Tide In Mind Out
ct_thrash
- Mar 5, 2002
- 24,291
- 289
- 83
I am drunk, so I decided to fuck with some moderators.
- Thread starter Captain Beard
- Start date
KoichCPA
Banned
When the Shroud of Turin went on display this spring for the first time in 20 years, it made the cover of Time magazine with the blurb "Is this Jesus?" In BAR, we summarized the controversy that has enshrouded this relic, venerated for centuries as the burial cloth of Jesus ("Remains to Be Seen," Strata, Julyl August 1998, p 13).
Following Time's lead, we reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the shroud to 1260-1390 A. D., no one has been able to account for the shadowy image of a naked 6-foot-tall man that appears on the shroud. With bloodstains on the back, wrists, feet, side and head the image appears to be that of a crucified man. The details - the direction of the flow of blood from the wounds, the placement of the nails through the wrists rather than the palms - displays a knowledge of crucifixion that seems too accurate to have been that of a medieval artist.
But two of BAR's savvy readers have objected to our assessment. The following articles suggest there is no reason to doubt that the image, as well as the cloth, was produced in the Middle Ages.- Ed (BAR)
Nothing puzzles and intrigues the sindonologist - the student of the Shroud of Turin - more than the supposed mystery of how the image on the shroud was made. "It doesn't look like any known work of art," they say. The implication is that its creation was somehow miraculous, perhaps caused by a sudden burst of cosmic energy as the cloth came into contact with the dead body of Jesus. But in fact, it is simply historical ignorance of what the shroud really is (or at least, what it pur-ports to be) that leads these people to wrongheaded notions. The Shroud of Turin is not, by definition, a work of art but instead belongs to the long and revered tradition of sacred objects that are at once relics and icons.
Such objects first appeared during the sixth century, in the Holy Land; in Greek they are called acheiropoietai (singular, acheiropoietos), which means "not made by human hands." They are called this because they are (apparently) contact impressions of holy bodies. They have become relics through physical contact with the sacred, and they are icons because of the resultant image; but in neither case is there (by definition, at least) any intervention by an artist.
Among the earliest acheiropoietai is the Column of the Flagellation, in Jerusalem. This relic (the column) appears for the first time in fifth-century historical sources, which describe its location in the Church of Holy Sion; but it is only in the sixth century that pilgrims began to see the image of Jesus' hands and chest impressed into its stone surface, left there, presumably, as Jesus was bound in place for the flagellation.
The most characteristic form of acheiropoietos, however, is the holy cloth. According to legend, St. Veronica stepped forward to wipe the sweat from Jesus' brow as he stumbled toward Calvary, and her towel already transformed into a relic through that holy contact miraculously retained the image of Jesus' face. Known as Veronica's Veil, the relic became one of the most famous acheiropoietai of the Middle Ages.* Another such cloth image (also generated by perspiration) was produced on the night of the betrayal, as Jesus prayed intently at Gethsemane. And then there is the Shroud of Turin, seemingly produced by blood, blood plasma and sweat absorbed from Jesus' dead body at the time of entombment (see box, p. 29).
Several reputed examples of each of these holy-iconcloths have surfaced over the centuries. At least three dozen cloths have been identified as Veronica's Veil, the Holy Shroud, and the like. In 12th-century Constantinople alone, there were two iconic burial shrouds and one Gethsemane towel, each of which was eventually destroyed. What sets the Shroud of Turin apart is not what it is, but rather how it, almost alone among its object type, has survived more or less intact to modern times.
But the more important point is this: The Shroud of Turin is not and never was a "work of art" in the conventional sense of that term. And in fact, were it in any way to look like a work of art-something made by human hands-this would imme-diately disqualify it from being what it is supposed to be: an acheiropoietos.
This is the catch-22 that sindonologists fail to appreciate: For the shroud to be the shroud, it more or less has to look the way it looks. Furthermore, the shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type. The single salient quality that these sacred objects share is that very quality that is so striking about the shroud-namely, a faint and elusive image seemingly pro-duced by bodily secretions.
How is it, finally, that we know for certain that the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Without prejudicing the possibility that one or more among history's several dozen acheiropoietai may be genuine, we can be positive that this one cannot, since, according to its carbon 14 dating, it could not possibly have come into contact with the historical Jesus. Yet it would be incorrect to view the Shroud of Turin as just another icon, because it was very clearly, very self-consciously doctored in order to become what millions, until recently, have taken it to be: an image not made by human hands. And these, unlike icons, can only be one of a kind.
The Shroud of Turin was created to deceive. It was manufactured at a time, in western Europe especially, when relics meant pilgrimage and pilgrimage meant money. The competition for both, among rival cities and towns, was intense. And stealing and forgery were both part of the business.
It was also a time when the material remains of Jesus' Passion were very much in vogue, when St. Louis would build Ste. Chapelle solely to enshrine the Crown of Thorns (which had recently been stolen from Constantinopole).
A contemporary model will help us understand this culture in which the blood and gore of Jesus' death carried intense spiritual power. Although Emperor Constantine outlawed crucifixion in 315 AD, the practice as a form of piety-was never com-pletely abandoned. To this day, some members of a lay confraternity of Spanish American Catholics in northern New Mexico, called the Penitentes, are said to practice various forms of extreme body mortification during Holy Week, including self-crucifixion. Thus, the Penitentes understand the physical reality of crucifixion as few before them have. The Penitentes are also known for their artwork; most characteristic are their carved wooden crucifixes, painted blue, which incorporate their firsthand knowledge of crucifixion-specifically, the knowledge that the body eventually turns blue from suffocation.
The carbon 14 dating of the shroud to 1260-1390 A.D. brings us into the world of the Penitentes' patron saint, Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226), to his stigmata (the miraculous wounds on his hands, feet and side) and, especially, to the lay brotherhoods that his piety and his cult of self-mortification engendered. These Christians appreciated and understood Jesus' wounds in a very physical way.
This is the world of the holy shroud; these are the people for whom it would have held special meaning; and these, certainly, are the people for whom it was made. Just as the Penitentes understand the significance of blue-ness, these medieval Christians would have understood that the nails must have gone through Jesus' wrists in order to hold the body to the cross (although in medieval art these wounds are invariably in the palms). And their cult images would match this phys-ical understanding of crucifixion, even to the point of adding human blood, much as the Penitentes add human hair and bone to their cult images. All of which is to say that the indication of nail holes in the wrists and what some claim is the presence of blood on the linen need not add up to a miracle.
Knowing both this and the shroud's car-bon 14 dating of 1260 to 1390 A.D., it is worth returning, finally, to the place and time of the shroud's first appearance in his-torical documents. It is the year 1357, and the shroud is being exhibited publicly to pilgrims. It belongs to a French nobleman, Geofrey de Charnay, and is being displayed in his private chapel in Lirey, a village near Troyes, in northeastern France. The Bishop of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers, is upset because he believes the shroud is a fake; in fact, he has been told this by a man who claims to have painted it. Thirty years pass. It is now 1389, and Henri's successor, Pierre d'Archis, writes a long letter of protest about the shroud to Pope Clement VII. He recalls his predecessor's accusation and then goes on to state his own con-viction "that the Shroud is a product of human handicraft ... a cloth cunningly painted by a man." He pleads with the Pope to end its public display. The Pope's written reply is cautious but clear; the shroud may still be displayed, but only on the con-dition that a priest be in attendance to announce to all present, in a loud and intelligible voice, without any trickery, that the aforesaid form or representation [the shroud] is not the true burial cloth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but only a kind of painting or picture made as a form or representation of the burial cloth.
This was the true verdict-the correct verdict-from the Pope, issued less than four decades after the shroud was painted. And isn't it ironic that it has taken 600 years to get essentially the same answer-but this time from the offices of an international team of scientists?
When the Shroud of Turin went on display this spring for the first time in 20 years, it made the cover of Time magazine with the blurb "Is this Jesus?" In BAR, we summarized the controversy that has enshrouded this relic, venerated for centuries as the burial cloth of Jesus ("Remains to Be Seen," Strata, Julyl August 1998, p 13).
Following Time's lead, we reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the shroud to 1260-1390 A. D., no one has been able to account for the shadowy image of a naked 6-foot-tall man that appears on the shroud. With bloodstains on the back, wrists, feet, side and head the image appears to be that of a crucified man. The details - the direction of the flow of blood from the wounds, the placement of the nails through the wrists rather than the palms - displays a knowledge of crucifixion that seems too accurate to have been that of a medieval artist.
But two of BAR's savvy readers have objected to our assessment. The following articles suggest there is no reason to doubt that the image, as well as the cloth, was produced in the Middle Ages.- Ed (BAR)
Nothing puzzles and intrigues the sindonologist - the student of the Shroud of Turin - more than the supposed mystery of how the image on the shroud was made. "It doesn't look like any known work of art," they say. The implication is that its creation was somehow miraculous, perhaps caused by a sudden burst of cosmic energy as the cloth came into contact with the dead body of Jesus. But in fact, it is simply historical ignorance of what the shroud really is (or at least, what it pur-ports to be) that leads these people to wrongheaded notions. The Shroud of Turin is not, by definition, a work of art but instead belongs to the long and revered tradition of sacred objects that are at once relics and icons.
Such objects first appeared during the sixth century, in the Holy Land; in Greek they are called acheiropoietai (singular, acheiropoietos), which means "not made by human hands." They are called this because they are (apparently) contact impressions of holy bodies. They have become relics through physical contact with the sacred, and they are icons because of the resultant image; but in neither case is there (by definition, at least) any intervention by an artist.
Among the earliest acheiropoietai is the Column of the Flagellation, in Jerusalem. This relic (the column) appears for the first time in fifth-century historical sources, which describe its location in the Church of Holy Sion; but it is only in the sixth century that pilgrims began to see the image of Jesus' hands and chest impressed into its stone surface, left there, presumably, as Jesus was bound in place for the flagellation.
The most characteristic form of acheiropoietos, however, is the holy cloth. According to legend, St. Veronica stepped forward to wipe the sweat from Jesus' brow as he stumbled toward Calvary, and her towel already transformed into a relic through that holy contact miraculously retained the image of Jesus' face. Known as Veronica's Veil, the relic became one of the most famous acheiropoietai of the Middle Ages.* Another such cloth image (also generated by perspiration) was produced on the night of the betrayal, as Jesus prayed intently at Gethsemane. And then there is the Shroud of Turin, seemingly produced by blood, blood plasma and sweat absorbed from Jesus' dead body at the time of entombment (see box, p. 29).
Several reputed examples of each of these holy-iconcloths have surfaced over the centuries. At least three dozen cloths have been identified as Veronica's Veil, the Holy Shroud, and the like. In 12th-century Constantinople alone, there were two iconic burial shrouds and one Gethsemane towel, each of which was eventually destroyed. What sets the Shroud of Turin apart is not what it is, but rather how it, almost alone among its object type, has survived more or less intact to modern times.
But the more important point is this: The Shroud of Turin is not and never was a "work of art" in the conventional sense of that term. And in fact, were it in any way to look like a work of art-something made by human hands-this would imme-diately disqualify it from being what it is supposed to be: an acheiropoietos.
This is the catch-22 that sindonologists fail to appreciate: For the shroud to be the shroud, it more or less has to look the way it looks. Furthermore, the shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type. The single salient quality that these sacred objects share is that very quality that is so striking about the shroud-namely, a faint and elusive image seemingly pro-duced by bodily secretions.
How is it, finally, that we know for certain that the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Without prejudicing the possibility that one or more among history's several dozen acheiropoietai may be genuine, we can be positive that this one cannot, since, according to its carbon 14 dating, it could not possibly have come into contact with the historical Jesus. Yet it would be incorrect to view the Shroud of Turin as just another icon, because it was very clearly, very self-consciously doctored in order to become what millions, until recently, have taken it to be: an image not made by human hands. And these, unlike icons, can only be one of a kind.
The Shroud of Turin was created to deceive. It was manufactured at a time, in western Europe especially, when relics meant pilgrimage and pilgrimage meant money. The competition for both, among rival cities and towns, was intense. And stealing and forgery were both part of the business.
It was also a time when the material remains of Jesus' Passion were very much in vogue, when St. Louis would build Ste. Chapelle solely to enshrine the Crown of Thorns (which had recently been stolen from Constantinopole).
A contemporary model will help us understand this culture in which the blood and gore of Jesus' death carried intense spiritual power. Although Emperor Constantine outlawed crucifixion in 315 AD, the practice as a form of piety-was never com-pletely abandoned. To this day, some members of a lay confraternity of Spanish American Catholics in northern New Mexico, called the Penitentes, are said to practice various forms of extreme body mortification during Holy Week, including self-crucifixion. Thus, the Penitentes understand the physical reality of crucifixion as few before them have. The Penitentes are also known for their artwork; most characteristic are their carved wooden crucifixes, painted blue, which incorporate their firsthand knowledge of crucifixion-specifically, the knowledge that the body eventually turns blue from suffocation.
The carbon 14 dating of the shroud to 1260-1390 A.D. brings us into the world of the Penitentes' patron saint, Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226), to his stigmata (the miraculous wounds on his hands, feet and side) and, especially, to the lay brotherhoods that his piety and his cult of self-mortification engendered. These Christians appreciated and understood Jesus' wounds in a very physical way.
This is the world of the holy shroud; these are the people for whom it would have held special meaning; and these, certainly, are the people for whom it was made. Just as the Penitentes understand the significance of blue-ness, these medieval Christians would have understood that the nails must have gone through Jesus' wrists in order to hold the body to the cross (although in medieval art these wounds are invariably in the palms). And their cult images would match this phys-ical understanding of crucifixion, even to the point of adding human blood, much as the Penitentes add human hair and bone to their cult images. All of which is to say that the indication of nail holes in the wrists and what some claim is the presence of blood on the linen need not add up to a miracle.
Knowing both this and the shroud's car-bon 14 dating of 1260 to 1390 A.D., it is worth returning, finally, to the place and time of the shroud's first appearance in his-torical documents. It is the year 1357, and the shroud is being exhibited publicly to pilgrims. It belongs to a French nobleman, Geofrey de Charnay, and is being displayed in his private chapel in Lirey, a village near Troyes, in northeastern France. The Bishop of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers, is upset because he believes the shroud is a fake; in fact, he has been told this by a man who claims to have painted it. Thirty years pass. It is now 1389, and Henri's successor, Pierre d'Archis, writes a long letter of protest about the shroud to Pope Clement VII. He recalls his predecessor's accusation and then goes on to state his own con-viction "that the Shroud is a product of human handicraft ... a cloth cunningly painted by a man." He pleads with the Pope to end its public display. The Pope's written reply is cautious but clear; the shroud may still be displayed, but only on the con-dition that a priest be in attendance to announce to all present, in a loud and intelligible voice, without any trickery, that the aforesaid form or representation [the shroud] is not the true burial cloth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but only a kind of painting or picture made as a form or representation of the burial cloth.
This was the true verdict-the correct verdict-from the Pope, issued less than four decades after the shroud was painted. And isn't it ironic that it has taken 600 years to get essentially the same answer-but this time from the offices of an international team of scientists?
When the Shroud of Turin went on display this spring for the first time in 20 years, it made the cover of Time magazine with the blurb "Is this Jesus?" In BAR, we summarized the controversy that has enshrouded this relic, venerated for centuries as the burial cloth of Jesus ("Remains to Be Seen," Strata, Julyl August 1998, p 13).
Following Time's lead, we reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the shroud to 1260-1390 A. D., no one has been able to account for the shadowy image of a naked 6-foot-tall man that appears on the shroud. With bloodstains on the back, wrists, feet, side and head the image appears to be that of a crucified man. The details - the direction of the flow of blood from the wounds, the placement of the nails through the wrists rather than the palms - displays a knowledge of crucifixion that seems too accurate to have been that of a medieval artist.
But two of BAR's savvy readers have objected to our assessment. The following articles suggest there is no reason to doubt that the image, as well as the cloth, was produced in the Middle Ages.- Ed (BAR)
Nothing puzzles and intrigues the sindonologist - the student of the Shroud of Turin - more than the supposed mystery of how the image on the shroud was made. "It doesn't look like any known work of art," they say. The implication is that its creation was somehow miraculous, perhaps caused by a sudden burst of cosmic energy as the cloth came into contact with the dead body of Jesus. But in fact, it is simply historical ignorance of what the shroud really is (or at least, what it pur-ports to be) that leads these people to wrongheaded notions. The Shroud of Turin is not, by definition, a work of art but instead belongs to the long and revered tradition of sacred objects that are at once relics and icons.
