brochis 05:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! For your future images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be used in all Wikimedia projects (the French Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc.). Once you've uploaded an image to the Commons, you can use it in an article just as if you had uploaded it here. Let me know if you have questions or need any help. —Bkell (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A reference of Jesus' cloak

Quote from the insight book:

The color of the cloak with which Jesus Christ was clothed on the day of his execution has caused some persons to argue that a discrepancy exists in the Bible record with reference to this garment. Matthew said that the soldiers “draped him with a scarlet cloak” (Mt 27:28), while Mark and John say that it was purple. (Mr 15:17; Joh 19:2) However, instead of being a discrepancy, such a variation in describing the garment’s color merely gives evidence of the individuality of the Gospel writers and the fact that they were not in collusion. Matthew described the cloak as it appeared to him, that is, according to his evaluation of color, and he emphasized the garment’s red hue. John and Mark subdued the red tint, calling it purple. “Purple” can be applied to any color having components of both blue and red. So, Mark and John agree with Matthew that the garment was red to some extent. Of course, background and light reflection could have given it different casts. A body of water varies in color at different times, depending upon the particular color of the sky and the reflection of light at a given time. So, when such factors are considered, it is seen that the Gospel writers were not in conflict in describing the color of the cloak that mocking Roman soldiers clothed Christ with on the last day of his human life.

End of murex purple production in the byzantine empire?

Somebody hasn't read Jacoby well enough.In his 2000 article "The production of silk textiles in Latin Greece" (in Τεχνογνωσία στη λατινοκρατούμενη Ελλάδα [Technology in Latin-Occupied Greece],(Ημερίδα, Αθήνα, 8 Φεβρουαρίου 1997, Γεννάδειος Βιβλιοθηκη), Athens: Politistiko Technologiko Idryma ETBA, 2000) he has found a reference to athenian, euripian and karystian fishermen harvesting purple-giving molluscs at Gyaros - in 1208. He links this to athenian shellfish mounds from the medieval period. Corrected in the main text.