Talk:Wilgefortis

Byzantine influence

From the Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Supplement 1 (2003), pg. 525:

Her cult seems to spring from the misinterpretation of Lucca's "Volto Santo" which is an early Byzantine crucifix, depicting a bearded by androgynous Christ crowned and dressed in a floor-length tunic instead of a loincloth. This unfamiliar iconography led westerners to create a narrative to explain the image."

From The Female Crucifix: Images of St. Wilgefortis Since the Middle Ages:

..reflect the oriental and Byzantine tradition of the fully robed and crowned Christ on the cross.."

-- Stbalbach 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Or not ...

The robed Christ is as much a Western type as Eastern, but in both areas it had been superceded by the loin-cloth by the C11th (with odd exceptions - the Theodore Psalter (Byzantine) of 1066 is the last Schiller shows). It was the West that had a concern over nudity; in the East the type was apparently designed to show Christ wearing the Collobium to show his royal status (not a feature of the original Volto Santo). There are numerous Insular examples including Muiredach's High Cross (other side from picture) and St. Gall Gospel Book, an C8th wall-painting in Rome & so on. The Volto Santo (when not dressed up for parading) shows more the Western type of plain tunic.

Also, I have not seen any examples of the lead figures & can't confirm they have survived. This was a very typical type of cheapish pilgrim souvenir & their existence may have been assumed - Hall does not specify. Schiller has pics of pectoral crosses, in gold, bronze etc. I don't like lumping the large wooden crosses with the small ones, as it seems unlikely the large crosses would have caused any misunderstanding, unlike the small ones. It would also seem more likely that the dealers you have removed caused the problem than pilgrims etc - another source I have seen in the past (Emile Male?) blames it all on them. I can't get the Volto Santo pic at the article to open btw.

Bear in mind also the form of a large carved crucifix is utterly un-Byzantine, however clothed. The oldest surviving example is the Gero Cross in Cologne (960-5), though earlier Western examples are documented. Schiller rather goes out of her way to say of the Volto Santo "nothing is known of its origins". I'll look into it further. Johnbod 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Origins

The problem is one of origins. Where did the original image come from? There is no consensus. Some say it is from an early Byzantine crucifix and/or general eastern tradition. Some say a western tradition. The logical question is, why did the people of Lucca mis-understand the image if they had it all along - according to their own legend, they found it long buried and so invented the story to explain it - what was it they found buried, a western image or an eastern one? It's possible either way. I think we need more detail on the various theories, but I don't have access to the sources. For now the article should reflect the uncertainties. -- Stbalbach 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone says the original image was or "came from" an "early Byzantine cruxifix" - there is no evidence such things existed as near life-size, carved in the round form like here. There is lots of evidence of strong Byzantine prejudices against such objects. The Byzantine robed examples are manuscripts or small ivory reliefs etc. They never even did large mosaic crucifictions - or at least none have survived anything like this early.

It was not the people of Lucca who misunderstood the figure - they were always clear it was Christ. It is unlikely to be people who had been to Lucca either, however dim and Northern they were. Are there "conflicting theories"? I don't know if any recent specialist suggests serious Byzantine influence. The facial type is clearly German, very similar to earlier loin-clothed large crucifixes from the Rhineland of slightly earlier, ultimately dependent on the Gero crucific in Cologne. The robe is closer to Western examples than Byzantine ones, which always show two vertical lines of decoration, marking the robe as a "collobium" or high-ranking dress. Bear in mind the Gero cross itself was dated by art historians to the Romanesque period until 1924, since when (Schiller p141) it has been universally recognised that the local "legends" were actually correct in dating it to 960-5. No doubt other similar crosses have been "back-dated" in the same period - the Volto Santo was always firmly documented as being in place by 1100. I think older sources may have thought a date before 1100 required Byzantine influence. The iconographical innovation of the Volto Santo, apart from showing a near-life sized Christ robed, is the belt, which was copied in the west, but apparently never in the East. Johnbod 18:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look around, but can't find any reliable sources yet. The local legends seem to date the arrival to the C8th, and mostly it came floating in on the sea. Also it was partly carved by Nicodemus, based on the veil Volto Santo, which he had to hand. Friesen's Byzantine remark seems pretty much in passing - her main period of interest is much later. I'm pretty confident the Dictionary is just wrong if it implies the VS was actually made by Byzantines. As the original is no longer in existence, perhaps that is all that can be said. Obviously its a minor point as far as Wilgefortis is concerned. Johnbod 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the Schiller source specifically say it was "probably not Byzantine"? What does he mean exactly, a direct piece from Byzantium or a derived image in the Byzantine tradition? Could the Italian artists who first created the statue used Byzantine iconic images as their inspiration for the statue? It seems like this Byzantine connection keeps coming up in multiple sources. -- Stbalbach 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm now discussing this on the new Wetman Volto Santo di Lucca talk page, if you haven't seen that. It probably better to continue this there. The point is that an actual straightforward Byzantine life-size carved crucifix (from say Constantinople) is about as likely as an Islamic carved figure of Mohammed. The gown may have been inspired either directly by Byzantine icons etc, or indirectly by the many Western ones that either copied these, or continued a Western tradition. But it is just misleading to describe the thing as Byzantine without qualification or explanation (as the Dictionary appears to do from your quote), when it is an object any Greek would probably have found highly shocking. The unquestionably exclusively Western tradition of life-size sculpture is a much more important component of the make-up of the object than the gown. Schiller (Gertrude) certainly discusses the absence of large Byzantine sculpture, as do Runciman, Talbot-Rice etc. There are other aspects which I mention on the other page. Johnbod 19:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Who debunked Wilgefortis? And when?

I came across a phrase in the article saying that St. Wilgefortis "was decisively exploded" in the 16th century (which I changed to "was decisively debunked"), without explaining how she was "exploded" or who did the "exploding". Moreover, she appears to have been decanonized in the 1960s, according to info elsewhere in the same article. Details would be helpful. And so would source material. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cult suppressed?

I understnad that the phrase 'cult surpressed' expresses that the Mass and Office of this dear Saint were removed from the Roman Calender. Of course, once a saint, always a saint, but I understand that the removal of the liturgical celebrations is what implies a suppression. However, now that the former calender is licitly celebrated in Mass of the Extraordinary Rite presumably those areas which kept this saint will now celebrate Extra-ordinary Form Masses of this saint. In which case, her cult has been revived. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewafallen (talk • contribs) 13:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC) coming in many years later but I agree. In the absence of a source, especially, I suppose "cult suppressed" means "removed from General Roman Calendar" but it does not mean "removed from the Roman Martyrology" etc. I will remove this notice. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It also means other things, such as the removal of images, discouraging of prayer etc. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)