Such objects first appeared during the sixth century, in the Holy Land; in Greek they are called acheiropoietai (singular, acheiropoietos), which means "not made by human hands." They are called this because they are (apparently) contact impressions of holy bodies. They have become relics through physical contact with the sacred, and they are icons because of the resultant image; but in neither case is there (by definition, at least) any intervention by an artist.
Among the earliest acheiropoietai is the Column of the Flagellation, in Jerusalem. This relic (the column) appears for the first time in fifth-century historical sources, which describe its location in the Church of Holy Sion; but it is only in the sixth century that pilgrims began to see the image of Jesus' hands and chest impressed into its stone surface, left there, presumably, as Jesus was bound in place for the flagellation.
The most characteristic form of acheiropoietos, however, is the holy cloth. According to legend, St. Veronica stepped forward to wipe the sweat from Jesus' brow as he stumbled toward Calvary, and her towel already transformed into a relic through that holy contact miraculously retained the image of Jesus' face. Known as Veronica's Veil, the relic became one of the most famous acheiropoietai of the Middle Ages.* Another such cloth image (also generated by perspiration) was produced on the night of the betrayal, as Jesus prayed intently at Gethsemane. And then there is the Shroud of Turin, seemingly produced by blood, blood plasma and sweat absorbed from Jesus' dead body at the time of entombment (see box, p. 29).
Several reputed examples of each of these holy-iconcloths have surfaced over the centuries. At least three dozen cloths have been identified as Veronica's Veil, the Holy Shroud, and the like. In 12th-century Constantinople alone, there were two iconic burial shrouds and one Gethsemane towel, each of which was eventually destroyed. What sets the Shroud of Turin apart is not what it is, but rather how it, almost alone among its object type, has survived more or less intact to modern times.
But the more important point is this: The Shroud of Turin is not and never was a "work of art" in the conventional sense of that term. And in fact, were it in any way to look like a work of art-something made by human hands-this would imme-diately disqualify it from being what it is supposed to be: an acheiropoietos.
This is the catch-22 that sindonologists fail to appreciate: For the shroud to be the shroud, it more or less has to look the way it looks. Furthermore, the shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type. The single salient quality that these sacred objects share is that very quality that is so striking about the shroud-namely, a faint and elusive image seemingly pro-duced by bodily secretions.
How is it, finally, that we know for certain that the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Without prejudicing the possibility that one or more among history's several dozen acheiropoietai may be genuine, we can be positive that this one cannot, since, according to its carbon 14 dating, it could not possibly have come into contact with the historical Jesus. Yet it would be incorrect to view the Shroud of Turin as just another icon, because it was very clearly, very self-consciously doctored in order to become what millions, until recently, have taken it to be: an image not made by human hands. And these, unlike icons, can only be one of a kind.
The Shroud of Turin was created to deceive. It was manufactured at a time, in western Europe especially, when relics meant pilgrimage and pilgrimage meant money. The competition for both, among rival cities and towns, was intense. And stealing and forgery were both part of the business.
It was also a time when the material remains of Jesus' Passion were very much in vogue, when St. Louis would build Ste. Chapelle solely to enshrine the Crown of Thorns (which had recently been stolen from Constantinopole).
A contemporary model will help us understand this culture in which the blood and gore of Jesus' death carried intense spiritual power. Although Emperor Constantine outlawed crucifixion in 315 AD, the practice as a form of piety-was never com-pletely abandoned. To this day, some members of a lay confraternity of Spanish American Catholics in northern New Mexico, called the Penitentes, are said to practice various forms of extreme body mortification during Holy Week, including self-crucifixion. Thus, the Penitentes understand the physical reality of crucifixion as few before them have. The Penitentes are also known for their artwork; most characteristic are their carved wooden crucifixes, painted blue, which incorporate their firsthand knowledge of crucifixion-specifically, the knowledge that the body eventually turns blue from suffocation.
The carbon 14 dating of the shroud to 1260-1390 A.D. brings us into the world of the Penitentes' patron saint, Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226), to his stigmata (the miraculous wounds on his hands, feet and side) and,
Following Time's lead, we reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the shroud to 1260-1390 A. D., no one has been able to account for the shadowy image of a naked 6-foot-tall man that appears on the shroud. With bloodstains on the back, wrists, feet, side and head the image appears to be that of a crucified man. The details - the direction of the flow of blood from the wounds, the placement of the nails through the wrists rather than the palms - displays a knowledge of crucifixion that seems too accurate to have been that of a medieval artist.
But two of BAR's savvy readers have objected to our assessment. The following articles suggest there is no reason to doubt that the image, as well as the cloth, was produced in the Middle Ages.- Ed (BAR)
Nothing puzzles and intrigues the sindonologist - the student of the Shroud of Turin - more than the supposed mystery of how the image on the shroud was made. "It doesn't look like any known work of art," they say. The implication is that its creation was somehow miraculous, perhaps caused by a sudden burst of cosmic energy as the cloth came into contact with the dead body of Jesus. But in fact, it is simply historical ignorance of what the shroud really is (or at least, what it pur-ports to be) that leads these people to wrongheaded notions. The Shroud of Turin is not, by definition, a work of art but instead belongs to the long and revered tradition of sacred objects that are at once relics and icons.
Such objects first appeared during the sixth century, in the Holy Land; in Greek they are called acheiropoietai (singular, acheiropoietos), which means "not made by human hands." They are called this because they are (apparently) contact impressions of holy bodies. They have become relics through physical contact with the sacred, and they are icons because of the resultant image; but in neither case is there (by definition, at least) any intervention by an artist.
Among the earliest acheiropoietai is the Column of the Flagellation, in Jerusalem. This relic (the column) appears for the first time in fifth-century historical sources, which describe its location in the Church of Holy Sion; but it is only in the sixth century that pilgrims began to see the image of Jesus' hands and chest impressed into its stone surface, left there, presumably, as Jesus was bound in place for the flagellation.
The most characteristic form of acheiropoietos, however, is the holy cloth. According to legend, St. Veronica stepped forward to wipe the sweat from Jesus' brow as he stumbled toward Calvary, and her towel already transformed into a relic through that holy contact miraculously retained the image of Jesus' face. Known as Veronica's Veil, the relic became one of the most famous acheiropoietai of the Middle Ages.* Another such cloth image (also generated by perspiration) was produced on the night of the betrayal, as Jesus prayed intently at Gethsemane. And then there is the Shroud of Turin, seemingly produced by blood, blood plasma and sweat absorbed from Jesus' dead body at the time of entombment (see box, p. 29).
Several reputed examples of each of these holy-iconcloths have surfaced over the centuries. At least three dozen cloths have been identified as Veronica's Veil, the Holy Shroud, and the like. In 12th-century Constantinople alone, there were two iconic burial shrouds and one Gethsemane towel, each of which was eventually destroyed. What sets the Shroud of Turin apart is not what it is, but rather how it, almost alone among its object type, has survived more or less intact to modern times.
But the more important point is this: The Shroud of Turin is not and never was a "work of art" in the conventional sense of that term. And in fact, were it in any way to look like a work of art-something made by human hands-this would imme-diately disqualify it from being what it is supposed to be: an acheiropoietos.
This is the catch-22 that sindonologists fail to appreciate: For the shroud to be the shroud, it more or less has to look the way it looks. Furthermore, the shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type. The single salient quality that these sacred objects share is that very quality that is so striking about the shroud-namely, a faint and elusive image seemingly pro-duced by bodily secretions.
How is it, finally, that we know for certain that the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Without prejudicing the possibility that one or more among history's several dozen acheiropoietai may be genuine, we can be positive that this one cannot, since, according to its carbon 14 dating, it could not possibly have come into contact with the historical Jesus. Yet it would be incorrect to view the Shroud of Turin as just another icon, because it was very clearly, very self-consciously doctored in order to become what millions, until recently, have taken it to be: an image not made by human hands. And these, unlike icons, can only be one of a kind.
The Shroud of Turin was created to deceive. It was manufactured at a time, in western Europe especially, when relics meant pilgrimage and pilgrimage meant money. The competition for both, among rival cities and towns, was intense. And stealing and forgery were both part of the business.
It was also a time when the material remains of Jesus' Passion were very much in vogue, when St. Louis would build Ste. Chapelle solely to enshrine the Crown of Thorns (which had recently been stolen from Constantinopole).
A contemporary model will help us understand this culture in which the blood and gore of Jesus' death carried intense spiritual power. Although Emperor Constantine outlawed crucifixion in 315 AD, the practice as a form of piety-was never com-pletely abandoned. To this day, some members of a lay confraternity of Spanish American Catholics in northern New Mexico, called the Penitentes, are said to practice various forms of extreme body mortification during Holy Week, including self-crucifixion. Thus, the Penitentes understand the physical reality of crucifixion as few before them have. The Penitentes are also known for their artwork; most characteristic are their carved wooden crucifixes, painted blue, which incorporate their firsthand knowledge of crucifixion-specifically, the knowledge that the body eventually turns blue from suffocation.
The carbon 14 dating of the shroud to 1260-1390 A.D. brings us into the world of the Penitentes' patron saint, Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226), to his stigmata (the miraculous wounds on his hands, feet and side) and, especially, to the lay brotherhoods that his piety and his cult of self-mortification engendered. These Christians appreciated and understood Jesus' wounds in a very physical way.
This is the world of the holy shroud; these are the people for whom it would have held special meaning; and these, certainly, are the people for whom it was made. Just as the Penitentes understand the significance of blue-ness, these medieval Christians would have understood that the nails must have gone through Jesus' wrists in order to hold the body to the cross (although in medieval art these wounds are invariably in the palms). And their cult images would match this phys-ical understanding of crucifixion, even to the point of adding human blood, much as the Penitentes add human hair and bone to their cult images. All of which is to say that the indication of nail holes in the wrists and what some claim is the presence of blood on the linen need not add up to a miracle.
Knowing both this and the shroud's car-bon 14 dating of 1260 to 1390 A.D., it is worth returning, finally, to the place and time of the shroud's first appearance in his-torical documents. It is the year 1357, and the shroud is being exhibited publicly to pilgrims. It belongs to a French nobleman, Geofrey de Charnay, and is being displayed in his private chapel in Lirey, a village near Troyes, in northeastern France. The Bishop of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers, is upset because he believes the shroud is a fake; in fact, he has been told this by a man who claims to have painted it. Thirty years pass. It is now 1389, and Henri's successor, Pierre d'Archis, writes a long letter of protest about the shroud to Pope Clement VII. He recalls his predecessor's accusation and then goes on to state his own con-viction "that the Shroud is a product of human handicraft ... a cloth cunningly painted by a man." He pleads with the Pope to end its public display. The Pope's written reply is cautious but clear; the shroud may still be displayed, but only on the con-dition that a priest be in attendance to announce to all present, in a loud and intelligible voice, without any trickery, that the aforesaid form or representation [the shroud] is not the true burial cloth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but only a kind of painting or picture made as a form or representation of the burial cloth.
This was the true verdict-the correct verdict-from the Pope, issued less than four decades after the shroud was painted. And isn't it ironic that it has taken 600 years to get essentially the same answer-but this time from the offices of an international team of scientists?
When the Shroud of Turin went on display this spring for the first time in 20 years, it made the cover of Time magazine with the blurb "Is this Jesus?" In BAR, we summarized the controversy that has enshrouded this relic, venerated for centuries as the burial cloth of Jesus ("Remains to Be Seen," Strata, Julyl August 1998, p 13).
Following Time's lead, we reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the shroud to 1260-1390 A. D., no one has been able to account for the shadowy image of a naked 6-foot-tall man that appears on the shroud. With bloodstains on the back, wrists, feet, side and head the image appears to be that of a crucified man. The details - the direction of the flow of blood from the wounds, the placement of the nails through the wrists rather than the palms - displays a knowledge of crucifixion that seems too accurate to have been that of a medieval artist.
But two of BAR's savvy readers have objected to our assessment. The following articles suggest there is no reason to doubt that the image, as well as the cloth, was produced in the Middle Ages.- Ed (BAR)
Nothing puzzles and intrigues the sindonologist - the student of the Shroud of Turin - more than the supposed mystery of how the image on the shroud was made. "It doesn't look like any known work of art," they say. The implication is that its creation was somehow miraculous, perhaps caused by a sudden burst of cosmic energy as the cloth came into contact with the dead body of Jesus. But in fact, it is simply historical ignorance of what the shroud really is (or at least, what it pur-ports to be) that leads these people to wrongheaded notions. The Shroud of Turin is not, by definition, a work of art but instead belongs to the long and revered tradition of sacred objects that are at once relics and icons.
Such objects first appeared during the sixth century, in the Holy Land; in Greek they are called acheiropoietai (singular, acheiropoietos), which means "not made by human hands." They are called this because they are (apparently) contact impressions of holy bodies. They have become relics through physical contact with the sacred, and they are icons because of the resultant image; but in neither case is there (by definition, at least) any intervention by an artist.
Among the earliest acheiropoietai is the Column of the Flagellation, in Jerusalem. This relic (the column) appears for the first time in fifth-century historical sources, which describe its location in the Church of Holy Sion; but it is only in the sixth century that pilgrims began to see the image of Jesus' hands and chest impressed into its stone surface, left there, presumably, as Jesus was bound in place for the flagellation.
The most characteristic form of acheiropoietos, however, is the holy cloth. According to legend, St. Veronica stepped forward to wipe the sweat from Jesus' brow as he stumbled toward Calvary, and her towel already transformed into a relic through that holy contact miraculously retained the image of Jesus' face. Known as Veronica's Veil, the relic became one of the most famous acheiropoietai of the Middle Ages.* Another such cloth image (also generated by perspiration) was produced on the night of the betrayal, as Jesus prayed intently at Gethsemane. And then there is the Shroud of Turin, seemingly produced by blood, blood plasma and sweat absorbed from Jesus' dead body at the time of entombment (see box, p. 29).
Several reputed examples of each of these holy-iconcloths have surfaced over the centuries. At least three dozen cloths have been identified as Veronica's Veil, the Holy Shroud, and the like. In 12th-century Constantinople alone, there were two iconic burial shrouds and one Gethsemane towel, each of which was eventually destroyed. What sets the Shroud of Turin apart is not what it is, but rather how it, almost alone among its object type, has survived more or less intact to modern times.
But the more important point is this: The Shroud of Turin is not and never was a "work of art" in the conventional sense of that term. And in fact, were it in any way to look like a work of art-something made by human hands-this would imme-diately disqualify it from being what it is supposed to be: an acheiropoietos.
This is the catch-22 that sindonologists fail to appreciate: For the shroud to be the shroud, it more or less has to look the way it looks. Furthermore, the shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type. The single salient quality that these sacred objects share is that very quality that is so striking about the shroud-namely, a faint and elusive image seemingly pro-duced by bodily secretions.
How is it, finally, that we know for certain that the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Without prejudicing the possibility that one or more among history's several dozen acheiropoietai may be genuine, we can be positive that this one cannot, since, according to its carbon 14 dating, it could not possibly have come into contact with the historical Jesus. Yet it would be incorrect to view the Shroud of Turin as just another icon, because it was very clearly, very self-consciously doctored in order to become what millions, until recently, have taken it to be: an image not made by human hands. And these, unlike icons, can only be one of a kind.
The Shroud of Turin was created to deceive. It was manufactured at a time, in western Europe especially, when relics meant pilgrimage and pilgrimage meant money. The competition for both, among rival cities and towns, was intense. And stealing and forgery were both part of the business.
It was also a time when the material remains of Jesus' Passion were very much in vogue, when St. Louis would build Ste. Chapelle solely to enshrine the Crown of Thorns (which had recently been stolen from Constantinopole).
A contemporary model will help us understand this culture in which the blood and gore of Jesus' death carried intense spiritual power. Although Emperor Constantine outlawed crucifixion in 315 AD, the practice as a form of piety-was never com-pletely abandoned. To this day, some members of a lay confraternity of Spanish American Catholics in northern New Mexico, called the Penitentes, are said to practice various forms of extreme body mortification during Holy Week, including self-crucifixion. Thus, the Penitentes understand the physical reality of crucifixion as few before them have. The Penitentes are also known for their artwork; most characteristic are their carved wooden crucifixes, painted blue, which incorporate their firsthand knowledge of crucifixion-specifically, the knowledge that the body eventually turns blue from suffocation.
