(19-02-2022, 02:06 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Following R Sale's comment about the Sacred Host of Dijon in another thread, I ended up with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. by the Morgan library. At ca. 1:12 they show a priest holding a host in front of a monstrance, which holds another host.
This is the first time I noticed that hosts can be tripartite. (There is a lot of damage to the miniature and both hosts are damaged, but it looks like they are marked with a TAU cross). The priest appears to hold a "regular" T-O while in the monstrance it is upside down.
This symbol was adopted by Carthusians, who were greatest promoters of Christian mysticism. Their symbol contains orb with an inverted T, and a T-cross on top. The caption below in Latin reads
[b] dum volvitur orbis[/b]
('The cross is steady while the world is turning. The Carthusians were greatest promoters of Christian mysticism. The image in the right top corner looks like Glagolitic letter S (SLOVO - letter or word, and the Word in mystical tradition stands for God. I also identified the 'castle' in the same corner as a Carthusian monastery, where in the mid-15th century the Swabian Carthusian Nicholas Kempf wrote a book Mystical theology. Assuming that the author of the VM substituted the Host with a symbol for Word, the monstranca in a shape of Glagolitic letter (word) SLOVO becomes very meaningful.
The words in the T-O image, according to my transliteration and translation are also related to Carthusian spiritualit: pray, bless, repent.
(19-02-2022, 02:06 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is the first time I noticed that hosts can be tripartite. (There is a lot of damage to the miniature and both hosts are damaged, but it looks like they are marked with a TAU cross)
That's very interesting, I had not seen an image like this before either. But I did come across a reference to this practice in this You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.: (198)
Quote:"Communion wafers were not just sacralized objects but surfaces available for writing and for signs like the Tau cross. The wafers could then be ingested--a symbolic as well as physical process--by the patient, who in fever cases could continue the practice as part of his medicinal diet."
About the tripartite hosts, I found some more of them:
[
attachment=6250]
(You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.)
[
attachment=6252]
(You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.)
[
attachment=6253]
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I was directed to all of these examples from this You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which goes into further detail about tripartite hosts (112). I didn't know that the tripartite markings on the host can be a reference to its "triple fraction" (the custom of breaking the host wafer into three parts)
Quote:"The elevated wafer can sometimes show a tripartite division anticipating its actual tripartite fraction..."
Quote:"The triple fraction symbolized Christ's threefold body ever since Amalarius of Metz first put forth the idea in the ninth century. According to the tradition as formulated by Peter Lombard among others: 'The part that is offered and put in the chalice represents the body of Christ which has already risen'...'the part that is eaten represents him still walking on earth'...'the part that remains on the altar until the end of mass signifies the body lying in the tomb, because until the end of the age the bodies of the saints will be in tombs'.
That last example is really special, it seems to turn an illustration of the last supper into a diagram. This is actually a great piece of evidence that the tripartite world had a eucharistic connotation: the tripartite host is in the middle, where the world is in similar diagrams.
(I first thought each apostle got a piece of bread with his initials on it but it says something like "this is my body"
).
Interesting picture when you look at it more closely.
Already noticed ?
The only person without a beard is sitting to the left of Jesus.
There we have again oil for the fire of all conspiracy theorists.
Is it perhaps Mary ?
Based on the novel The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
(24-02-2022, 08:29 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Interesting picture when you look at it more closely.
Already noticed ?
The only person without a beard is sitting to the left of Jesus.
This is one of the least special things about this image. John the apostle is usually portrayed as a younger man, with more feminine features. If I'm not mistaken, this MS even draws a golden eagle on his sky-blue clothing, identifying him with John the evangelist and John of Patmos.
See here for several examples: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
I tried to post these comments, screenshots attached, on your blog regarding this theory.
I may try to OCR the comment screenshot images and replace them with text.
We certainly disagree about the necessity of explaining all the details. It would be extremely easy for me to engage in creative writing and come up with a way to tie every single detail of the page to my views. I could do that in an hour if I wanted to. I don't want it though, since I feel like too many speculative details would dilute my explanation rather than strengthening it.
I would be curious to see what you could come up with in an hour and if you would end up tying yourself in knots or not. However, I imagine that you are a busy person who probably does not have an hour to spare. It certainly took me very many many hours of hard thinking and reflection and questioning and research to come to the precise interpretation of details that I came to and it was only recently that I settled on Vineyard terraces as probably one of the illustrations. I found the process far from being extremely easy in my case.
For me, it is easiest not to explain details. The fewer specifics that are explained it seems to me the easier any theory will fit.
These methodical differences are interesting.