What's with the statue of Peter in St. Peter’s Cathedral?

Today I have been to Amersfoort to visit the local chapter of the Società Dante Alighieri. One of it's members owns a book titled La Patriarcale basilica Vaticana illustrata, the book that may have been the source for the sometimes cited Vaticano Illustrato II, because a publication with that exact title never seems to have existed.

Anyhow, section II of the book deals among other things with the statue we have been discussing. The book in passing suggests that Arnolfo Di Cambio might have used a bust of emperor Hadrianus (the guy who had the Pantheon build) as the inspiration for the beard on the statue of Simon Petrus....

 

Mioque,

Thank you again for all your hard work in chasing down Bob's wild goose.

Had you heard of this "sometimes cited" V.I. II thing before Bob brought it up, or is he (and the writings of Mr. Rivera on those 2 websites) the only "source" touting the existence of this apparently never-existent tome?

Mark

 

"Had you heard of this "sometimes cited" V.I. II thing before Bob brought it up, or is he (and the writings of Mr. Rivera on those 2 websites) the only "source" touting the existence of this apparently never-existent tome?"
I had never heard of Vaticano Illustrato before Bob mentioned it.

 

Well that "appears pretty exhaustive" Mioque...

How did you come up with the idea that Vaticano Illustrato II never existed?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hey Bob,

Here's an idea. Why don't you tell us where we can find a copy! Surely you want us to revel in the truth like you, so please, why make it hard? Just tell us where you got your copy so we can obtain one too. It's not that difficult. Oh please oh please oh please respond with that information.

 

Bob,

Or even (for the fourth, or is it fifth, time), your source for believing that it does (or ever did) exist.

Mark

 

"How did you come up with the idea that Vaticano Illustrato II never existed?"
2 reasons.
'Vaticano Illustrato' is gramatically incorrect Italian, suggesting that either the book was invented by a person who didn't speak the language, or that somebody bungled his attempt to quote the title of an existing work (s)he was referring to. That's why I have been digging up books with titles like Vaticana Illustrata, the correct rendering of such a title.
Outside of that one article that was repeated on several websites, none of the sources I have access to (the rest of the internet, all Dutch university libraries, all Dutch public libraries, the Dutch Royal library, the KDC, the libraries of the Società Dante Alighieri and the Vatican archives) even mentions a work with that title.

 

That's pretty "odd" since there are great number of italian documents already published using those terms.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"That's pretty "odd" since there are great number of italian documents already published using those terms."
Absolutely, but normally not next to each other in that form (ending on a -o) and never in this context.

 

So, Bob, what is the source of your citation?

Why do you not answer this simple repeated question?

What is your source of the citation?

 

Actually quite a number use "Vaticano" and "illustrato" .. so the linguistic argument that these words do not exist in the Italian language - seems "odd".

But "maybe" you mean that you found the document, the correct century and also found which dialect it was using and have found the dialect to be flawed - is "that it"? Some research? Some history?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob
Italian, just like Latin, German and in the old days Dutch is a language with naamvallen (no idea what the English word for the concept is). That is to say that the ending of a word changes depending on the function it has in a given sentence.
Now I can read Italian reasonably well with a lot of patience and a dictionary, but I can't write it, so the finer points of Italian grammar are a mystery to me.
But apparently Vaticana Illustrata means something like : the illustrated Vatican. Vaticano Illustrato on the other hand has no real meaning, because both words point to (an)other word(s) in the sentence and there are none.

 

So, Bob, what is the source of your citation?

Why do you not answer this simple repeated question?

What is your source of the citation? </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, how about an answer?

Several have asked you this question in one form or another.

How about it?

What is your source for the citation?

 

So, Bob, what is the source of your citation?

Why do you not answer this simple repeated question?

What is your source of the citation? </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, how about an answer?

Several have asked you this question in one form or another.

How about it?

What is your source for the citation? </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, having sent Mioque on a wild goose chase, I think that it is time that you either answer the question or fess up and apologize.

 

A. This is not my thread.

B. I did not suggest that MIOQUE trash the reference to Peter and Zeus - without first chasing down the documents. In fact - I argued that he should not do that. Making judgments out of the void of what he has not read - and what apparently you have not read - is not "the recommended" model.

C. I stand by that.

D. You don't seem to have done any research on this subject either.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob
"I did not suggest that MIOQUE trash the reference to Peter and Zeus - without first chasing down the documents. In fact - I argued that he should not do that. Making judgments out of the void of what he has not read"
So I did and found that you (probably by accident) supplied a faulty reference.

 

So, Bob, what is the source of your citation?

Why do you not answer this simple repeated question?

What is your source of the citation? </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, how about an answer?

Several have asked you this question in one form or another.

How about it?

What is your source for the citation? </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, having sent Mioque on a wild goose chase, I think that it is time that you either answer the question or fess up and apologize. </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, why don't you just supply the source of your citation?

What is the source of your citation?

We are waiting.....

 

Let me guess... MIOQUE and our RC bretheren have given up at the point listed above...

Hmmm. Makes me wish I had started this thread.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob
I consider your reference thoroughly trashed with evidence.

 

Mique - you have proven to be a consistently unreliable form of a "self-proclaimed" historian. Your efforts to "post as catholic-at-all-costs" simply downgrade your claims to be a historian.

Your claims to have "trashed" any evidence at all - based on actual facts/data are just silly.

Here are some facts for you --

#1. You falsely claimed that the statue of Peter originated with Cambio in the 14th century.

#2. I have let this go for a while - to see how long it would take you to "actually" do some "basic" historic research (from something other than a post card catalog like http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/a/arnolfo/ - which you seem to "rely" upon as "historic data".

#3. The fact is - Cambio could not "possibly" have authored a 4th or 5th century statue since He lived in the 13th century.

Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia that you might find "interesting" as the 4th "fact".

#4

"At Best" it shows that you have no clue who the 4th century author was.

"At Worst" it shows that you will make any half-hearted attempt to obfuscate and misdirect when it comes to the actual history of almost any RC topic.

We also have the "testimony" of some here who swear that this status is of 13th-14th century origin.

I did not start this thread - but I still find the antics of the pro-catholic posts here to be "light entertaining humor" compared to the truth.

In Christ,

Bob