The carbon 14 dating of the shroud to 1260-1390 A.D. brings us into the world of the Penitentes' patron saint, Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226), to his stigmata (the miraculous wounds on his hands, feet and side) and, especially, to the lay brotherhoods that his piety and his cult of self-mortification engendered. These Christians appreciated and understood Jesus' wounds in a very physical way.
This is the world of the holy shroud; these are the people for whom it would have held special meaning; and these, certainly, are the people for whom it was made. Just as the Penitentes understand the significance of blue-ness, these medieval Christians would have understood that the nails must have gone through Jesus' wrists in order to hold the body to the cross (although in medieval art these wounds are invariably in the palms). And their cult images would match this phys-ical understanding of crucifixion, even to the point of adding human blood, much as the Penitentes add human hair and bone to their cult images. All of which is to say that the indication of nail holes in the wrists and what some claim is the presence of blood on the linen need not add up to a miracle.
Knowing both this and the shroud's car-bon 14 dating of 1260 to 1390 A.D., it is worth returning, finally, to the place and time of the shroud's first appearance in his-torical documents. It is the year 1357, and the shroud is being exhibited publicly to pilgrims. It belongs to a French nobleman, Geofrey de Charnay, and is being displayed in his private chapel in Lirey, a village near Troyes, in northeastern France. The Bishop of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers, is upset because he believes the shroud is a fake; in fact, he has been told this by a man who claims to have painted it. Thirty years pass. It is now 1389, and Henri's successor, Pierre d'Archis, writes a long letter of protest about the shroud to Pope Clement VII. He recalls his predecessor's accusation and then goes on to state his own con-viction "that the Shroud is a product of human handicraft ... a cloth cunningly painted by a man." He pleads with the Pope to end its public display. The Pope's written reply is cautious but clear; the shroud may still be displayed, but only on the con-dition that a priest be in attendance to announce to all present, in a loud and intelligible voice, without any trickery, that the aforesaid form or representation [the shroud] is not the true burial cloth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but only a kind of painting or picture made as a form or representation of the burial cloth.
This was the true verdict-the correct verdict-from the Pope, issued less than four decades after the shroud was painted. And isn't it ironic that it has taken 600 years to get essentially the same answer-but this time from the offices of an international team of scientists?
When the Shroud of Turin went on display this spring for the first time in 20 years, it made the cover of Time magazine with the blurb "Is this Jesus?" In BAR, we summarized the controversy that has enshrouded this relic, venerated for centuries as the burial cloth of Jesus ("Remains to Be Seen," Strata, Julyl August 1998, p 13).
Following Time's lead, we reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the shroud to 1260-1390 A. D., no one has been able to account for the shadowy image of a naked 6-foot-tall man that appears on the shroud. With bloodstains on the back, wrists, feet, side and head the image appears to be that of a crucified man. The details - the direction of the flow of blood from the wounds, the placement of the nails through the wrists rather than the palms - displays a knowledge of crucifixion that seems too accurate to have been that of a medieval artist.
But two of BAR's savvy readers have objected to our assessment. The following articles suggest there is no reason to doubt that the image, as well as the cloth, was produced in the Middle Ages.- Ed (BAR)
Nothing puzzles and intrigues the sindonologist - the student of the Shroud of Turin - more than the supposed mystery of how the image on the shroud was made. "It doesn't look like any known work of art," they say. The implication is that its creation was somehow miraculous, perhaps caused by a sudden burst of cosmic energy as the cloth came into contact with the dead body of Jesus. But in fact, it is simply historical ignorance of what the shroud really is (or at least, what it pur-ports to be) that leads these people to wrongheaded notions. The Shroud of Turin is not, by definition, a work of art but instead belongs to the long and revered tradition of sacred objects that are at once relics and icons.
Such objects first appeared during the sixth century, in the Holy Land; in Greek they are called acheiropoietai (singular, acheiropoietos), which means "not made by human hands." They are called this because they are (apparently) contact impressions of holy bodies. They have become relics through physical contact with the sacred, and they are icons because of the resultant image; but in neither case is there (by definition, at least) any intervention by an artist.
Among the earliest acheiropoietai is the Column of the Flagellation, in Jerusalem. This relic (the column) appears for the first time in fifth-century historical sources, which describe its location in the Church of Holy Sion; but it is only in the sixth century that pilgrims began to see the image of Jesus' hands and chest impressed into its stone surface, left there, presumably, as Jesus was bound in place for the flagellation.
The most characteristic form of acheiropoietos, however, is the holy cloth. According to legend, St. Veronica stepped forward to wipe the sweat from Jesus' brow as he stumbled toward Calvary, and her towel already transformed into a relic through that holy contact miraculously retained the image of Jesus' face. Known as Veronica's Veil, the relic became one of the most famous acheiropoietai of the Middle Ages.* Another such cloth image (also generated by perspiration) was produced on the night of the betrayal, as Jesus prayed intently at Gethsemane. And then there is the Shroud of Turin, seemingly produced by blood, blood plasma and sweat absorbed from Jesus' dead body at the time of entombment (see box, p. 29).
Several reputed examples of each of these holy-iconcloths have surfaced over the centuries. At least three dozen cloths have been identified as Veronica's Veil, the Holy Shroud, and the like. In 12th-century Constantinople alone, there were two iconic burial shrouds and one Gethsemane towel, each of which was eventually destroyed. What sets the Shroud of Turin apart is not what it is, but rather how it, almost alone among its object type, has survived more or less intact to modern times.
But the more important point is this: The Shroud of Turin is not and never was a "work of art" in the conventional sense of that term. And in fact, were it in any way to look like a work of art-something made by human hands-this would imme-diately disqualify it from being what it is supposed to be: an acheiropoietos.
This is the catch-22 that sindonologists fail to appreciate: For the shroud to be the shroud, it more or less has to look the way it looks. Furthermore, the shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type. The single salient quality that these sacred objects share is that very quality that is so striking about the shroud-namely, a faint and elusive image seemingly pro-duced by bodily secretions.
How is it, finally, that we know for certain that the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Without prejudicing the possibility that one or more among history's several dozen acheiropoietai may be genuine, we can be positive that this one cannot, since, according to its carbon 14 dating, it could not possibly have come into contact with the historical Jesus. Yet it would be incorrect to view the Shroud of Turin as just another icon, because it was very clearly, very self-consciously doctored in order to become what millions, until recently, have taken it to be: an image not made by human hands. And these, unlike icons, can only be one of a kind.
The Shroud of Turin was created to deceive. It was manufactured at a time, in western Europe especially, when relics meant pilgrimage and pilgrimage meant money. The competition for both, among rival cities and towns, was intense. And stealing and forgery were both part of the business.
It was also a time when the material remains of Jesus' Passion were very much in vogue, when St. Louis would build Ste. Chapelle solely to enshrine the Crown of Thorns (which had recently been stolen from Constantinopole).
A contemporary model will help us understand this culture in which the blood and gore of Jesus' death carried intense spiritual power. Although Emperor Constantine outlawed crucifixion in 315 AD, the practice as a form of piety-was never com-pletely abandoned. To this day, some members of a lay confraternity of Spanish American Catholics in northern New Mexico, called the Penitentes, are said to practice various forms of extreme body mortification during Holy Week, including self-crucifixion. Thus, the Penitentes understand the physical reality of crucifixion as few before them have. The Penitentes are also known for their artwork; most characteristic are their carved wooden crucifixes, painted blue, which incorporate their firsthand knowledge of crucifixion-specifically, the knowledge that the body eventually turns blue from suffocation.
The carbon 14 dating of the shroud to 1260-1390 A.D. brings us into the world of the Penitentes' patron saint, Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226), to his stigmata (the miraculous wounds on his hands, feet and side) and,
Tide In Mind Out
ct_thrash
- Mar 5, 2002
- 24,291
- 289
- 83
COMMENT | I honestly thought
posted by: Satans Ice Cream Truck
3/10/2003 2:19:25 PM
it would be alot heavier, it's a rock record. Not a metal record, as many would expect. When I have the time, and for the right price I'll pick it up. For me, it does not scream "buy me!!!!". We'll see in time if this is a classic or just major hype.
COMMENT | COOL! I DON'T CARE IF THE ALBUM AIN'T THE BEST
posted by: STAMBY
3/10/2003 2:21:21 PM
IT IS STILL COOL TO SEE A GOOD OLD BAND BACK!BETTER THAN A MILLION OTHERS NO MATTER WHAT NEW SHIT IS LIKE!AM I WRONG?
COMMENT | This album kicks ass!
posted by: LivingEvil
3/10/2003 2:37:27 PM
I just bought this ablum and it's awesome.Definately the best album of the year!
COMMENT | garbage
posted by: jazzsnob
3/10/2003 3:23:28 PM
yeah, this album sucks. it is definitely rock, not metal. when the first song kicks in all i could think was "cockrock". i'm not saying the album is cockrock, but the first songs starts off and you're not sure what time period you're in for a second. just because something is fast and uses distortion doesn't make it metal. i wouldn't buy this if you paid me. i listened to it twice and couldn't even get through it the second time. my ears couldn't take it anymore. if you can, download first because you may get what you don't expect if you purchase it coldly.
COMMENT | Voivod fans rejoice...
posted by: The Coroner
3/10/2003 3:47:24 PM
If you're a fan of Nothingface or Angel Rat, you will LOVE this album as I do. In NO way did they 'sell out' or become a 'rock' band. It retains the classic (if not thrashing of the 'War and Pain' days) Voivod sound.
At first listen I didn't really care for it, but as I continued to give it the benefit of the doubt (something many listeners are too short-sighted to do these days) I'm happy that I did.
The album is fucking AWESOME. I'd have to say 'Rebel Robot' is my favorite track.
A job well done, and it completely BLOWS AWAY anything Shitallica has done since 1988.
...there's a little matrix in all of us...
COMMENT | Have to disagree with you there!
posted by: noleafclover
3/10/2003 4:59:43 PM
I'm not much of a Metallica fan, but if you are comparing load and reload to this new voivod then this album MUST suck! Saying its better than those albums is not saying much.
Oh yeah and by the way, the Black album blows this album away! Let's be honest people.
COMMENT | The unknown knows voivodfan.com
posted by: warcorpse
3/10/2003 5:07:01 PM
Piggy is the best guitarist in the world! Go buy the new Voivod CD. Also if you don't own Killing Technology or Dimension Hatross you are missing two of the most important CDs in metal.
--------------------------
voivodfan.com has rare Voivod mp3s and also cool video downloads like "Ravenous Medicine", "Voivod", "Ripping Headaches".
COMMENT | Voivod is amazing
posted by: Diggedy Dave
3/10/2003 6:08:26 PM
The review is pretty much right on target, except that it fails to point out that no two Voivod records are exactly alike. I liken this one to a combination of Phobos, Nothingface, and Outer Limits.
My opinion as a Voivod fan is biased...I think the record is beyond killer. Many of the hooks are permanently wired into my head already! Newsted's bass sounds raunchy as hell, Piggy's tone is better then ever, Snake's voice is fucking creepy, and Away remains one of the most original drummers. Holy artwork, too!
If you're in, I'm in!
This IS real again!!!
COMMENT | My 2 cents
posted by: KB
3/10/2003 6:32:47 PM
All this talk about the record being a rock album is garbage. This is METAL. At times it definately has a rock vibe to it, but there's nothing wrong with metal incorporating rock into it. Shit, that's where metal got its roots. The Voivod album is one of the most solid efforts this band has put out since Nothingface and blows away any Metallica after Justice. Voivod is the real deal.
COMMENT | Vive VOIVOD
posted by: puffdallaire
3/10/2003 7:00:21 PM
The best metal album so far this year! It's kickin' Metallica's ass big fn' time!!!
COMMENT | Incredible Album
posted by: ssuyk
3/10/2003 7:13:07 PM
This is by far the best album I've heard in years - NO KIDDING! This album kills from start to finish but the second half of the album is better than the first. I didn't think that they had a chance of putting out something this good but they proved me wrong.
If I had to describe the album to someone who's yet to hear it but knows Voivod I'd say it's a mix. Start with some Nothingface, throw in a little Outer Limits, toss in a little Angel Rat, and sprinkle a bit of Phobos on top. These guys are unbelievable. They have managed to put out yet another truly original album. This is certainly better than Phobos, Negatron, and The Outer Limits but it would be a stretch to say it's better than Nothingface or Dimension Hatross. The fact that it's over 60 minutes of music without any filler speaks volumes!
Great job Voivod!
COMMENT | one more thing...
posted by: ssuyk
3/10/2003 7:14:34 PM
This is a metal album. The reviewer is foolish to say that it picks up where The Outer Limits left off. That's just flat out wrong. Obviously, he/she forgot to listen to the whole album.
COMMENT | album of the year so far ...
posted by: relu
3/10/2003 9:08:53 PM
The above review is filled with contradictions. I do know that Don Kaye has been doing reviews at least for the last 15 years and I trust his judgement, but looking at that review it is a misrepresentation on what is on the record.
The record has instant hooks and an amazing production. Voivod has always been an aquired taste. You either like them or hate them. But I think this is the only record in their reportoire that can make a convert out of a skeptic.
Not a filler track in sight ...
COMMENT | snake is back
posted by: destruction
3/10/2003 10:00:19 PM
I have been a fan since the start.that is long fucking time ago.i have a play list from war and pain (mini tour) if you can even call it that 80 people or so.i love voi vod very much.they (do there own thing).for a fucking long ass time now.don't think the $$$ has ever been the subject.now with jason mabye they will finally get some.glad to hear snake.fuck that review.snake can sing at my funeral..vvvvoooooiiii vvvvoooooddddd!!!!!!
COMMENT | totally accurate review.
posted by: truthrains
3/10/2003 11:03:41 PM
that review said it all. to sum up, snake sucks REALLY bad, piggy is awesome, gaysonic is in the background and away is adequate. the songs sound like bad janes addiction with better guitar , parallel vocals heavier drumming and insignificant bass playing.
COMMENT | not bad.....
posted by: Slipknotfails
3/11/2003 12:01:34 AM
.....from what i've heard so far. The few songs i have listened to from this album are pretty good, much better than newsted's former band.
Also, why do certain people continually put down on jason newsted by calling him stupid nicknames like "gaysonic." Face facts people, the man obliterates Cliff Burton.
Back the the record...i've heard the first five tracks on here. Very good stuff, though i think they could have done much better.
COMMENT | Voivod fan with some pros and cons
posted by: grandpa frog
3/11/2003 12:06:32 AM
Been a fan for a long time, and I was looking forward to this album for as long as everybody hyped it. And my initial reaction was...It's good enough. In my opinion...Voivod are a steady balance between the three founding members (and nobody can replace Blacky...which is evident on this recording) the thing that puts Voivod over the top are Snake's vocals...and I mean that for better or worse. Reading some of these words, that were created by Snake, absolutely made me want to puke. All I could think is this guy completely "phoned it in." Is this the same person that created original quirky songs like "Macrosolutions to Megaproblems" to singing a song about playing in front of a crowd...ala Motley Crue's Kickstart my Heart? Or singing about "Flying Cigars...the COOLEST name for UFOS" most of the words feel forced and ingenuine, and whoever mixed the album left Snake too dry and unaffected. It feels almost sterile!
With all that said let me state the positive, There are many more points of light shining through, as most Voivod albums have on their third and fourth pass. I am finding many more redeeming qualities for this disc. The best cut currently to me is Divine Sun, Rebel Robot, and The Multiverse are also pretty good. This is honesty from a Voivod fan. I think many of these cuts will sound great live and I'm looking forward to seeing them sometime in the upcoming months.
COMMENT | VOIVOD IS BACK!
posted by: the Dude
3/11/2003 1:18:34 AM
True Voivod fans that know Angel Rat and Outer Limits as the best albums of their career will appreciate this one. I thought this day would never come after the awful experience of hearing Negatron, but thank God it did! Voivod rules!
COMMENT | really impressed
posted by: asere
3/11/2003 9:44:10 AM
wow!
This album is so good and original! As always VOIVOD has been... It sounds like NOTHING out there. (no pun intended)
I really love the atmosphere of the whole thing, pretty intense and eerie at the same time...
I'm pretty sure these guys will have finally (i really don't care if just because of Newsted) the recognition they long deserve.
And by the way you can try to call this whatever but don't let nobody fool you THIS IS METAL! in all the meanings and ways the genre can take cause this album is just as diverse...
Pure Joy...
COMMENT | vulvod...
posted by: loboquiddity
3/11/2003 10:07:12 AM
This cd is not that bad...but the singer has a limited singer...he sounds like a toned down Jello Biafra at times. It sounds like it was recorded in a garage. I bought the album and it's not that bad...just those 2 first oversights...beyond that it's good for a listen to while tipping back the bottle or packing the pipe.
