Replies

Ah, it is good to have another historian to talk with. Hello. You wrote: "As a historian rather than a scientist, I trust contemporary evidence a great deal more than speculation and inconclusive tests 800 years after the fact."

I, too, put much credence in "contemporaneous" accounts. Regrettably this is a "contemporaneous" account to what? Only to a period in which the cloth emerged, in documented form, in Western medieval Europe. The Hungarian Pray Codex is also contemporaneous to an earlier evidentiary period. The Sermon of Gregory Referendus of 944 is contemperaneous to a period of the Shroud's purported existence in Constantinople.

As a historian, I am sure you are referring to the d’Arcis Memorandum claiming that an artist painted it. Knowing that this was a time notorious for its unscrupulous market in fake relics, the bishop’s memorandum seems to have a whiff of truthfulness to it. But objective historial analysis also mandates that we recognize that the relic marketplace may also be the basis for doubting the veracity of the memorandum. Pilgrims were a source of revenue and people were flocking to Lirey to see the Shroud rather than nearby Troyes and its collection of relics.

Pierre, interestingly, states that his intent was not competitive. Why? Did he realize that others were voicing suspicions about his motives? They were. Other contemporaneous documents attest to that.

Pierre claimed that his predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes conducted an inquest in which a painter had confessed to painting the Shroud. Pierre did not have first hand knowledge of this artist; the artist is unnamed. There is no evidence of such an inquest in contemporaneous documents.

Pierre stated that Henri had the Shroud removed from the church because it was a fake, yet other documents dispute this. According to other documents, it was removed from the church for safekeeping because of the war raging about the area. Thus the d'Arcis memorandum must be understood and assessed in the light of several documents of the same period and in the context of the political situation in the region.

At least eight documents challenge the veracity of the d’Arcis Memorandum. I'm sure that as a historian you have considered these as well.

There are other problems as well. All existing copies of the memorandum are unsigned and undated drafts. The copy at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris includes a heading stating that it is a letter that Pierre intends to write. It is definitely a draft with Latin annotations in the margins. It is unlikely that it was ever sent to Clement as no properly signed or sealed copies of the document can be found in the Vatican or Avignon archives. No document of Clement refers to it, suggesting it was never received.

Numerous classicist and historians find the document questionable.

Did you consider Bishop Henri letter to Geoffroy I de Charny, dated 28 May 1356; Did you consider the letter from King of France Charles VI to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 4 August 1389; the Report of the Bailly of Troyes, dated 15 August 1389; the Letter from the First Sergeant of the King to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 5 September 1389; Clement's letter to Bishop d'Arcis, dated 6 January 1390; Papal Bull of Clement VII, dated 6 January 1390; Papal Bull also dated 1 June 1390.

Have you read the historical analysis of historians Scavone, Dietz, Markwardt, Latendresse, Dreisbach, Guscin, Marino, Marinelli, Zaninotto, “Deconstructing the ‘Debunking’ of the Shroud,” 1999. Have your read Anti-Pope Clement VII's Brief to Geoffroy II, dated 28 July 1389.

Historians must be objective, comprehensive, and open to other disciplines including science and archeology. History is filled with documents. Once upon a time a medieval abbot, Columba (Columbanus)-- contemporaneous to his time of course -- wrote that he saw a Monster at Loch Ness. Shall we simply trust him? Some do.

Didn't mean to be so hard on a fellow historian.

Shroudie

Looks like you're a very concentrated specialist. :-)

Of course I haven't read all those documents. The very existence of so much controversy, however (not to mention so many surviving documents), as well as the players' alignments, tells me that this was primarily a political dispute. When you add into the mix the fact that Geoffroy went over the head of the Bishop to get the exposition approved, and that Clement VII saw fit to approve the cultus (with conditions), it looks even more political. And if we want to talk about revenue, the Shroud was fought over fiercely throughout its history precisely for that reason (just ask the poor canons of Lirey). Geoffrey's family was criticized for exhibiting the Shroud for profit and the sale of souvenirs (and Margaret de Charny was excommunicated for refusing to return it to Lirey). Add that Margaret de Charny on several occasions admitted that the shroud was merely a "representation" of Christ, that Clement allowed exhibition of the Shroud only with the caveat that it was a pious representation and not authentic, that D'Arcis's predecessor (and D'Arcis) stated that they knew the name of the artist who painted the Shroud, and that Chevalier's investigation (which is the reason we have all the documents) concluded that it was a representation rather than a relic, it creates more than a little doubt.

Color me still unconvinced.