Talk:Holy Thorn Reliquary

Comment

I should imagine you're watching this, Witty Lama.  :) Two questions: (1) Could you ask the curator which is the best dead tree source, and (2) Are you allowed to grab your digicam and take a photo? I stupidly didn't take one and I don't really want to get back on the train to London if I can avoid it. I see Victuallers has found one. Cheers—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you do talk to him, you could ask why the collections database dates it "before 1397", but the highlights page to 1400-1410, & which is right! Both links on the page. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see now, but they ought to align the two pages - change the highlights one I imagine. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

Holy Thorn Reliquary should be a disambiguation page. There are other Holy Thorn Reliquaries, see fr:Reliquaire de la Sainte Épine... --El Caro (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact there is a huge list of reliquaries with thorns, including another one in the British Museum, the much smaller Salting Reliquary. But I think, as the BM seem to, that in English the plain name can be used for this one without confusion. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added a mention & link to the list to the article. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dates

In the section "Techniques" is the text "dated to the period beginning about 1480 and ending about 1410,"  ??? Aa77zz (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I can't see the problem with that. Dating for all such pieces is uncertain unless they are inscribed with a date or their making is documented, which is rarely the case. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Time usually moves forward!! Ceoil 22:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. 1380 of course. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant

Good to see this make the main page. Well done John Victuallers (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Treasures of Heaven

The exhibition at the British Museum "Treasures of Heaven: Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval Europe" opens today (23 June) - see here. Aa77zz (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why it is on the main page today. Originally the main page blurb also made this clear, but most annoyingly someone objected at the last minute & it was removed. Johnbod (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The thorn itself

Has there been any attempt at analysis (radiocarbon, genetic, etc.) of the actual thorn inside the reliquary? Would be interesting to know if it's really from 1st century Palestine, or indeed if the one in there now is the one the reliquary was built for. --Jfruh (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Who raises whose hand in blessing?

In the current text:

On the right is Saint Christopher, carrying the Christ child on his shoulders, who raises his hand in blessing.

Because "who raises" does not come immediately after "the Christ child", the most natural reading of this would have "carrying the Christ child on his shoulders" as an interpolation, so that it is Saint Christopher who raises his hand:

On the right is Saint Christopher [...] who raises his hand in blessing.

But inspection of the image in question shows the Christ child raising his hand. I tried to fix this; but my amendment was removed as part of this blanket reversion. I had made it this:

On the right is Saint Christopher, carrying on his shoulders the Christ child, who raises his hand in blessing.

This wording is hardly ambiguous, and not misleading like the present text. Perhaps it should be restored? Noetica^Tea? 23:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As I have told you, I'm going to go through your changes when I have time. In the meanwhile, as you are "inspecting" (a typically pompous choice of word, I must say) the pictures, you might consider whether that part of the rear with the semi-circular top "contains" or "includes" the doors those figures are on - I think it was the same edit that changed from the former to the latter. Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

John, in fact you said you were "going to revert about 50% of [my] changes". Fine, of course. But you must accept that others will seek to improve on your work, too. Now, rather than address a carefully articulated question, you insult me: "a typically pompous choice of word, I must say". I invite you to withdraw that incivility, and to deal with the matter at hand.

Noetica^Tea? 00:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I will carefully review all the changes when the main page excitement has died away, and I have time. 50% was of course an estimate based on previous experience. I am happy with a higher proportion than that of most changes made by editors, as the history shows. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well, John. Thank you for letting me know what your intention is (which you did not do at my talkpage). I note that you choose not to withdraw your insult; I'll be content with your not issuing any more, and for you to note that such protestations often tell more about the speaker than about their object.

The figure of 50% I will accept as hasty (though I don't know what previous experience you refer to; if it concerns my own efforts, you and I have rarely worked on the same articles, and certainly not in the last 18 months). I can give cogent reasons for the changes you reverted in one hit, and for others I made. Rather than reinstate any of those changes just now, I'll wait another day or so for each reversion to be justified here. Noetica^Tea? 01:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

TV show

Nice article. Thanks for writing it. Just wanted to mention that I came here to read the article after seeing the object featured on a BBC4 documentary Treasures of Heaven, which also coincides nicely with the start of the British Museum exhibition (which was also mentioned). Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd missed that. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just in time to record the repeat - another one Sunday, plus i-player. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, well done...Modernist (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sainte-Chapelle

Why did you delete my reference to this site? What I added is hardly superfluous to the history of the Crown of Thorns from which this one came. No, thanks, is hardly an explanation. Does one get proprietary possession of an article in this website? Daniel the Monk (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The information is already in the article at a more appropriate place than the start of the history of the reliquary. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Johnbod you revert bone fide edits too often. See appropriate WP policies on reversion;e.g. WP:3RR amongst others---Sinazita (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because an edit is good faith, does not mean it is an improvement - look at the grammar FFS! Putting the Sainte Chapelle right at the start is confusing, since the reliquary presumably never went near the place. Changing "the king's" to "the royal" later on is clearly a destruction of meaning, since it would have been "royal" if built by any of the several royal dukes mentioned here. This is a featured article, & slapdash edits can't expect to survive. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about having the reference to the Parisian chapel in the history section as being confusing. Louis IX never went near the reliquary, but he is mentioned there, and the way you would have the article gives no idea about his having built it. That seems the logical spot to mention his chapel.