COMMENT | Is.......
posted by: bjsrcool
3/11/2003 11:05:05 AM
Is Don Kaye still banging The Great Kat?
COMMENT | This Guys Review Is Shite
posted by: Kreator7
3/11/2003 12:07:22 PM
every dildo feels they have to go back to mention Voivods entire discography. Killing Tech is so ancient it has nothing to do with Voivods style on the last three Snake albums!
Who gives a shit about Eric? Snake is the man now, so why mention him?
This album is electrifying and catchy and will be way better than anything new Metallica does. Fucking Tool wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Voivod!
How can the Thrash authority and hip Metal News page publish such a crap review?
Fucking Retard!
COMMENT | ...
posted by: LikeSuicide
3/11/2003 1:22:54 PM
I really liked Nothingface, so I figured I'd give this album a shot and I'm glad that I did. This just goes to show that you can be heavy and still contain good melodies in your songs and not suck. Take notes, nu-metalers!
COMMENT | blah
posted by: Spiv2
3/11/2003 3:00:46 PM
i hate this fucking album.....listened to it once and deleted it...thank god for the internet...i would have hated to waste perfectly good money on this piece of shit album
p.s. the vocals sound like weird al trying to be serious
COMMENT | Only 7/10 rating?
posted by: Jarlaxle
3/11/2003 3:14:13 PM
Not a bad review at all. But, why rate it only 7? What's the criteria? I've seen lots of high ratings for mediocre albums on this site. IMO it's better to write just your review, not rate the albums at all. It is sometimes misleading.
Anyway, this album may not be a masterpeace but a great album for sure. This is the album that i was waiting for after the release of Outer Limits. Welcome back Snake!
Best album of the year so far, followed by The Haunted and Ministry's new albums.
BTW i'm surprised by the number of comments posted here. I didn't know there were so many Voivod fans. It must be the addition of Jason.
Thanks Jason for supporting Voivod. Finally, these guys are seeing some recognition thanks to you.
COMMENT | 7/10 was generous!!!!!
posted by: truthrains
3/11/2003 10:48:29 PM
that guy who said jason blows away cliff...ahh...that was a joke right???
lets see...kill em all, ride, and master vs. justice, black, load, reload... whatever you stupid fuckstick. the jason era sucked except for the cover songs and the jason era sucks with voivod. yeah its original...but it sucks thanks to snake primarily. i think phobos shits all over this new stuff to be honest. i agree, thank god for the internet so i don't have to waste my money on such tripe.
COMMENT | VOIVOD
posted by: ryanpday
3/12/2003 5:56:34 PM
Ya know....nobody would give 2 shits about Voivod if it weren't for Jason "Jasonic" Newsted. And....is "Jasonic" in Voivod or Ozzy Osbourne?!? I heard a few tunes from this record......not impressed. I think Lars Ulrich was right. Jason Newsted is "lost".
COMMENT | not surprissed!
posted by: RoMaN
3/12/2003 6:02:54 PM
well thats not something that suprissing, i didnt think this was gonna be the one that everybody was gonna talk about, the only question is will metallica dissapoint again???
probally!!!
COMMENT | there must be some mistake...
posted by: Lazer
3/12/2003 7:12:10 PM
Did someone say that Jasonic "obliterates Cliff burton."
I dont think even Jason would ever say that. Cliff Burton was an awesome bass player who had a lot to do with what a lot of people call "the good metallica."
In my opinion Jason is a good guy who is doing what he wants. In my opinion metallica rock and are doing what they like.
Oh, and by the way- me along with the millions of others have never even heard of Viovod- hence they only sold 3k copies in first week....
COMMENT | One week and a day later...
posted by: ssuyk
3/12/2003 10:51:05 PM
and the album just gets better and better. It's so great, as a fan, to have Snake back in the band. No offense to Eric Forest but their sound is so much better with Snake. I'm really looking forward to the tour.
It's amazing how creative they can still be. 2003 and they're still innovators!
Voivod - album of the year!
COMMENT | ....
posted by: Slipknotfails
3/12/2003 11:46:33 PM
....yes, i did say jason is better than cliff. Cliff was little more than your typical thrash metal bassist (his so called "lead bass" style can be heard in countless thrash bands from Anthrax to Death). I think if jason had been given the opporitunity to actually write music in metallica, a lot of you would be singing a different tune.
COMMENT | jason vs cliff?
posted by: Denim Justice
3/13/2003 10:35:08 AM
firts of all jason is good, but to say cliff was "heard in countless thrash bands" i think is a little off the mark. Cliff was/is great,and was way ahead of the other "thrash" bass players of the time. This is my opinion, and i have not heard ALL the bass players out there, but i have not heard that style done better than cliff, and i cannot think of a anthrax song with a distorted bass sound like that. Cliff rocked man, he's one of the purest bass players with his own sound i can think of in heavy metal. Not considering geddy,stu hamm,billy sheehan, etc. there are ALOT of excellant bass players but he had a certain magic!
RIP CLIFF!!
COMMENT | Cliff
posted by: Lazer
3/13/2003 12:28:25 PM
Just because bands that follow a style does not lesson what was originally accomplished. Cliff Burton rocked, everyone knows that. Having known him I can tell you that he is still greatly missed.
And since Jason is such a kick ass song writer and bass player- why is it that all he is known for is riding other peoples waves?
i think he rocks, the bass in the Black Album is very powerful and strong- but I don't think he will ever be known for his amazing writing skills.
COMMENT | Jason Rocks
posted by: IR8Tribe
3/13/2003 12:28:30 PM
First off, Cliff Burton would have never sold out as did Metallica.. 2nd Jason should have never left Flotsam & Jetsam.They were way better than Metallica, But i cant blame him, Jason was always my favorite part of every Metallica show i have seen.. And at age 34 i have seen them a few more times than i could count.
I am just glad Jason has finally left them, He has way more talent to offer without them punk ass sell-outs..
I myself was never a big Voivod fan, But i like what i hear on this new one, and hope to see them come to Detroit for a show. Would rather see them than the LimpParkallicA tour @$75 plus 30% Ticket Master B.S service charge.. Come on people Boycott them high price shows,, or else they will continue overcharging you..
COMMENT | IR8vsSexoturica
posted by: IR8Tribe
3/13/2003 12:42:59 PM
Yes Jason does have some writing skills as he showed in his early years with Flotsam & Jetsam, Then about 9 years ago when i got my first Demo of IR8. I knew that Jason had some singing and playing skills. Now i feel that Jason really wants to show his talents, and that is why he had to leave Metallica, Hence the new release of IR8vs.Sexoturica,, I also feel fortunate that i was able to see him play with Echobrain last year, Jason did some shit with a bass i aint never seen, it was an awesome show.
COMMENT | 8.5/10
posted by: COSTRA
3/13/2003 3:04:19 PM
THE BEST ALBUM OF VOIVOD
COMMENT | Its still definitely metal
posted by: Firewind
3/13/2003 6:35:34 PM
I think this album is great. I like the songwriting better than Outer Limits and Angel Rat, it does sound somewhere in between which is strange after the very experimental Phobos.
COMMENT | People may not understand Voivod
posted by: Firewind
3/13/2003 6:38:48 PM
But that's what makes them so unique. I guess people don't like Progression unless its by the book. I'm surprised they've never played Prog Power because they're more prog than a bunch of helloween/queensryche/Dream theater clones
COMMENT | O.K.-THIRD LISTEN AND I LOVE IT!
posted by: STAMBY
3/13/2003 6:56:06 PM
TOOK A WHILE BUT IT GREW ON ME
COMMENT | FUCK THE NAYSAYERS
posted by: Firewind
3/13/2003 9:19:10 PM
VOIVOD RULES!
COMMENT | ahhh.....
posted by: Slipknotfails
3/14/2003 12:05:27 AM
....okay, i will agree that burton's bass guitar did have a unique sound (perhaps it was just the tone of that Rickenbacker he played, or the amp sound maybe). However, his alledged "unique lead bass style" had been in metal since Iron Maiden. And as far as anthrax's frank bello using that particular style....give a listen to "spreading the disease." I liked burton's bass solo, i prefered the material metallica put out with him over the newsted era metallica, but i still think newsted is the superior bassist. Also, i think metallica and cliff burton would have sold out. Call me crazy, but i think they would have all still developed the money hungry rockstar attitude regardless of who was playing bass for them. Let's not forget that the majority of the writing after they ran out of mustaine era shit (after ride the lightning) was done by Hetfield and Ulrich. However, let me propose an interesting theory here. What if mustaine and burton had thrown hetfield out of the band and hired someone better? I wonder if they would have sold out then. Oh well, what a shame you can't change the course of history.
COMMENT |
posted by: The Outcast
3/14/2003 8:13:41 AM
this album is easily their best stuff since Nothingface... like a missing link between Nothingface and Outer Limits.
whomever says it ain't heavy is a total fuck.
attention newcomers it may take a few listens to get into but THIS IS VOIVOD... pure Voivod patterns.
go buy this album because this time they'll make it big.
do or die!
COMMENT | slipknotfails
posted by: Denim Justice
3/14/2003 2:17:27 PM
good points..i will listen to spreading the disease tonight, maybe i missed that. and the money thing..your probably right. hey IR8TRIBE..you going to OPETH????@ HARPO"S
COMMENT | Album is OK
posted by: biggusdickus
3/14/2003 6:55:18 PM
I'll listen to it some more to see if it grows, I think the music is great but the vocals are really giving me trouble. Seems a bit weak to jump into the fray with the major acts.
COMMENT | i like the album
posted by: You Don't Know Me
3/16/2003 7:55:23 AM
it's not the best thing ever but it's damn good.
as for Jason blowing away Cliff Burton i find that to be total bull. ever hear Cliff do a bass solo? 'nuff said.
but i think Jason was a good bass player in Metallica. you have to remember a majority of the songs written on ...And Justic For All through Reload were written by James and Lars. Jason. never had much say in the music. so if you want to blame anyone for Metallica gradually getting worse then blame James and Lars.
Jason is a good addition to Voivod. i'm sure they could picked someone a little better but he can hold his own.
COMMENT | Great Album!!
posted by: FlaKissFan
3/16/2003 8:09:25 PM
I won't argue about if it's a great album or not but you people who say it's not a metal album are a bunch of "speed metal" weenies who think anything lighter that Show No Mercy isn't metal. It's a great album in my opinion and a metal album which is a fact.
posted by: Satans Ice Cream Truck
3/10/2003 2:19:25 PM
it would be alot heavier, it's a rock record. Not a metal record, as many would expect. When I have the time, and for the right price I'll pick it up. For me, it does not scream "buy me!!!!". We'll see in time if this is a classic or just major hype.
COMMENT | COOL! I DON'T CARE IF THE ALBUM AIN'T THE BEST
posted by: STAMBY
3/10/2003 2:21:21 PM
IT IS STILL COOL TO SEE A GOOD OLD BAND BACK!BETTER THAN A MILLION OTHERS NO MATTER WHAT NEW SHIT IS LIKE!AM I WRONG?
COMMENT | This album kicks ass!
posted by: LivingEvil
3/10/2003 2:37:27 PM
I just bought this ablum and it's awesome.Definately the best album of the year!
COMMENT | garbage
posted by: jazzsnob
3/10/2003 3:23:28 PM
yeah, this album sucks. it is definitely rock, not metal. when the first song kicks in all i could think was "cockrock". i'm not saying the album is cockrock, but the first songs starts off and you're not sure what time period you're in for a second. just because something is fast and uses distortion doesn't make it metal. i wouldn't buy this if you paid me. i listened to it twice and couldn't even get through it the second time. my ears couldn't take it anymore. if you can, download first because you may get what you don't expect if you purchase it coldly.
COMMENT | Voivod fans rejoice...
posted by: The Coroner
3/10/2003 3:47:24 PM
If you're a fan of Nothingface or Angel Rat, you will LOVE this album as I do. In NO way did they 'sell out' or become a 'rock' band. It retains the classic (if not thrashing of the 'War and Pain' days) Voivod sound.
At first listen I didn't really care for it, but as I continued to give it the benefit of the doubt (something many listeners are too short-sighted to do these days) I'm happy that I did.
The album is fucking AWESOME. I'd have to say 'Rebel Robot' is my favorite track.
A job well done, and it completely BLOWS AWAY anything Shitallica has done since 1988.
...there's a little matrix in all of us...
COMMENT | Have to disagree with you there!
posted by: noleafclover
3/10/2003 4:59:43 PM
I'm not much of a Metallica fan, but if you are comparing load and reload to this new voivod then this album MUST suck! Saying its better than those albums is not saying much.
Oh yeah and by the way, the Black album blows this album away! Let's be honest people.
COMMENT | The unknown knows voivodfan.com
posted by: warcorpse
3/10/2003 5:07:01 PM
Piggy is the best guitarist in the world! Go buy the new Voivod CD. Also if you don't own Killing Technology or Dimension Hatross you are missing two of the most important CDs in metal.
--------------------------
voivodfan.com has rare Voivod mp3s and also cool video downloads like "Ravenous Medicine", "Voivod", "Ripping Headaches".
COMMENT | Voivod is amazing
posted by: Diggedy Dave
3/10/2003 6:08:26 PM
The review is pretty much right on target, except that it fails to point out that no two Voivod records are exactly alike. I liken this one to a combination of Phobos, Nothingface, and Outer Limits.
My opinion as a Voivod fan is biased...I think the record is beyond killer. Many of the hooks are permanently wired into my head already! Newsted's bass sounds raunchy as hell, Piggy's tone is better then ever, Snake's voice is fucking creepy, and Away remains one of the most original drummers. Holy artwork, too!
If you're in, I'm in!
This IS real again!!!
COMMENT | My 2 cents
posted by: KB
3/10/2003 6:32:47 PM
All this talk about the record being a rock album is garbage. This is METAL. At times it definately has a rock vibe to it, but there's nothing wrong with metal incorporating rock into it. Shit, that's where metal got its roots. The Voivod album is one of the most solid efforts this band has put out since Nothingface and blows away any Metallica after Justice. Voivod is the real deal.
COMMENT | Vive VOIVOD
posted by: puffdallaire
3/10/2003 7:00:21 PM
The best metal album so far this year! It's kickin' Metallica's ass big fn' time!!!
COMMENT | Incredible Album
posted by: ssuyk
3/10/2003 7:13:07 PM
This is by far the best album I've heard in years - NO KIDDING! This album kills from start to finish but the second half of the album is better than the first. I didn't think that they had a chance of putting out something this good but they proved me wrong.
If I had to describe the album to someone who's yet to hear it but knows Voivod I'd say it's a mix. Start with some Nothingface, throw in a little Outer Limits, toss in a little Angel Rat, and sprinkle a bit of Phobos on top. These guys are unbelievable. They have managed to put out yet another truly original album. This is certainly better than Phobos, Negatron, and The Outer Limits but it would be a stretch to say it's better than Nothingface or Dimension Hatross. The fact that it's over 60 minutes of music without any filler speaks volumes!
Great job Voivod!
COMMENT | one more thing...
posted by: ssuyk
3/10/2003 7:14:34 PM
This is a metal album. The reviewer is foolish to say that it picks up where The Outer Limits left off. That's just flat out wrong. Obviously, he/she forgot to listen to the whole album.
COMMENT | album of the year so far ...
posted by: relu
3/10/2003 9:08:53 PM
The above review is filled with contradictions. I do know that Don Kaye has been doing reviews at least for the last 15 years and I trust his judgement, but looking at that review it is a misrepresentation on what is on the record.
The record has instant hooks and an amazing production. Voivod has always been an aquired taste. You either like them or hate them. But I think this is the only record in their reportoire that can make a convert out of a skeptic.
Not a filler track in sight ...
COMMENT | snake is back
posted by: destruction
3/10/2003 10:00:19 PM
I have been a fan since the start.that is long fucking time ago.i have a play list from war and pain (mini tour) if you can even call it that 80 people or so.i love voi vod very much.they (do there own thing).for a fucking long ass time now.don't think the $$$ has ever been the subject.now with jason mabye they will finally get some.glad to hear snake.fuck that review.snake can sing at my funeral..vvvvoooooiiii vvvvoooooddddd!!!!!!
COMMENT | totally accurate review.
posted by: truthrains
3/10/2003 11:03:41 PM
that review said it all. to sum up, snake sucks REALLY bad, piggy is awesome, gaysonic is in the background and away is adequate. the songs sound like bad janes addiction with better guitar , parallel vocals heavier drumming and insignificant bass playing.
