Following the Shroud

I mentioned yesterday how Robert de Clari claimed, in his account of the Fourth Crusade, to be aware of, in the Church of St. Mary in Constantinople, the cloth that wrapped the body of Jesus. This was in 1204 CE. Many believe he was actually describing the Veil of Veronica. The link I just shared tells that Gerald of Wales claimed to have seen the Veil on a trip to Rome in 1199. That would make it very unlikely that Robert saw it in Constantinople just five years later.

On the other hand, desire for objects of veneration was so strong that it certainly led itself to scams. If all the slivers of the "true Cross" were assembled, you could build a boat.* For example, there are six images extant that claim to be the Veil.

In 1354, the knight Geoffroi de Charnay of Lirey in France declared that he possessed the linen cloth in which the body of Jesus was wrapped after being taken from the Cross. This begins the official history of the Shroud of Turin. There is no record of how it came into his possession. It went on exhibit in 1389, whereupon it was denounced by the Bishop of Troyes, who claimed it was painted and claimed the artist who painted it had come forth and confessed.

One would expect that the Church would be glad to have something like this object come to light, but Antipope Clement VII (1378-94) also did not support its authenticity, although he was okay with it being venerated as a representation of the actual burial cloth. de Charnay's granddaughter Marguerite in 1453 gave it to the house of Savoy, who moved it to Turin, Italy in 1578. It stayed in possession of the Savoy dynasty until 1983, when it was given to the Catholic Church after the death of Umberto II, the head of the House of Savoy (and last official King of Italy; his title ended 12 June 1946).

The original is rarely brought out for viewing by the public. Pope John Paul II arranged public viewings in 1998 and 2000; Pope Benedict XVI did the same in 2010. A replica is on display in the Museum of the Shroud in Turin. Tests and examinations over the years have produced different conclusions as to its age. There is a website devoted to shroud news.

But what do we know of Geoffroi de Charnay? Is there anything in his background that would support having such an artifact come into his possession? Let's talk about him tomorrow.

*Yes, this is hyperbole.

The Shroud of Turin?

Robert de Clari, a knight from Picardy, was a member of the Fourth Crusade, and wrote an account [link] of what he saw. Although his knowledge of the motivations of the Crusade's leaders is scant, he offers a "ground level" view of what life was like among the rank and file.

Constantinople was an amazing experience for him, and he writes about several of the marvels he saw there:

And now in yet another part of the city was another marvel. There were two images, cast in copper, in the shape of women, most cunningly wrought and naturally, and exceeding beautiful. And neither of the two was less than twenty feet high. And the one of these images was stretching out her hand toward the West, and there were letters written upon her which said, “From out of the West will come they who shall conquer Constantinople.”

And the other image was stretching out her hand toward an unseemly place and saying, “Thither” (so spoke the image) “shall they be thrust forth again.”

This seems prophetic, since the city was about to be attacked by the Westerners of the Crusade. 

In the northwest part of the city was a suburb called Blachernae. When the Crusaders attacked, they first breached the walls near there and made Blachernae their base. Clari talks about the Church of St. Mary and an object of veneration that was displayed:

But among the rest, there was also another of the minsters, which was called the Church of my Lady Saint Mary of Blachernae, within which was the shroud wherein Our Lord was wrapped. And on every Friday that shroud did raise itself upright, so that the form of Our Lord could clearly be seen. And none knows – neither Greek nor Frank – what became of that shroud when the city was taken.

The italics are mine. Other translations say "was raised upright"; that is, by a human, not elevating itself. Some like to assume that this was the Shroud of Turin, which would make Robert de Clari the only documented witness prior to 1354, when the Shroud was known to be exhibited in a church in Lirey in north-central France. Some historians think it more likely that Clari heard about (he never says that he saw  the weekly raising himself) the sudarium (Latin: "sweat cloth") of Veronica, the cloth she used to wipe Jesus' face as he trudged to Calvary.

Clari wrote in 120 short chapters, and signs off with a very honest statement:

...Robert of Clari, Knight, hath also caused the truth to be put down in writing, how the city was conquered; and albeit he may not have recounted the conquest in as fair a fashion as many a good chronicler would have recounted it, yet hath he at all times recounted the strict truth; and many true things hath he left untold, because, in sooth, he cannot remember them all.

I've never written about the Shroud of Turin. Perhaps I did not want to tackle the question of its "authenticity." At the very least we can look at its journey through history. See you tomorrow.

Placing Blame

Yesterday we looked at Geoffrey de Villehardouin's account of the Fourth Crusade and how he managed to obscure any culpability of his in the major decision-making that took the Crusade in so many wrong directions ethically. Just as he was about to get to the attack of the Crusaders and Venetians on Constantinople, he slows down the pace and reminds the reader of:

...those who sailed from other ports than Venice, and of the ships of Flanders that had sojoumed during the winter at Marseilles, and had all gone over in the summer to the land of Syria; and these were far more in number than the host before Constantinople.

Notice how he lets you know the the group in Constantinople was significantly smaller (so marvel at all they were able to accomplish), and the others group was so much larger (meaning if they had joined up in Venice then the Crusade never would have had the financial difficulties that led to these disasters).

One could argue that the larger group was the Crusade, rather than the smaller group through Venice, since the larger group managed to get to the Holy Land. Geoffrey assures you that their choice was sinful:

...for in that case would Christendom have been for ever exalted. But because of their sins, God would not so have it, for some died of the sickness of the land, and some turned back to their own homes. Nor did they perform any great deeds, or achieve aught of good, in the land overseas.

Geoffrey neglects to mention how many of his own company died from illness or warfare.

And well does this book bear witness, that of those who avoided the host of Venice, there was not one but suffered harm or shame. He therefore must be accounted wise who holds to the better course.

As it turns out, Geoffrey's is not the only account of the Crusade. A knight from Picardy named Robert de Clari was on the Crusade, and his account is understandably different, since he was never part of any high-level meetings and negotiations. He shows no knowledge of (or chooses not to cast blame on) other Crusaders who did not go to Venice. His account is that, upon reaching Venice, they simply did not have enough to pay the Venetians, and the Venetians—who he thought already decided to accompany the Crusade—then decide to ask for the spoils of the adventure to repay the price of the ships.

Robert de Clari also claims that he saw, after the Sack of Constantinople, a cloth that, from his description, sounds like the Shroud of Turin. I want to mention that tomorrow.