Once More, the Shroud

Geoffroi de Charny would probably be almost completely unknown to modern audiences but for this strange bit of trivia: he gave us the Shroud of Turin.

Geoffroi died in 1356 at the Battle of Poitiers, having spent a life distinguishing himself through his actions (since he was a younger son who stood to inherit nothing). He did so well that, in 1353, he was able to establish a collegiate church in Lirey near Troyes. Bishop of Troyes Henri de Poitiers approved the founding on 28 May 1356, about four months before Charny's death.

In 1390, the then-Bishop of Troyes wrote that a cloth bearing the imprint of Christ's crucified body was being displayed there, and that Henri de Poitiers claimed it was a clever forgery made by a contemporary artist, and Henri had shut down the display. Now we get into a tricky timeline. If the bishop did not approve, why did he make no mention of it in his approval of the church? The document that establishes the church's foundation exists, but contains no mention of such a cloth as one of its assets. So when did the cloth appear? When did Geoffroi obtain it? It is tempting to say he found it on his travels and crusading in the East, but he makes no mention of it in his writings. Why not mention it as a primary asset of the church?

I mention here how it wound up in Turin, Italy. In the 19th century, in Paris, a pilgrim badge had been found that clearly was made for those who viewed the cloth: it bears the phrase ’SVAIRE IhV’(‘Shroud of Jesus’). It also bears the coat of arms of Geoffroi and of his second wife, Jeanne de Vergy, with the Vergy arms in the dominant position, indicating that she was in charge of the operation. Some speculate that this indicated the arms of Geoffroi's son, Geoffroi de Charny II, partnered with his mother. In later depositions, however, both Geoffroi II and granddaughter Marguerite stated that it was Geoffroi senior who acquired it personally, and not that it came to the church later.

An important facet of its story in France turned up in 2009, when a metal detectorist found a casting mold in the town next to Lirey, a mold for making pilgrim badges. It would make a badge nearly identical to the damaged one found in Paris.

It is odd that Geoffroi de Charny came across something so amazing and kept it quiet. Unless, of course, the family legend is just that, a legend, and Henri of Poitiers was right. Perhaps it came into the family's possession while Geoffroi was away at Poitiers and they decided to turn it into a money-making scheme for the cathedral church. Tests of the Shroud of Turin have yielded contradictory results, with various teams of scientists accusing the others of improper techniques or having a particular agenda to establish if it was a 14th-century work of art or a 1st-century miracle. As yet there is no definitive answer that satisfies all sides.

What exactly was a "collegiate church"? How was it different from other churches? Do they still exist? I'll explain next time.

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.