COMMENT | not bad.....
posted by: Slipknotfails
3/11/2003 12:01:34 AM
.....from what i've heard so far. The few songs i have listened to from this album are pretty good, much better than newsted's former band.
Also, why do certain people continually put down on jason newsted by calling him stupid nicknames like "gaysonic." Face facts people, the man obliterates Cliff Burton.
Back the the record...i've heard the first five tracks on here. Very good stuff, though i think they could have done much better.
COMMENT | Voivod fan with some pros and cons
posted by: grandpa frog
3/11/2003 12:06:32 AM
Been a fan for a long time, and I was looking forward to this album for as long as everybody hyped it. And my initial reaction was...It's good enough. In my opinion...Voivod are a steady balance between the three founding members (and nobody can replace Blacky...which is evident on this recording) the thing that puts Voivod over the top are Snake's vocals...and I mean that for better or worse. Reading some of these words, that were created by Snake, absolutely made me want to puke. All I could think is this guy completely "phoned it in." Is this the same person that created original quirky songs like "Macrosolutions to Megaproblems" to singing a song about playing in front of a crowd...ala Motley Crue's Kickstart my Heart? Or singing about "Flying Cigars...the COOLEST name for UFOS" most of the words feel forced and ingenuine, and whoever mixed the album left Snake too dry and unaffected. It feels almost sterile!
With all that said let me state the positive, There are many more points of light shining through, as most Voivod albums have on their third and fourth pass. I am finding many more redeeming qualities for this disc. The best cut currently to me is Divine Sun, Rebel Robot, and The Multiverse are also pretty good. This is honesty from a Voivod fan. I think many of these cuts will sound great live and I'm looking forward to seeing them sometime in the upcoming months.
COMMENT | VOIVOD IS BACK!
posted by: the Dude
3/11/2003 1:18:34 AM
True Voivod fans that know Angel Rat and Outer Limits as the best albums of their career will appreciate this one. I thought this day would never come after the awful experience of hearing Negatron, but thank God it did! Voivod rules!
COMMENT | really impressed
posted by: asere
3/11/2003 9:44:10 AM
wow!
This album is so good and original! As always VOIVOD has been... It sounds like NOTHING out there. (no pun intended)
I really love the atmosphere of the whole thing, pretty intense and eerie at the same time...
I'm pretty sure these guys will have finally (i really don't care if just because of Newsted) the recognition they long deserve.
And by the way you can try to call this whatever but don't let nobody fool you THIS IS METAL! in all the meanings and ways the genre can take cause this album is just as diverse...
Pure Joy...
COMMENT | vulvod...
posted by: loboquiddity
3/11/2003 10:07:12 AM
This cd is not that bad...but the singer has a limited singer...he sounds like a toned down Jello Biafra at times. It sounds like it was recorded in a garage. I bought the album and it's not that bad...just those 2 first oversights...beyond that it's good for a listen to while tipping back the bottle or packing the pipe.
COMMENT | Is.......
posted by: bjsrcool
3/11/2003 11:05:05 AM
Is Don Kaye still banging The Great Kat?
COMMENT | This Guys Review Is Shite
posted by: Kreator7
3/11/2003 12:07:22 PM
every dildo feels they have to go back to mention Voivods entire discography. Killing Tech is so ancient it has nothing to do with Voivods style on the last three Snake albums!
Who gives a shit about Eric? Snake is the man now, so why mention him?
This album is electrifying and catchy and will be way better than anything new Metallica does. Fucking Tool wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Voivod!
How can the Thrash authority and hip Metal News page publish such a crap review?
Fucking Retard!
COMMENT | ...
posted by: LikeSuicide
3/11/2003 1:22:54 PM
I really liked Nothingface, so I figured I'd give this album a shot and I'm glad that I did. This just goes to show that you can be heavy and still contain good melodies in your songs and not suck. Take notes, nu-metalers!
COMMENT | blah
posted by: Spiv2
3/11/2003 3:00:46 PM
i hate this fucking album.....listened to it once and deleted it...thank god for the internet...i would have hated to waste perfectly good money on this piece of shit album
p.s. the vocals sound like weird al trying to be serious
COMMENT | Only 7/10 rating?
posted by: Jarlaxle
3/11/2003 3:14:13 PM
Not a bad review at all. But, why rate it only 7? What's the criteria? I've seen lots of high ratings for mediocre albums on this site. IMO it's better to write just your review, not rate the albums at all. It is sometimes misleading.
Anyway, this album may not be a masterpeace but a great album for sure. This is the album that i was waiting for after the release of Outer Limits. Welcome back Snake!
Best album of the year so far, followed by The Haunted and Ministry's new albums.
BTW i'm surprised by the number of comments posted here. I didn't know there were so many Voivod fans. It must be the addition of Jason.
Thanks Jason for supporting Voivod. Finally, these guys are seeing some recognition thanks to you.
COMMENT | 7/10 was generous!!!!!
posted by: truthrains
3/11/2003 10:48:29 PM
that guy who said jason blows away cliff...ahh...that was a joke right???
lets see...kill em all, ride, and master vs. justice, black, load, reload... whatever you stupid fuckstick. the jason era sucked except for the cover songs and the jason era sucks with voivod. yeah its original...but it sucks thanks to snake primarily. i think phobos shits all over this new stuff to be honest. i agree, thank god for the internet so i don't have to waste my money on such tripe.
COMMENT | VOIVOD
posted by: ryanpday
3/12/2003 5:56:34 PM
Ya know....nobody would give 2 shits about Voivod if it weren't for Jason "Jasonic" Newsted. And....is "Jasonic" in Voivod or Ozzy Osbourne?!? I heard a few tunes from this record......not impressed. I think Lars Ulrich was right. Jason Newsted is "lost".
COMMENT | not surprissed!
posted by: RoMaN
3/12/2003 6:02:54 PM
well thats not something that suprissing, i didnt think this was gonna be the one that everybody was gonna talk about, the only question is will metallica dissapoint again???
probally!!!
COMMENT | there must be some mistake...
posted by: Lazer
3/12/2003 7:12:10 PM
Did someone say that Jasonic "obliterates Cliff burton."
I dont think even Jason would ever say that. Cliff Burton was an awesome bass player who had a lot to do with what a lot of people call "the good metallica."
In my opinion Jason is a good guy who is doing what he wants. In my opinion metallica rock and are doing what they like.
Oh, and by the way- me along with the millions of others have never even heard of Viovod- hence they only sold 3k copies in first week....
COMMENT | One week and a day later...
posted by: ssuyk
3/12/2003 10:51:05 PM
and the album just gets better and better. It's so great, as a fan, to have Snake back in the band. No offense to Eric Forest but their sound is so much better with Snake. I'm really looking forward to the tour.
It's amazing how creative they can still be. 2003 and they're still innovators!
Voivod - album of the year!
COMMENT | ....
posted by: Slipknotfails
3/12/2003 11:46:33 PM
....yes, i did say jason is better than cliff. Cliff was little more than your typical thrash metal bassist (his so called "lead bass" style can be heard in countless thrash bands from Anthrax to Death). I think if jason had been given the opporitunity to actually write music in metallica, a lot of you would be singing a different tune.
COMMENT | jason vs cliff?
posted by: Denim Justice
3/13/2003 10:35:08 AM
firts of all jason is good, but to say cliff was "heard in countless thrash bands" i think is a little off the mark. Cliff was/is great,and was way ahead of the other "thrash" bass players of the time. This is my opinion, and i have not heard ALL the bass players out there, but i have not heard that style done better than cliff, and i cannot think of a anthrax song with a distorted bass sound like that. Cliff rocked man, he's one of the purest bass players with his own sound i can think of in heavy metal. Not considering geddy,stu hamm,billy sheehan, etc. there are ALOT of excellant bass players but he had a certain magic!
RIP CLIFF!!
COMMENT | Cliff
posted by: Lazer
3/13/2003 12:28:25 PM
Just because bands that follow a style does not lesson what was originally accomplished. Cliff Burton rocked, everyone knows that. Having known him I can tell you that he is still greatly missed.
And since Jason is such a kick ass song writer and bass player- why is it that all he is known for is riding other peoples waves?
i think he rocks, the bass in the Black Album is very powerful and strong- but I don't think he will ever be known for his amazing writing skills.
COMMENT | Jason Rocks
posted by: IR8Tribe
3/13/2003 12:28:30 PM
First off, Cliff Burton would have never sold out as did Metallica.. 2nd Jason should have never left Flotsam & Jetsam.They were way better than Metallica, But i cant blame him, Jason was always my favorite part of every Metallica show i have seen.. And at age 34 i have seen them a few more times than i could count.
I am just glad Jason has finally left them, He has way more talent to offer without them punk ass sell-outs..
I myself was never a big Voivod fan, But i like what i hear on this new one, and hope to see them come to Detroit for a show. Would rather see them than the LimpParkallicA tour @$75 plus 30% Ticket Master B.S service charge.. Come on people Boycott them high price shows,, or else they will continue overcharging you..
COMMENT | IR8vsSexoturica
posted by: IR8Tribe
3/13/2003 12:42:59 PM
Yes Jason does have some writing skills as he showed in his early years with Flotsam & Jetsam, Then about 9 years ago when i got my first Demo of IR8. I knew that Jason had some singing and playing skills. Now i feel that Jason really wants to show his talents, and that is why he had to leave Metallica, Hence the new release of IR8vs.Sexoturica,, I also feel fortunate that i was able to see him play with Echobrain last year, Jason did some shit with a bass i aint never seen, it was an awesome show.
COMMENT | 8.5/10
posted by: COSTRA
3/13/2003 3:04:19 PM
THE BEST ALBUM OF VOIVOD
COMMENT | Its still definitely metal
posted by: Firewind
3/13/2003 6:35:34 PM
I think this album is great. I like the songwriting better than Outer Limits and Angel Rat, it does sound somewhere in between which is strange after the very experimental Phobos.
COMMENT | People may not understand Voivod
posted by: Firewind
3/13/2003 6:38:48 PM
But that's what makes them so unique. I guess people don't like Progression unless its by the book. I'm surprised they've never played Prog Power because they're more prog than a bunch of helloween/queensryche/Dream theater clones
COMMENT | O.K.-THIRD LISTEN AND I LOVE IT!
posted by: STAMBY
3/13/2003 6:56:06 PM
TOOK A WHILE BUT IT GREW ON ME
COMMENT | FUCK THE NAYSAYERS
posted by: Firewind
3/13/2003 9:19:10 PM
VOIVOD RULES!
COMMENT | ahhh.....
posted by: Slipknotfails
3/14/2003 12:05:27 AM
....okay, i will agree that burton's bass guitar did have a unique sound (perhaps it was just the tone of that Rickenbacker he played, or the amp sound maybe). However, his alledged "unique lead bass style" had been in metal since Iron Maiden. And as far as anthrax's frank bello using that particular style....give a listen to "spreading the disease." I liked burton's bass solo, i prefered the material metallica put out with him over the newsted era metallica, but i still think newsted is the superior bassist. Also, i think metallica and cliff burton would have sold out. Call me crazy, but i think they would have all still developed the money hungry rockstar attitude regardless of who was playing bass for them. Let's not forget that the majority of the writing after they ran out of mustaine era shit (after ride the lightning) was done by Hetfield and Ulrich. However, let me propose an interesting theory here. What if mustaine and burton had thrown hetfield out of the band and hired someone better? I wonder if they would have sold out then. Oh well, what a shame you can't change the course of history.
COMMENT |
posted by: The Outcast
3/14/2003 8:13:41 AM
this album is easily their best stuff since Nothingface... like a missing link between Nothingface and Outer Limits.
whomever says it ain't heavy is a total fuck.
attention newcomers it may take a few listens to get into but THIS IS VOIVOD... pure Voivod patterns.
go buy this album because this time they'll make it big.
do or die!
COMMENT | slipknotfails
posted by: Denim Justice
3/14/2003 2:17:27 PM
good points..i will listen to spreading the disease tonight, maybe i missed that. and the money thing..your probably right. hey IR8TRIBE..you going to OPETH????@ HARPO"S
COMMENT | Album is OK
posted by: biggusdickus
3/14/2003 6:55:18 PM
I'll listen to it some more to see if it grows, I think the music is great but the vocals are really giving me trouble. Seems a bit weak to jump into the fray with the major acts.
COMMENT | i like the album
posted by: You Don't Know Me
3/16/2003 7:55:23 AM
it's not the best thing ever but it's damn good.
as for Jason blowing away Cliff Burton i find that to be total bull. ever hear Cliff do a bass solo? 'nuff said.
but i think Jason was a good bass player in Metallica. you have to remember a majority of the songs written on ...And Justic For All through Reload were written by James and Lars. Jason. never had much say in the music. so if you want to blame anyone for Metallica gradually getting worse then blame James and Lars.
Jason is a good addition to Voivod. i'm sure they could picked someone a little better but he can hold his own.
COMMENT | Great Album!!
posted by: FlaKissFan
3/16/2003 8:09:25 PM
I won't argue about if it's a great album or not but you people who say it's not a metal album are a bunch of "speed metal" weenies who think anything lighter that Show No Mercy isn't metal. It's a great album in my opinion and a metal album which is a fact.
KoichCPA
Banned
When the Shroud of Turin went on display this spring for the first time in 20 years, it made the cover of Time magazine with the blurb "Is this Jesus?" In BAR, we summarized the controversy that has enshrouded this relic, venerated for centuries as the burial cloth of Jesus ("Remains to Be Seen," Strata, Julyl August 1998, p 13).
Following Time's lead, we reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the shroud to 1260-1390 A. D., no one has been able to account for the shadowy image of a naked 6-foot-tall man that appears on the shroud. With bloodstains on the back, wrists, feet, side and head the image appears to be that of a crucified man. The details - the direction of the flow of blood from the wounds, the placement of the nails through the wrists rather than the palms - displays a knowledge of crucifixion that seems too accurate to have been that of a medieval artist.
But two of BAR's savvy readers have objected to our assessment. The following articles suggest there is no reason to doubt that the image, as well as the cloth, was produced in the Middle Ages.- Ed (BAR)
Nothing puzzles and intrigues the sindonologist - the student of the Shroud of Turin - more than the supposed mystery of how the image on the shroud was made. "It doesn't look like any known work of art," they say. The implication is that its creation was somehow miraculous, perhaps caused by a sudden burst of cosmic energy as the cloth came into contact with the dead body of Jesus. But in fact, it is simply historical ignorance of what the shroud really is (or at least, what it pur-ports to be) that leads these people to wrongheaded notions. The Shroud of Turin is not, by definition, a work of art but instead belongs to the long and revered tradition of sacred objects that are at once relics and icons.
Such objects first appeared during the sixth century, in the Holy Land; in Greek they are called acheiropoietai (singular, acheiropoietos), which means "not made by human hands." They are called this because they are (apparently) contact impressions of holy bodies. They have become relics through physical contact with the sacred, and they are icons because of the resultant image; but in neither case is there (by definition, at least) any intervention by an artist.
Among the earliest acheiropoietai is the Column of the Flagellation, in Jerusalem. This relic (the column) appears for the first time in fifth-century historical sources, which describe its location in the Church of Holy Sion; but it is only in the sixth century that pilgrims began to see the image of Jesus' hands and chest impressed into its stone surface, left there, presumably, as Jesus was bound in place for the flagellation.
The most characteristic form of acheiropoietos, however, is the holy cloth. According to legend, St. Veronica stepped forward to wipe the sweat from Jesus' brow as he stumbled toward Calvary, and her towel already transformed into a relic through that holy contact miraculously retained the image of Jesus' face. Known as Veronica's Veil, the relic became one of the most famous acheiropoietai of the Middle Ages.* Another such cloth image (also generated by perspiration) was produced on the night of the betrayal, as Jesus prayed intently at Gethsemane. And then there is the Shroud of Turin, seemingly produced by blood, blood plasma and sweat absorbed from Jesus' dead body at the time of entombment (see box, p. 29).
Several reputed examples of each of these holy-iconcloths have surfaced over the centuries. At least three dozen cloths have been identified as Veronica's Veil, the Holy Shroud, and the like. In 12th-century Constantinople alone, there were two iconic burial shrouds and one Gethsemane towel, each of which was eventually destroyed. What sets the Shroud of Turin apart is not what it is, but rather how it, almost alone among its object type, has survived more or less intact to modern times.