Also, "royal" does not apply to a duke, only to the king, so there is no issue of confusion with my phrasing. The phrase as you keep putting it is simply poor grammar. Perhaps slapdash is in the eye of the beholder. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That your "for which he built the Sainte-Chapelle to house it" is ungrammatical is surely not subjective. Your point re royal dukes is sheer nonsense, what is the Duke of Edinburgh then? See Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom, and Prince du sang, which is what these French royal dukes were. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Differences in the images

In the large image of the front it looks as though the thorn itself is shopped out of the image. The thorn is quite noticable in the detail of Christ but it appears to have been painted out in the large image. Am I seeing this correctly?--Adam in MO Talk 18:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I took all the images except the two full length ones, which you can't blow up much, but the thorn is there. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Inscription

The article currents gives the Latin description as:

Ista est una spinea corone / Domine nostri ihesu cristi

The BM web site here gives the inscription as:

Ista est una spinea corone Domini nostri ihesu xpisti

I know no Latin – but this image appears to have a very clear "domini" with a final "i". I don't understand the xp of the final xpisti. Aa77zz (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As for "xp", I suspect that's Chi Rho. Bencherlite^Talk 11:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly that's what it is, Bencherlite. (Compare the hellenised hybrid spelling ihesu.) As for the other issue, the BM transcription gives the grammatically correct form domini ("of the lord"), and the image at the BM site bears that out. Domine would be the vocative (for addressing: "O domine!"); that would be a strange and uncharacteristic confusion in the period, especially on a fine piece like this. Contrast the rather standard medieval corone instead of classical coronae ("of the crown"). That one is to be expected.

In short, I suggest that the exact BM transcription be used in the article instead.

Noetica^Tea? 11:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

By all means. I know I just cut n' pasted it from the BM site originally, so someone must have changed it without me noticing. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the wonders of Wikipedia is that all edits are recorded. In fact the error was introduced on 4 June 2010 - the day that the article was first created. See this difference. Aa77zz (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Actually I now notice that the "error" does in fact relect the current BM highlights page, which it was referenced to, and matches Cherry p. 9, except he has "Domini". Not the first time this & their other database have disagreed. Another version comes from Tait, quoted from an old Habsburg inventory, which may be the problem: "Ista est una spinea corone domini nostri Jhesu Christi"; I don't have acces to his description page at present. I expect the new version is right, & will mention the discrepancy to the BM. FWIW "xpisti" looks the best fit to the photos to me. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Scenes depicted in inventories?

I think the following sentence from the Patron section could be improved by someone who understands what it is trying to say. "A reliquary that was donated to the church had a better chance of surviving than the similar secular works that are only recorded in inventories, where scenes of courtly pleasure were depicted with portrait figures of the princes and their friends." JonH (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm open to suggestions, but the inventories contain detailed descriptions of the appearance of the objects, which were necessary to tell them apart. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holy Thorn Reliquary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615184256/http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp%3Bjsessionid%3DM2xWS5VZpY5tGtcbfMGvLGDcvgG9GHFWvLTKXyGRlGJ5f9nd2Qtd%21-163527394?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226033&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226033&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500778&baseIndex=0&bmLocale=en to http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp%3Bjsessionid%3DM2xWS5VZpY5tGtcbfMGvLGDcvgG9GHFWvLTKXyGRlGJ5f9nd2Qtd%21-163527394?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226033&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226033&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500778&baseIndex=0&bmLocale=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holy Thorn Reliquary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018024047/http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_mla/r/reliquary_pendant,_holy_thorn.aspx to https://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_mla/r/reliquary_pendant,_holy_thorn.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Holy Thorn Reliquary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318080408/http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_mla/t/the_holy_thorn_reliquary_of_je.aspx to https://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_mla/t/the_holy_thorn_reliquary_of_je.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151020072401/http://www.britishmuseum.org/channel/exhibitions/2011/treasures_of_heaven/video_holy_thorn_reliquary.aspx to https://www.britishmuseum.org/channel/exhibitions/2011/treasures_of_heaven/video_holy_thorn_reliquary.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)