Fighting False Relics

A Review of
‘A New Document on the Appearance of the Shroud of Turin from Nicole Oresme:
 Fighting False Relics and False Rumours in the 14th Century,’
by Nicolas Sarzeaud, published in the Journal of Medieval History, 28 August 2025

I love a pithy title, don’t you?

A lot of historical research is pretty unrewarding. You set off to explore a pile of documents, probably in a language you don’t speak and a typography you can’t read, hoping to notice a single word that might relate to the research topic, and, mostly, not finding it. Progress is slow, and even it does lead somewhere, the end is not so much a triumph as a relief.

Every now and then, though, something new and valuable drops into your lap entirely fortuitously, and enriches some area of research with almost no effort on the part of the researcher, and that’s what’s happened here. A couple of scholars hoping to produce the first comprehensive edition of the works of a sadly neglected 14th century philosopher have come across a reference that sheds new light on a hitherto rather obscure corner of the history of the Shroud. Somewhat bizarrely the relevant passage has been translated before, in 1934, but its relevance to the Shroud was not recognised at the time.

Nicole Oresme was one of a breed of medieval natural scientists, dabbling in science, mathematics,1 astronomy and philosophy, and devoting attention to the respective roles of rationality and direct divine intervention in the workings of nature. In a series of four books Oresme looks at a variety of unexplained phenomena, trying to explain them rationally and deploring the contemporary trend of dismissing such things as divine, demonic or magic without adequate investigation. Book Four, ‘Problemata,’ explains that although God can perform miracles, and even sometimes does so in a way that seems, to simple humans, to be caused by demons if it suits his purposes, true demonic magic doesn’t exist, and can always be explained rationally, if we knew enough about it. Mind you, he thinks, quite a lot of ‘miracles’ might actually have a rational rather than a directly divine cause. Just because some good people, even clerics, claim something’s a miracle doesn’t mean that it is; sometimes they do so just for their own advantage. “This is clearly the case for a church in Champagne, where it was said that there was the shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Nicholas Sarzeaud’s paper goes on to explain the “case for a church in Champagne,” for the elucidation of readers who don’t know about it, citing three groups of late 14th century documents as evidence. Firstly the documents derived from correspondence between Geoffrey II de Charny and Pope Clement VII, secondly the correspondence between King Charles VI and the bailiff of Troyes, and only thirdly the memorandum of Bishop Pierre d’Arcis. The author deplores the authenticist concentration on this last to the neglect of the others. “Far from critical external or internal studies of the document as a starting point for analysis, these arguments aims to dismiss an inconvenient document never examined per se.”

The rest of the paper uses Oresme’s work and the new discovery as inspiration for a wide-ranging and scholarly philosophical exploration of the meaning and function of belief in medieval religion. Although Oresme’s work has a scientistic bent, he was only working at the lower levels of the ‘pyramid’ of truth as understood by the medieval mind.2 At the top, and generally unquestioned, was the ‘revealed truth’ of the bible (albeit filtered through the authority of the Church – no Protestant independence of interpretation here!), and then ‘authorised truth,’ also unquestioned, derived from the early Church fathers, whose authorised works were almost as prescribed as the books of the bible itself. Below that came ‘authenticated truth,’ which was determined by scholastic investigation, supported by testimony (multiple written testimonies being obviously more secure than a single oral one, but the authority of the investigating scholar was what really counted). Lower still came ‘alleged truth,’ which varied in authority from universally accepted but not necessarily prescripted to popular, local belief which may or may not have had any basis in objective reality. This level included all sorts of folk legends, medical remedies, stories of miracles and demonic activity, witchcraft, magic and relics. These were common ground for a debate on rationalism, which surged in scholarly circles from widespread acceptance of the irrational to determined insistence on what we would call scientific explanation.

There being no mention of an imaged shroud in the bible, nor it having any demonstrable provenance, the credibility of the Shroud was clearly among the lower levels of the pyramid, and therefore a proper subject for such a debate. In using it as an example of a fraud perpetrated on a credulous public, Oresme was not particularly targeting clerical malfeasance so much as popular credulity and the danger of abusing it. Sarzeaud points out that inquisitions into dubious relics were relatively common (and the Shroud actually had two, one in 1355-6, and another in 1449, both coming to the same conclusion) although each had unique features, but the actual suppression of a supposed relic was very rare, because, at this low level of the pyramid, ‘alleged truth’ was at least a truth of sorts. Definitively to declare falsehood was very unusual, so the compromise finally arrived at in the case of the Shroud, to display the relic for pilgrims, and at the same time announcing it as a representation and not ‘real,’ was entirely in keeping with the philosophy of the day. Much of the correspondence regarding the 1390 ostentations was not about whether the relic was real or not – by now that went without saying – but how it should be displayed, and whether it had any spiritual value, specifically in terms of indulgences granted to its visitors.