But the more important point is this: The Shroud of Turin is not and never was a "work of art" in the conventional sense of that term. And in fact, were it in any way to look like a work of art-something made by human hands-this would imme-diately disqualify it from being what it is supposed to be: an acheiropoietos.
This is the catch-22 that sindonologists fail to appreciate: For the shroud to be the shroud, it more or less has to look the way it looks. Furthermore, the shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type. The single salient quality that these sacred objects share is that very quality that is so striking about the shroud-namely, a faint and elusive image seemingly pro-duced by bodily secretions.
How is it, finally, that we know for certain that the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Without prejudicing the possibility that one or more among history's several dozen acheiropoietai may be genuine, we can be positive that this one cannot, since, according to its carbon 14 dating, it could not possibly have come into contact with the historical Jesus. Yet it would be incorrect to view the Shroud of Turin as just another icon, because it was very clearly, very self-consciously doctored in order to become what millions, until recently, have taken it to be: an image not made by human hands. And these, unlike icons, can only be one of a kind.
The Shroud of Turin was created to deceive. It was manufactured at a time, in western Europe especially, when relics meant pilgrimage and pilgrimage meant money. The competition for both, among rival cities and towns, was intense. And stealing and forgery were both part of the business.
It was also a time when the material remains of Jesus' Passion were very much in vogue, when St. Louis would build Ste. Chapelle solely to enshrine the Crown of Thorns (which had recently been stolen from Constantinopole).
A contemporary model will help us understand this culture in which the blood and gore of Jesus' death carried intense spiritual power. Although Emperor Constantine outlawed crucifixion in 315 AD, the practice as a form of piety-was never com-pletely abandoned. To this day, some members of a lay confraternity of Spanish American Catholics in northern New Mexico, called the Penitentes, are said to practice various forms of extreme body mortification during Holy Week, including self-crucifixion. Thus, the Penitentes understand the physical reality of crucifixion as few before them have. The Penitentes are also known for their artwork; most characteristic are their carved wooden crucifixes, painted blue, which incorporate their firsthand knowledge of crucifixion-specifically, the knowledge that the body eventually turns blue from suffocation.
The carbon 14 dating of the shroud to 1260-1390 A.D. brings us into the world of the Penitentes' patron saint, Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226), to his stigmata (the miraculous wounds on his hands, feet and side) and, especially, to the lay brotherhoods that his piety and his cult of self-mortification engendered. These Christians appreciated and understood Jesus' wounds in a very physical way.
This is the world of the holy shroud; these are the people for whom it would have held special meaning; and these, certainly, are the people for whom it was made. Just as the Penitentes understand the significance of blue-ness, these medieval Christians would have understood that the nails must have gone through Jesus' wrists in order to hold the body to the cross (although in medieval art these wounds are invariably in the palms). And their cult images would match this phys-ical understanding of crucifixion, even to the point of adding human blood, much as the Penitentes add human hair and bone to their cult images. All of which is to say that the indication of nail holes in the wrists and what some claim is the presence of blood on the linen need not add up to a miracle.
Knowing both this and the shroud's car-bon 14 dating of 1260 to 1390 A.D., it is worth returning, finally, to the place and time of the shroud's first appearance in his-torical documents. It is the year 1357, and the shroud is being exhibited publicly to pilgrims. It belongs to a French nobleman, Geofrey de Charnay, and is being displayed in his private chapel in Lirey, a village near Troyes, in northeastern France. The Bishop of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers, is upset because he believes the shroud is a fake; in fact, he has been told this by a man who claims to have painted it. Thirty years pass. It is now 1389, and Henri's successor, Pierre d'Archis, writes a long letter of protest about the shroud to Pope Clement VII. He recalls his predecessor's accusation and then goes on to state his own con-viction "that the Shroud is a product of human handicraft ... a cloth cunningly painted by a man." He pleads with the Pope to end its public display. The Pope's written reply is cautious but clear; the shroud may still be displayed, but only on the con-dition that a priest be in attendance to announce to all present, in a loud and intelligible voice, without any trickery, that the aforesaid form or representation [the shroud] is not the true burial cloth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but only a kind of painting or picture made as a form or representation of the burial cloth.
This was the true verdict-the correct verdict-from the Pope, issued less than four decades after the shroud was painted. And isn't it ironic that it has taken 600 years to get essentially the same answer-but this time from the offices of an international team of scientists?
When the Shroud of Turin went on display this spring for the first time in 20 years, it made the cover of Time magazine with the blurb "Is this Jesus?" In BAR, we summarized the controversy that has enshrouded this relic, venerated for centuries as the burial cloth of Jesus ("Remains to Be Seen," Strata, Julyl August 1998, p 13).
Following Time's lead, we reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the shroud to 1260-1390 A. D., no one has been able to account for the shadowy image of a naked 6-foot-tall man that appears on the shroud. With bloodstains on the back, wrists, feet, side and head the image appears to be that of a crucified man. The details - the direction of the flow of blood from the wounds, the placement of the nails through the wrists rather than the palms - displays a knowledge of crucifixion that seems too accurate to have been that of a medieval artist.
But two of BAR's savvy readers have objected to our assessment. The following articles suggest there is no reason to doubt that the image, as well as the cloth, was produced in the Middle Ages.- Ed (BAR)
Nothing puzzles and intrigues the sindonologist - the student of the Shroud of Turin - more than the supposed mystery of how the image on the shroud was made. "It doesn't look like any known work of art," they say. The implication is that its creation was somehow miraculous, perhaps caused by a sudden burst of cosmic energy as the cloth came into contact with the dead body of Jesus. But in fact, it is simply historical ignorance of what the shroud really is (or at least, what it pur-ports to be) that leads these people to wrongheaded notions. The Shroud of Turin is not, by definition, a work of art but instead belongs to the long and revered tradition of sacred objects that are at once relics and icons.
Such objects first appeared during the sixth century, in the Holy Land; in Greek they are called acheiropoietai (singular, acheiropoietos), which means "not made by human hands." They are called this because they are (apparently) contact impressions of holy bodies. They have become relics through physical contact with the sacred, and they are icons because of the resultant image; but in neither case is there (by definition, at least) any intervention by an artist.
Among the earliest acheiropoietai is the Column of the Flagellation, in Jerusalem. This relic (the column) appears for the first time in fifth-century historical sources, which describe its location in the Church of Holy Sion; but it is only in the sixth century that pilgrims began to see the image of Jesus' hands and chest impressed into its stone surface, left there, presumably, as Jesus was bound in place for the flagellation.
The most characteristic form of acheiropoietos, however, is the holy cloth. According to legend, St. Veronica stepped forward to wipe the sweat from Jesus' brow as he stumbled toward Calvary, and her towel already transformed into a relic through that holy contact miraculously retained the image of Jesus' face. Known as Veronica's Veil, the relic became one of the most famous acheiropoietai of the Middle Ages.* Another such cloth image (also generated by perspiration) was produced on the night of the betrayal, as Jesus prayed intently at Gethsemane. And then there is the Shroud of Turin, seemingly produced by blood, blood plasma and sweat absorbed from Jesus' dead body at the time of entombment (see box, p. 29).
Several reputed examples of each of these holy-iconcloths have surfaced over the centuries. At least three dozen cloths have been identified as Veronica's Veil, the Holy Shroud, and the like. In 12th-century Constantinople alone, there were two iconic burial shrouds and one Gethsemane towel, each of which was eventually destroyed. What sets the Shroud of Turin apart is not what it is, but rather how it, almost alone among its object type, has survived more or less intact to modern times.
But the more important point is this: The Shroud of Turin is not and never was a "work of art" in the conventional sense of that term. And in fact, were it in any way to look like a work of art-something made by human hands-this would imme-diately disqualify it from being what it is supposed to be: an acheiropoietos.
This is the catch-22 that sindonologists fail to appreciate: For the shroud to be the shroud, it more or less has to look the way it looks. Furthermore, the shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type. The single salient quality that these sacred objects share is that very quality that is so striking about the shroud-namely, a faint and elusive image seemingly pro-duced by bodily secretions.
How is it, finally, that we know for certain that the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Without prejudicing the possibility that one or more among history's several dozen acheiropoietai may be genuine, we can be positive that this one cannot, since, according to its carbon 14 dating, it could not possibly have come into contact with the historical Jesus. Yet it would be incorrect to view the Shroud of Turin as just another icon, because it was very clearly, very self-consciously doctored in order to become what millions, until recently, have taken it to be: an image not made by human hands. And these, unlike icons, can only be one of a kind.
The Shroud of Turin was created to deceive. It was manufactured at a time, in western Europe especially, when relics meant pilgrimage and pilgrimage meant money. The competition for both, among rival cities and towns, was intense. And stealing and forgery were both part of the business.
It was also a time when the material remains of Jesus' Passion were very much in vogue, when St. Louis would build Ste. Chapelle solely to enshrine the Crown of Thorns (which had recently been stolen from Constantinopole).
A contemporary model will help us understand this culture in which the blood and gore of Jesus' death carried intense spiritual power. Although Emperor Constantine outlawed crucifixion in 315 AD, the practice as a form of piety-was never com-pletely abandoned. To this day, some members of a lay confraternity of Spanish American Catholics in northern New Mexico, called the Penitentes, are said to practice various forms of extreme body mortification during Holy Week, including self-crucifixion. Thus, the Penitentes understand the physical reality of crucifixion as few before them have. The Penitentes are also known for their artwork; most characteristic are their carved wooden crucifixes, painted blue, which incorporate their firsthand knowledge of crucifixion-specifically, the knowledge that the body eventually turns blue from suffocation.
The carbon 14 dating of the shroud to 1260-1390 A.D. brings us into the world of the Penitentes' patron saint, Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226), to his stigmata (the miraculous wounds on his hands, feet and side) and, especially, to the lay brotherhoods that his piety and his cult of self-mortification engendered. These Christians appreciated and understood Jesus' wounds in a very physical way.
This is the world of the holy shroud; these are the people for whom it would have held special meaning; and these, certainly, are the people for whom it was made. Just as the Penitentes understand the significance of blue-ness, these medieval Christians would have understood that the nails must have gone through Jesus' wrists in order to hold the body to the cross (although in medieval art these wounds are invariably in the palms). And their cult images would match this phys-ical understanding of crucifixion, even to the point of adding human blood, much as the Penitentes add human hair and bone to their cult images. All of which is to say that the indication of nail holes in the wrists and what some claim is the presence of blood on the linen need not add up to a miracle.
Knowing both this and the shroud's car-bon 14 dating of 1260 to 1390 A.D., it is worth returning, finally, to the place and time of the shroud's first appearance in his-torical documents. It is the year 1357, and the shroud is being exhibited publicly to pilgrims. It belongs to a French nobleman, Geofrey de Charnay, and is being displayed in his private chapel in Lirey, a village near Troyes, in northeastern France. The Bishop of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers, is upset because he believes the shroud is a fake; in fact, he has been told this by a man who claims to have painted it. Thirty years pass. It is now 1389, and Henri's successor, Pierre d'Archis, writes a long letter of protest about the shroud to Pope Clement VII. He recalls his predecessor's accusation and then goes on to state his own con-viction "that the Shroud is a product of human handicraft ... a cloth cunningly painted by a man." He pleads with the Pope to end its public display. The Pope's written reply is cautious but clear; the shroud may still be displayed, but only on the con-dition that a priest be in attendance to announce to all present, in a loud and intelligible voice, without any trickery, that the aforesaid form or representation [the shroud] is not the true burial cloth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but only a kind of painting or picture made as a form or representation of the burial cloth.
This was the true verdict-the correct verdict-from the Pope, issued less than four decades after the shroud was painted. And isn't it ironic that it has taken 600 years to get essentially the same answer-but this time from the offices of an international team of scientists?
When the Shroud of Turin went on display this spring for the first time in 20 years, it made the cover of Time magazine with the blurb "Is this Jesus?" In BAR, we summarized the controversy that has enshrouded this relic, venerated for centuries as the burial cloth of Jesus ("Remains to Be Seen," Strata, Julyl August 1998, p 13).
Following Time's lead, we reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the shroud to 1260-1390 A. D., no one has been able to account for the shadowy image of a naked 6-foot-tall man that appears on the shroud. With bloodstains on the back, wrists, feet, side and head the image appears to be that of a crucified man. The details - the direction of the flow of blood from the wounds, the placement of the nails through the wrists rather than the palms - displays a knowledge of crucifixion that seems too accurate to have been that of a medieval artist.
But two of BAR's savvy readers have objected to our assessment. The following articles suggest there is no reason to doubt that the image, as well as the cloth, was produced in the Middle Ages.- Ed (BAR)
Nothing puzzles and intrigues the sindonologist - the student of the Shroud of Turin - more than the supposed mystery of how the image on the shroud was made. "It doesn't look like any known work of art," they say. The implication is that its creation was somehow miraculous, perhaps caused by a sudden burst of cosmic energy as the cloth came into contact with the dead body of Jesus. But in fact, it is simply historical ignorance of what the shroud really is (or at least, what it pur-ports to be) that leads these people to wrongheaded notions. The Shroud of Turin is not, by definition, a work of art but instead belongs to the long and revered tradition of sacred objects that are at once relics and icons.
Such objects first appeared during the sixth century, in the Holy Land; in Greek they are called acheiropoietai (singular, acheiropoietos), which means "not made by human hands." They are called this because they are (apparently) contact impressions of holy bodies. They have become relics through physical contact with the sacred, and they are icons because of the resultant image; but in neither case is there (by definition, at least) any intervention by an artist.
Among the earliest acheiropoietai is the Column of the Flagellation, in Jerusalem. This relic (the column) appears for the first time in fifth-century historical sources, which describe its location in the Church of Holy Sion; but it is only in the sixth century that pilgrims began to see the image of Jesus' hands and chest impressed into its stone surface, left there, presumably, as Jesus was bound in place for the flagellation.
The most characteristic form of acheiropoietos, however, is the holy cloth. According to legend, St. Veronica stepped forward to wipe the sweat from Jesus' brow as he stumbled toward Calvary, and her towel already transformed into a relic through that holy contact miraculously retained the image of Jesus' face. Known as Veronica's Veil, the relic became one of the most famous acheiropoietai of the Middle Ages.* Another such cloth image (also generated by perspiration) was produced on the night of the betrayal, as Jesus prayed intently at Gethsemane. And then there is the Shroud of Turin, seemingly produced by blood, blood plasma and sweat absorbed from Jesus' dead body at the time of entombment (see box, p. 29).
Several reputed examples of each of these holy-iconcloths have surfaced over the centuries. At least three dozen cloths have been identified as Veronica's Veil, the Holy Shroud, and the like. In 12th-century Constantinople alone, there were two iconic burial shrouds and one Gethsemane towel, each of which was eventually destroyed. What sets the Shroud of Turin apart is not what it is, but rather how it, almost alone among its object type, has survived more or less intact to modern times.
But the more important point is this: The Shroud of Turin is not and never was a "work of art" in the conventional sense of that term. And in fact, were it in any way to look like a work of art-something made by human hands-this would imme-diately disqualify it from being what it is supposed to be: an acheiropoietos.
This is the catch-22 that sindonologists fail to appreciate: For the shroud to be the shroud, it more or less has to look the way it looks. Furthermore, the shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type. The single salient quality that these sacred objects share is that very quality that is so striking about the shroud-namely, a faint and elusive image seemingly pro-duced by bodily secretions.
How is it, finally, that we know for certain that the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Without prejudicing the possibility that one or more among history's several dozen acheiropoietai may be genuine, we can be positive that this one cannot, since, according to its carbon 14 dating, it could not possibly have come into contact with the historical Jesus. Yet it would be incorrect to view the Shroud of Turin as just another icon, because it was very clearly, very self-consciously doctored in order to become what millions, until recently, have taken it to be: an image not made by human hands. And these, unlike icons, can only be one of a kind.
The Shroud of Turin was created to deceive. It was manufactured at a time, in western Europe especially, when relics meant pilgrimage and pilgrimage meant money. The competition for both, among rival cities and towns, was intense. And stealing and forgery were both part of the business.
It was also a time when the material remains of Jesus' Passion were very much in vogue, when St. Louis would build Ste. Chapelle solely to enshrine the Crown of Thorns (which had recently been stolen from Constantinopole).
