This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
What Christ is wearing is a colobium. I made this tabard in order to make a link. --Wetman 06:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
Would "ankle-length tunic" do? Would you edit into the article your understanding? --Wetman 14:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
I've now added to the article near the end as well Johnbod 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
Where does Nortonius' idea that the oath was used by William Rufus come from? --Wetman (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)