A contemporary model will help us understand this culture in which the blood and gore of Jesus' death carried intense spiritual power. Although Emperor Constantine outlawed crucifixion in 315 AD, the practice as a form of piety-was never com-pletely abandoned. To this day, some members of a lay confraternity of Spanish American Catholics in northern New Mexico, called the Penitentes, are said to practice various forms of extreme body mortification during Holy Week, including self-crucifixion. Thus, the Penitentes understand the physical reality of crucifixion as few before them have. The Penitentes are also known for their artwork; most characteristic are their carved wooden crucifixes, painted blue, which incorporate their firsthand knowledge of crucifixion-specifically, the knowledge that the body eventually turns blue from suffocation.
The carbon 14 dating of the shroud to 1260-1390 A.D. brings us into the world of the Penitentes' patron saint, Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226), to his stigmata (the miraculous wounds on his hands, feet and side) and,
Following Time's lead, we reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the shroud to 1260-1390 A. D., no one has been able to account for the shadowy image of a naked 6-foot-tall man that appears on the shroud. With bloodstains on the back, wrists, feet, side and head the image appears to be that of a crucified man. The details - the direction of the flow of blood from the wounds, the placement of the nails through the wrists rather than the palms - displays a knowledge of crucifixion that seems too accurate to have been that of a medieval artist.
But two of BAR's savvy readers have objected to our assessment. The following articles suggest there is no reason to doubt that the image, as well as the cloth, was produced in the Middle Ages.- Ed (BAR)
Nothing puzzles and intrigues the sindonologist - the student of the Shroud of Turin - more than the supposed mystery of how the image on the shroud was made. "It doesn't look like any known work of art," they say. The implication is that its creation was somehow miraculous, perhaps caused by a sudden burst of cosmic energy as the cloth came into contact with the dead body of Jesus. But in fact, it is simply historical ignorance of what the shroud really is (or at least, what it pur-ports to be) that leads these people to wrongheaded notions. The Shroud of Turin is not, by definition, a work of art but instead belongs to the long and revered tradition of sacred objects that are at once relics and icons.
Such objects first appeared during the sixth century, in the Holy Land; in Greek they are called acheiropoietai (singular, acheiropoietos), which means "not made by human hands." They are called this because they are (apparently) contact impressions of holy bodies. They have become relics through physical contact with the sacred, and they are icons because of the resultant image; but in neither case is there (by definition, at least) any intervention by an artist.
Among the earliest acheiropoietai is the Column of the Flagellation, in Jerusalem. This relic (the column) appears for the first time in fifth-century historical sources, which describe its location in the Church of Holy Sion; but it is only in the sixth century that pilgrims began to see the image of Jesus' hands and chest impressed into its stone surface, left there, presumably, as Jesus was bound in place for the flagellation.
The most characteristic form of acheiropoietos, however, is the holy cloth. According to legend, St. Veronica stepped forward to wipe the sweat from Jesus' brow as he stumbled toward Calvary, and her towel already transformed into a relic through that holy contact miraculously retained the image of Jesus' face. Known as Veronica's Veil, the relic became one of the most famous acheiropoietai of the Middle Ages.* Another such cloth image (also generated by perspiration) was produced on the night of the betrayal, as Jesus prayed intently at Gethsemane. And then there is the Shroud of Turin, seemingly produced by blood, blood plasma and sweat absorbed from Jesus' dead body at the time of entombment (see box, p. 29).
Several reputed examples of each of these holy-iconcloths have surfaced over the centuries. At least three dozen cloths have been identified as Veronica's Veil, the Holy Shroud, and the like. In 12th-century Constantinople alone, there were two iconic burial shrouds and one Gethsemane towel, each of which was eventually destroyed. What sets the Shroud of Turin apart is not what it is, but rather how it, almost alone among its object type, has survived more or less intact to modern times.
But the more important point is this: The Shroud of Turin is not and never was a "work of art" in the conventional sense of that term. And in fact, were it in any way to look like a work of art-something made by human hands-this would imme-diately disqualify it from being what it is supposed to be: an acheiropoietos.
This is the catch-22 that sindonologists fail to appreciate: For the shroud to be the shroud, it more or less has to look the way it looks. Furthermore, the shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type. The single salient quality that these sacred objects share is that very quality that is so striking about the shroud-namely, a faint and elusive image seemingly pro-duced by bodily secretions.
How is it, finally, that we know for certain that the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Without prejudicing the possibility that one or more among history's several dozen acheiropoietai may be genuine, we can be positive that this one cannot, since, according to its carbon 14 dating, it could not possibly have come into contact with the historical Jesus. Yet it would be incorrect to view the Shroud of Turin as just another icon, because it was very clearly, very self-consciously doctored in order to become what millions, until recently, have taken it to be: an image not made by human hands. And these, unlike icons, can only be one of a kind.
The Shroud of Turin was created to deceive. It was manufactured at a time, in western Europe especially, when relics meant pilgrimage and pilgrimage meant money. The competition for both, among rival cities and towns, was intense. And stealing and forgery were both part of the business.
It was also a time when the material remains of Jesus' Passion were very much in vogue, when St. Louis would build Ste. Chapelle solely to enshrine the Crown of Thorns (which had recently been stolen from Constantinopole).
A contemporary model will help us understand this culture in which the blood and gore of Jesus' death carried intense spiritual power. Although Emperor Constantine outlawed crucifixion in 315 AD, the practice as a form of piety-was never com-pletely abandoned. To this day, some members of a lay confraternity of Spanish American Catholics in northern New Mexico, called the Penitentes, are said to practice various forms of extreme body mortification during Holy Week, including self-crucifixion. Thus, the Penitentes understand the physical reality of crucifixion as few before them have. The Penitentes are also known for their artwork; most characteristic are their carved wooden crucifixes, painted blue, which incorporate their firsthand knowledge of crucifixion-specifically, the knowledge that the body eventually turns blue from suffocation.
The carbon 14 dating of the shroud to 1260-1390 A.D. brings us into the world of the Penitentes' patron saint, Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226), to his stigmata (the miraculous wounds on his hands, feet and side) and, especially, to the lay brotherhoods that his piety and his cult of self-mortification engendered. These Christians appreciated and understood Jesus' wounds in a very physical way.
This is the world of the holy shroud; these are the people for whom it would have held special meaning; and these, certainly, are the people for whom it was made. Just as the Penitentes understand the significance of blue-ness, these medieval Christians would have understood that the nails must have gone through Jesus' wrists in order to hold the body to the cross (although in medieval art these wounds are invariably in the palms). And their cult images would match this phys-ical understanding of crucifixion, even to the point of adding human blood, much as the Penitentes add human hair and bone to their cult images. All of which is to say that the indication of nail holes in the wrists and what some claim is the presence of blood on the linen need not add up to a miracle.
Knowing both this and the shroud's car-bon 14 dating of 1260 to 1390 A.D., it is worth returning, finally, to the place and time of the shroud's first appearance in his-torical documents. It is the year 1357, and the shroud is being exhibited publicly to pilgrims. It belongs to a French nobleman, Geofrey de Charnay, and is being displayed in his private chapel in Lirey, a village near Troyes, in northeastern France. The Bishop of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers, is upset because he believes the shroud is a fake; in fact, he has been told this by a man who claims to have painted it. Thirty years pass. It is now 1389, and Henri's successor, Pierre d'Archis, writes a long letter of protest about the shroud to Pope Clement VII. He recalls his predecessor's accusation and then goes on to state his own con-viction "that the Shroud is a product of human handicraft ... a cloth cunningly painted by a man." He pleads with the Pope to end its public display. The Pope's written reply is cautious but clear; the shroud may still be displayed, but only on the con-dition that a priest be in attendance to announce to all present, in a loud and intelligible voice, without any trickery, that the aforesaid form or representation [the shroud] is not the true burial cloth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but only a kind of painting or picture made as a form or representation of the burial cloth.
This was the true verdict-the correct verdict-from the Pope, issued less than four decades after the shroud was painted. And isn't it ironic that it has taken 600 years to get essentially the same answer-but this time from the offices of an international team of scientists?
When the Shroud of Turin went on display this spring for the first time in 20 years, it made the cover of Time magazine with the blurb "Is this Jesus?" In BAR, we summarized the controversy that has enshrouded this relic, venerated for centuries as the burial cloth of Jesus ("Remains to Be Seen," Strata, Julyl August 1998, p 13).
Following Time's lead, we reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the shroud to 1260-1390 A. D., no one has been able to account for the shadowy image of a naked 6-foot-tall man that appears on the shroud. With bloodstains on the back, wrists, feet, side and head the image appears to be that of a crucified man. The details - the direction of the flow of blood from the wounds, the placement of the nails through the wrists rather than the palms - displays a knowledge of crucifixion that seems too accurate to have been that of a medieval artist.
But two of BAR's savvy readers have objected to our assessment. The following articles suggest there is no reason to doubt that the image, as well as the cloth, was produced in the Middle Ages.- Ed (BAR)
Nothing puzzles and intrigues the sindonologist - the student of the Shroud of Turin - more than the supposed mystery of how the image on the shroud was made. "It doesn't look like any known work of art," they say. The implication is that its creation was somehow miraculous, perhaps caused by a sudden burst of cosmic energy as the cloth came into contact with the dead body of Jesus. But in fact, it is simply historical ignorance of what the shroud really is (or at least, what it pur-ports to be) that leads these people to wrongheaded notions. The Shroud of Turin is not, by definition, a work of art but instead belongs to the long and revered tradition of sacred objects that are at once relics and icons.
Such objects first appeared during the sixth century, in the Holy Land; in Greek they are called acheiropoietai (singular, acheiropoietos), which means "not made by human hands." They are called this because they are (apparently) contact impressions of holy bodies. They have become relics through physical contact with the sacred, and they are icons because of the resultant image; but in neither case is there (by definition, at least) any intervention by an artist.
Among the earliest acheiropoietai is the Column of the Flagellation, in Jerusalem. This relic (the column) appears for the first time in fifth-century historical sources, which describe its location in the Church of Holy Sion; but it is only in the sixth century that pilgrims began to see the image of Jesus' hands and chest impressed into its stone surface, left there, presumably, as Jesus was bound in place for the flagellation.
The most characteristic form of acheiropoietos, however, is the holy cloth. According to legend, St. Veronica stepped forward to wipe the sweat from Jesus' brow as he stumbled toward Calvary, and her towel already transformed into a relic through that holy contact miraculously retained the image of Jesus' face. Known as Veronica's Veil, the relic became one of the most famous acheiropoietai of the Middle Ages.* Another such cloth image (also generated by perspiration) was produced on the night of the betrayal, as Jesus prayed intently at Gethsemane. And then there is the Shroud of Turin, seemingly produced by blood, blood plasma and sweat absorbed from Jesus' dead body at the time of entombment (see box, p. 29).
Several reputed examples of each of these holy-iconcloths have surfaced over the centuries. At least three dozen cloths have been identified as Veronica's Veil, the Holy Shroud, and the like. In 12th-century Constantinople alone, there were two iconic burial shrouds and one Gethsemane towel, each of which was eventually destroyed. What sets the Shroud of Turin apart is not what it is, but rather how it, almost alone among its object type, has survived more or less intact to modern times.
But the more important point is this: The Shroud of Turin is not and never was a "work of art" in the conventional sense of that term. And in fact, were it in any way to look like a work of art-something made by human hands-this would imme-diately disqualify it from being what it is supposed to be: an acheiropoietos.
This is the catch-22 that sindonologists fail to appreciate: For the shroud to be the shroud, it more or less has to look the way it looks. Furthermore, the shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type. The single salient quality that these sacred objects share is that very quality that is so striking about the shroud-namely, a faint and elusive image seemingly pro-duced by bodily secretions.
How is it, finally, that we know for certain that the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Without prejudicing the possibility that one or more among history's several dozen acheiropoietai may be genuine, we can be positive that this one cannot, since, according to its carbon 14 dating, it could not possibly have come into contact with the historical Jesus. Yet it would be incorrect to view the Shroud of Turin as just another icon, because it was very clearly, very self-consciously doctored in order to become what millions, until recently, have taken it to be: an image not made by human hands. And these, unlike icons, can only be one of a kind.
The Shroud of Turin was created to deceive. It was manufactured at a time, in western Europe especially, when relics meant pilgrimage and pilgrimage meant money. The competition for both, among rival cities and towns, was intense. And stealing and forgery were both part of the business.
It was also a time when the material remains of Jesus' Passion were very much in vogue, when St. Louis would build Ste. Chapelle solely to enshrine the Crown of Thorns (which had recently been stolen from Constantinopole).
A contemporary model will help us understand this culture in which the blood and gore of Jesus' death carried intense spiritual power. Although Emperor Constantine outlawed crucifixion in 315 AD, the practice as a form of piety-was never com-pletely abandoned. To this day, some members of a lay confraternity of Spanish American Catholics in northern New Mexico, called the Penitentes, are said to practice various forms of extreme body mortification during Holy Week, including self-crucifixion. Thus, the Penitentes understand the physical reality of crucifixion as few before them have. The Penitentes are also known for their artwork; most characteristic are their carved wooden crucifixes, painted blue, which incorporate their firsthand knowledge of crucifixion-specifically, the knowledge that the body eventually turns blue from suffocation.
The carbon 14 dating of the shroud to 1260-1390 A.D. brings us into the world of the Penitentes' patron saint, Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226), to his stigmata (the miraculous wounds on his hands, feet and side) and, especially, to the lay brotherhoods that his piety and his cult of self-mortification engendered. These Christians appreciated and understood Jesus' wounds in a very physical way.
This is the world of the holy shroud; these are the people for whom it would have held special meaning; and these, certainly, are the people for whom it was made. Just as the Penitentes understand the significance of blue-ness, these medieval Christians would have understood that the nails must have gone through Jesus' wrists in order to hold the body to the cross (although in medieval art these wounds are invariably in the palms). And their cult images would match this phys-ical understanding of crucifixion, even to the point of adding human blood, much as the Penitentes add human hair and bone to their cult images. All of which is to say that the indication of nail holes in the wrists and what some claim is the presence of blood on the linen need not add up to a miracle.
Knowing both this and the shroud's car-bon 14 dating of 1260 to 1390 A.D., it is worth returning, finally, to the place and time of the shroud's first appearance in his-torical documents. It is the year 1357, and the shroud is being exhibited publicly to pilgrims. It belongs to a French nobleman, Geofrey de Charnay, and is being displayed in his private chapel in Lirey, a village near Troyes, in northeastern France. The Bishop of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers, is upset because he believes the shroud is a fake; in fact, he has been told this by a man who claims to have painted it. Thirty years pass. It is now 1389, and Henri's successor, Pierre d'Archis, writes a long letter of protest about the shroud to Pope Clement VII. He recalls his predecessor's accusation and then goes on to state his own con-viction "that the Shroud is a product of human handicraft ... a cloth cunningly painted by a man." He pleads with the Pope to end its public display. The Pope's written reply is cautious but clear; the shroud may still be displayed, but only on the con-dition that a priest be in attendance to announce to all present, in a loud and intelligible voice, without any trickery, that the aforesaid form or representation [the shroud] is not the true burial cloth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but only a kind of painting or picture made as a form or representation of the burial cloth.
This was the true verdict-the correct verdict-from the Pope, issued less than four decades after the shroud was painted. And isn't it ironic that it has taken 600 years to get essentially the same answer-but this time from the offices of an international team of scientists?
When the Shroud of Turin went on display this spring for the first time in 20 years, it made the cover of Time magazine with the blurb "Is this Jesus?" In BAR, we summarized the controversy that has enshrouded this relic, venerated for centuries as the burial cloth of Jesus ("Remains to Be Seen," Strata, Julyl August 1998, p 13).
Following Time's lead, we reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the shroud to 1260-1390 A. D., no one has been able to account for the shadowy image of a naked 6-foot-tall man that appears on the shroud. With bloodstains on the back, wrists, feet, side and head the image appears to be that of a crucified man. The details - the direction of the flow of blood from the wounds, the placement of the nails through the wrists rather than the palms - displays a knowledge of crucifixion that seems too accurate to have been that of a medieval artist.
But two of BAR's savvy readers have objected to our assessment. The following articles suggest there is no reason to doubt that the image, as well as the cloth, was produced in the Middle Ages.- Ed (BAR)
Nothing puzzles and intrigues the sindonologist - the student of the Shroud of Turin - more than the supposed mystery of how the image on the shroud was made. "It doesn't look like any known work of art," they say. The implication is that its creation was somehow miraculous, perhaps caused by a sudden burst of cosmic energy as the cloth came into contact with the dead body of Jesus. But in fact, it is simply historical ignorance of what the shroud really is (or at least, what it pur-ports to be) that leads these people to wrongheaded notions. The Shroud of Turin is not, by definition, a work of art but instead belongs to the long and revered tradition of sacred objects that are at once relics and icons.
Such objects first appeared during the sixth century, in the Holy Land; in Greek they are called acheiropoietai (singular, acheiropoietos), which means "not made by human hands." They are called this because they are (apparently) contact impressions of holy bodies. They have become relics through physical contact with the sacred, and they are icons because of the resultant image; but in neither case is there (by definition, at least) any intervention by an artist.
Among the earliest acheiropoietai is the Column of the Flagellation, in Jerusalem. This relic (the column) appears for the first time in fifth-century historical sources, which describe its location in the Church of Holy Sion; but it is only in the sixth century that pilgrims began to see the image of Jesus' hands and chest impressed into its stone surface, left there, presumably, as Jesus was bound in place for the flagellation.
The most characteristic form of acheiropoietos, however, is the holy cloth. According to legend, St. Veronica stepped forward to wipe the sweat from Jesus' brow as he stumbled toward Calvary, and her towel already transformed into a relic through that holy contact miraculously retained the image of Jesus' face. Known as Veronica's Veil, the relic became one of the most famous acheiropoietai of the Middle Ages.* Another such cloth image (also generated by perspiration) was produced on the night of the betrayal, as Jesus prayed intently at Gethsemane. And then there is the Shroud of Turin, seemingly produced by blood, blood plasma and sweat absorbed from Jesus' dead body at the time of entombment (see box, p. 29).
Several reputed examples of each of these holy-iconcloths have surfaced over the centuries. At least three dozen cloths have been identified as Veronica's Veil, the Holy Shroud, and the like. In 12th-century Constantinople alone, there were two iconic burial shrouds and one Gethsemane towel, each of which was eventually destroyed. What sets the Shroud of Turin apart is not what it is, but rather how it, almost alone among its object type, has survived more or less intact to modern times.
But the more important point is this: The Shroud of Turin is not and never was a "work of art" in the conventional sense of that term. And in fact, were it in any way to look like a work of art-something made by human hands-this would imme-diately disqualify it from being what it is supposed to be: an acheiropoietos.
This is the catch-22 that sindonologists fail to appreciate: For the shroud to be the shroud, it more or less has to look the way it looks. Furthermore, the shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type. The single salient quality that these sacred objects share is that very quality that is so striking about the shroud-namely, a faint and elusive image seemingly pro-duced by bodily secretions.
How is it, finally, that we know for certain that the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Without prejudicing the possibility that one or more among history's several dozen acheiropoietai may be genuine, we can be positive that this one cannot, since, according to its carbon 14 dating, it could not possibly have come into contact with the historical Jesus. Yet it would be incorrect to view the Shroud of Turin as just another icon, because it was very clearly, very self-consciously doctored in order to become what millions, until recently, have taken it to be: an image not made by human hands. And these, unlike icons, can only be one of a kind.
The Shroud of Turin was created to deceive. It was manufactured at a time, in western Europe especially, when relics meant pilgrimage and pilgrimage meant money. The competition for both, among rival cities and towns, was intense. And stealing and forgery were both part of the business.
It was also a time when the material remains of Jesus' Passion were very much in vogue, when St. Louis would build Ste. Chapelle solely to enshrine the Crown of Thorns (which had recently been stolen from Constantinopole).
A contemporary model will help us understand this culture in which the blood and gore of Jesus' death carried intense spiritual power. Although Emperor Constantine outlawed crucifixion in 315 AD, the practice as a form of piety-was never com-pletely abandoned. To this day, some members of a lay confraternity of Spanish American Catholics in northern New Mexico, called the Penitentes, are said to practice various forms of extreme body mortification during Holy Week, including self-crucifixion. Thus, the Penitentes understand the physical reality of crucifixion as few before them have. The Penitentes are also known for their artwork; most characteristic are their carved wooden crucifixes, painted blue, which incorporate their firsthand knowledge of crucifixion-specifically, the knowledge that the body eventually turns blue from suffocation.
The carbon 14 dating of the shroud to 1260-1390 A.D. brings us into the world of the Penitentes' patron saint, Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226), to his stigmata (the miraculous wounds on his hands, feet and side) and,
DE
vote bnp
Florence Nightingale
Florence Nightingale was a legend in her lifetime but the Crimean War years which made her famous were just two out of a life of ninety years.
Early Years
Florence Nightingale was born in Italy on 12 May 1820 and was named Florence after the city where she was born. Her parents, William Edward and Frances Nightingale were a wealthy couple, who had toured Europe for two years on their honeymoon. During their travels their first daughter, Parthenope, was born in Naples (Parthenope being the Greek name for the ancient city), followed one year later by Florence. On returning to England the Nightingales divided their time between two homes. In the summer months they lived at Lea Hurst in Derbyshire, moving to Embley in Hampshire for the winter. Lea Hurst is now a retirement home and Embley is now a school.
Call From God
Florence and Parthenope were taught at home by their Cambridge University educated father. Florence was an academic child, while her sister excelled at painting and needlework. Florence grew up to be a lively and attractive young woman, admired in the family's social circle and she was expected to make a good marriage, but Florence had other concerns. In 1837, whilst in the gardens at Embley, Florence had what she described as her 'calling'. Florence heard the voice of God calling her to do his work, but at this time she had no idea what that work would be. Florence Nightingale with owl
The years of struggle and the visit to Kaiserswerth
Florence developed an interest in the social questions of the day, made visits to the homes of the sick in the local villages and began to investigate hospitals and nursing. Her parents refused to allow her to become a nurse as in the mid-nineteenth century it was not considered a suitable profession for a well educated woman. While the family conflicts over Florence's future remained unresolved it was decided that Florence would tour Europe with some family friends, Charles and Selina Bracebridge. The three travelled to Italy, Egypt and Greece, returning in July 1850 through Germany where they visited Pastor Theodor Fliedner's hospital and school for deaconesses at Kaiserswerth, near Dusseldorf. The following year Florence Nightingale returned to Kaiserswerth and undertook three months nursing training, which enabled her to take a vacancy as Superintendent of the Establishment for Gentlewomen during illness at No. 1 Harley Street, London in 1853.
The Crimean War
In March 1854 Britain, France and Turkey declared war on Russia. The allies defeated the Russians at the battle of the Alma in September but reports in The Times criticised the British medical facilities for the wounded. In response, Sidney Herbert, the Minister at War, who knew Florence Nightingale socially and through her work at Harley Street, appointed her to oversee the introduction of female nurses into the military hospitals in Turkey. On 4 November 1854, Florence Nightingale arrived at the Barrack Hospital in Scutari, a suburb on the Asian side of Constantinople, with the party of 38 nurses. Initially the doctors did not want the nurses there and did not ask for their help, but within ten days fresh casualties arrived from the battle of Inkermann and the nurses were fully stretched.
Floren Nightingale 1856
The 'Lady-in-Chief', as Florence was called, wrote home on behalf of the soldiers. She acted as a banker, sending the men's wages home to their families, and introduced reading rooms to the hospital. In return she gained the undying respect of the British soldiers. The introduction of female nurses to the military hospitals was an outstanding success, and to show the nation's gratitude for Florence Nightingale's hard work a public subscription was organised in November 1855. The money collected was to enable Florence Nightingale to continue her reform of nursing in the civil hospitals of Britain.
When Florence Nightingale returned from the Crimean War in August 1856, four months after the peace treaty was signed, she hid herself away from the public's attention. In November 1856 Miss Nightingale took a hotel room in London which became the centre for the campaign for a Royal Commission to investigate the health of the British Army. When Sidney Herbert was appointed chairman, she continued as a driving force behind the scenes.
For her contribution to Army statistics and comparative hospital statistics in 1860 Florence Nightingale became the first woman to be elected a fellow of the Statistical Society. In 1865 she settled at 10 South Street, Mayfair, in the West End of London and apart from occasional visits to Embley, Lea Hurst and to her sister at Claydon House she lived there until her death.
Nightingale Training School for Nurses
Florence Nightingale's greatest achievement was to raise nursing to the level of a respectable profession for women. In 1860, with the public subscriptions of the Nightingale Fund, she established the Nightingale Training School for nurses at St Thomas' Hospital. Mrs Sarah Wardroper, Matron at St Thomas', became the head of the new school. The probationer nurses received a year's training which included some lectures but was mainly practical ward work under the supervision of the ward sister. "Miss Nightingale", as she was always called by the nurses, scrutinised the probationers' ward diaries and reports.
From 1872 Florence Nightingale devoted closer attention to the organisation of the School and almost annually for the next thirty years she wrote an open letter to the nurses and probationers giving advice and encouragement. On completion of training Florence Nightingale gave the nurses books and invited them to tea. Once trained the nurses were sent to staff hospitals in Britain and abroad and to established nursing training schools on the Nightingale model. In 1860 her best known work, Notes on Nursing, was published. It laid down the principles of nursing: careful observation and sensitivity to the patient's needs. Notes on Nursing has been translated into eleven foreign languages and is still in print today.
Public Health
Florence Nightingale's writings on hospital planning and organisation had a profound effect in England and across the world. Miss Nightingale was the principal advocate of the 'pavilion' plan for hospitals in Britain.
Like her friend, the public health reformer Edwin Chadwick, Florence Nightingale believed that infection arose spontaneously in dirty and poorly ventilated places. This mistaken belief nevertheless led to improvements in hygiene and healthier living and working environments. Florence Nightingale also advised and supported William Rathbone in the development of district nursing in Liverpool and many Nightingale trained nurses became pioneers in this field.
Old Age
Although Florence Nightingale was bedridden for many years, she campaigned tirelessly to improve health standards, publishing 200 books, reports and pamphlets. In recognition of her hard work Queen Victoria awarded Miss Nightingale the Royal Red Cross in 1883. In her old age she received many honours, including the Order of Merit (1907), becoming the first woman to receive it. Florence Nightingale died at home at the age of 90 on 13 August 1910 and, according to her wishes, she was buried at St Margaret's, East Wellow, near her parent's home, Embley Park in Hampshire. Florence Nightingale's farsighted reforms have influenced the nature of modern health care and her writings continue to be a resource for nurses, health managers and planners.
Florence Nightingale was a legend in her lifetime but the Crimean War years which made her famous were just two out of a life of ninety years.
Early Years
Florence Nightingale was born in Italy on 12 May 1820 and was named Florence after the city where she was born. Her parents, William Edward and Frances Nightingale were a wealthy couple, who had toured Europe for two years on their honeymoon. During their travels their first daughter, Parthenope, was born in Naples (Parthenope being the Greek name for the ancient city), followed one year later by Florence. On returning to England the Nightingales divided their time between two homes. In the summer months they lived at Lea Hurst in Derbyshire, moving to Embley in Hampshire for the winter. Lea Hurst is now a retirement home and Embley is now a school.
Call From God
Florence and Parthenope were taught at home by their Cambridge University educated father. Florence was an academic child, while her sister excelled at painting and needlework. Florence grew up to be a lively and attractive young woman, admired in the family's social circle and she was expected to make a good marriage, but Florence had other concerns. In 1837, whilst in the gardens at Embley, Florence had what she described as her 'calling'. Florence heard the voice of God calling her to do his work, but at this time she had no idea what that work would be. Florence Nightingale with owl
The years of struggle and the visit to Kaiserswerth
Florence developed an interest in the social questions of the day, made visits to the homes of the sick in the local villages and began to investigate hospitals and nursing. Her parents refused to allow her to become a nurse as in the mid-nineteenth century it was not considered a suitable profession for a well educated woman. While the family conflicts over Florence's future remained unresolved it was decided that Florence would tour Europe with some family friends, Charles and Selina Bracebridge. The three travelled to Italy, Egypt and Greece, returning in July 1850 through Germany where they visited Pastor Theodor Fliedner's hospital and school for deaconesses at Kaiserswerth, near Dusseldorf. The following year Florence Nightingale returned to Kaiserswerth and undertook three months nursing training, which enabled her to take a vacancy as Superintendent of the Establishment for Gentlewomen during illness at No. 1 Harley Street, London in 1853.
The Crimean War
In March 1854 Britain, France and Turkey declared war on Russia. The allies defeated the Russians at the battle of the Alma in September but reports in The Times criticised the British medical facilities for the wounded. In response, Sidney Herbert, the Minister at War, who knew Florence Nightingale socially and through her work at Harley Street, appointed her to oversee the introduction of female nurses into the military hospitals in Turkey. On 4 November 1854, Florence Nightingale arrived at the Barrack Hospital in Scutari, a suburb on the Asian side of Constantinople, with the party of 38 nurses. Initially the doctors did not want the nurses there and did not ask for their help, but within ten days fresh casualties arrived from the battle of Inkermann and the nurses were fully stretched.
Floren Nightingale 1856
The 'Lady-in-Chief', as Florence was called, wrote home on behalf of the soldiers. She acted as a banker, sending the men's wages home to their families, and introduced reading rooms to the hospital. In return she gained the undying respect of the British soldiers. The introduction of female nurses to the military hospitals was an outstanding success, and to show the nation's gratitude for Florence Nightingale's hard work a public subscription was organised in November 1855. The money collected was to enable Florence Nightingale to continue her reform of nursing in the civil hospitals of Britain.
When Florence Nightingale returned from the Crimean War in August 1856, four months after the peace treaty was signed, she hid herself away from the public's attention. In November 1856 Miss Nightingale took a hotel room in London which became the centre for the campaign for a Royal Commission to investigate the health of the British Army. When Sidney Herbert was appointed chairman, she continued as a driving force behind the scenes.
For her contribution to Army statistics and comparative hospital statistics in 1860 Florence Nightingale became the first woman to be elected a fellow of the Statistical Society. In 1865 she settled at 10 South Street, Mayfair, in the West End of London and apart from occasional visits to Embley, Lea Hurst and to her sister at Claydon House she lived there until her death.
Nightingale Training School for Nurses
Florence Nightingale's greatest achievement was to raise nursing to the level of a respectable profession for women. In 1860, with the public subscriptions of the Nightingale Fund, she established the Nightingale Training School for nurses at St Thomas' Hospital. Mrs Sarah Wardroper, Matron at St Thomas', became the head of the new school. The probationer nurses received a year's training which included some lectures but was mainly practical ward work under the supervision of the ward sister. "Miss Nightingale", as she was always called by the nurses, scrutinised the probationers' ward diaries and reports.
From 1872 Florence Nightingale devoted closer attention to the organisation of the School and almost annually for the next thirty years she wrote an open letter to the nurses and probationers giving advice and encouragement. On completion of training Florence Nightingale gave the nurses books and invited them to tea. Once trained the nurses were sent to staff hospitals in Britain and abroad and to established nursing training schools on the Nightingale model. In 1860 her best known work, Notes on Nursing, was published. It laid down the principles of nursing: careful observation and sensitivity to the patient's needs. Notes on Nursing has been translated into eleven foreign languages and is still in print today.
Public Health
Florence Nightingale's writings on hospital planning and organisation had a profound effect in England and across the world. Miss Nightingale was the principal advocate of the 'pavilion' plan for hospitals in Britain.
Like her friend, the public health reformer Edwin Chadwick, Florence Nightingale believed that infection arose spontaneously in dirty and poorly ventilated places. This mistaken belief nevertheless led to improvements in hygiene and healthier living and working environments. Florence Nightingale also advised and supported William Rathbone in the development of district nursing in Liverpool and many Nightingale trained nurses became pioneers in this field.
Old Age
Although Florence Nightingale was bedridden for many years, she campaigned tirelessly to improve health standards, publishing 200 books, reports and pamphlets. In recognition of her hard work Queen Victoria awarded Miss Nightingale the Royal Red Cross in 1883. In her old age she received many honours, including the Order of Merit (1907), becoming the first woman to receive it. Florence Nightingale died at home at the age of 90 on 13 August 1910 and, according to her wishes, she was buried at St Margaret's, East Wellow, near her parent's home, Embley Park in Hampshire. Florence Nightingale's farsighted reforms have influenced the nature of modern health care and her writings continue to be a resource for nurses, health managers and planners.
Tide In Mind Out
ct_thrash
- Mar 5, 2002
- 24,291
- 289
- 83
DE
vote bnp
Tide In Mind Out
ct_thrash
- Mar 5, 2002
- 24,291
- 289
- 83
Lordlucid
Warning: Contains Alcohol
Lordlucid
Warning: Contains Alcohol
Lies and Perfidy
Gentleman of the Road
It's not just you. My brain is all like "Man, I'd need a LOT of alcohol to remain interested all the way through that," and my liver is all like "No, stop hurting me!" So I scroll down.