Later, in his book, Oresme went on to distinguish even ‘alleged truths’ from downright falsehoods, by comparing genuinely mysterious occurrences which were given a miraculous rather than rational explanation, and falsities, which, also being given a miraculous rather than rational explanation, could be difficult to spot. Being a philosopher rather than a pragmatist enabled him to separate the two rather more clearly than those, such as bishops, tasked with the problem. Sarzeaud mentions that that the Aymeric de Peyrac, Abbot of Moissac, found himself in a similar dilemma when he determined that the Shroud of Caduin was a fake. In that case, he simply permitted its continued veneration as an ‘alleged truth,’ possibly because he had no information regarding deliberate fraud, or possibly because it was a popular devotion of the king.

In the two days since this paper was published, authenticist sindonology has responded entirely predictably, denying the credentials of Oresme, Sarzeaud and anybody else involved, declaring that nothing new has been discovered, demanding more precise details from Oresme, and generally spraying a smoke-screen of indeterminate incredulity to hide behind. However, I would like them to use the discovery to help them formalise exactly what they think of the d’Arcis memorandum.

From Dale Glover’s idea that the entire document, and its copy, were faked in the 19th or early 20th century (and demanding a radiocarbon test to prove him wrong), to the more generally accepted (by authenticists) view that d’Arcis was a liar regarding Bishop Henri, there is a whole spectrum of disbelief in the memorandum which Oresme has helped to narrow. By 1370 or so, and probably earlier, knowledge of the fraudulent friars of Lirey was sufficiently well known for it to be mentioned in passing, as an illustration, in a philosophical treatise unconnected with the event or the people involved. Although all the other documents connected with the Shroud assume that it has never been anything other than a representation, only d’Arcis, and now Oresme, tell us that it was at least for a time declared to be authentic, but that its custodians were found to have misrepresented it. Thus far, it seems, d’Arcis was telling the truth. The question now reduces to who had the authority and power to suppress it, and to declare the clerics dishonest. d’Arcis says it was Henri de Poitiers; authenticists say he was lying. Perhaps they’d like to suggest somebody else.

1). To the dismay of schoolchildren everywhere, he is sometimes credited with having invented the speed/time graph.

2). The pyramid analogy is from an earlier paper by Alain Boureau, one of the scholars working on Oresme’s complete works.

Comments

  2. Hi Marco,

    Lately I’ve noticed that your earlier comment on Sept. 6 mentioning that the 14th century French “hierarchies” (elite) “considered” the Shroud a “fake” may actually be an acceptable term, as far as I can judge. The word “considered,” meaning only believed or thought, though with some reflection, seems to fit the case. But please do not say that they “knew” it a fake, as Hugh did, even twice, in his original and sadly provocative blogpost of Aug. 28, and as Andrea N. implied in his related comments. Actually, even “considered” needs to be qualified with “largely” or a similar word. No one today can determine how many members of the French hierarchy were uncertain in the case or perhaps even believed the Lirey Shroud was authentic.

    Regarding your Sept. 12 comment, it seems that the dismissive word “conjecture” comes too often to your mind. Can you not distinguish between a possibility and a probability, between a remote possibility and a strong probability? Is everything less that 100% merely an undifferentiated “conjecture”?

    Also, you might wish to read up on the life of Geoffrey I de Charny, one of the noblest knights in all of 14th century France, greatly admired far and wide. He surely had the reputation to acquire respectable leadership for his new church in 1353. I’d think many astute clergymen from around France would have eagerly applied for the position. What a privilege it must have been.

    Besides, whoever the clergymen were at Lirey, they saw the Shroud up close and repeatedly. They could examine it, could inspect it, could see the image was not painted on. They were responsible for conducting the exhibitions there. They did not merely see it from 4-5-6 meters away, as we can surely envision the pilgrim audiences seeing it, including any informers sent down from Troyes to survey the situation skeptically.

    You also seem to shortchange the hundreds or thousands of scientific studies done on the Shroud or directly relevant to it in recent decades. You’ve already sidestepped here several of my previous examples of scientific, artistic, or historical evidence.

    Your tone seems rather absolutist too, Marco, with harsh word games or crispy either-or choices, almost ice-cold syllogisms, without understanding for the ambiguities often surrounding historical problems.

    As for things being “indisputably verified,” was Oresme’s single little sentence on the Shroud one of them? Can you document his evidence and proof? Not likely.

    I’ve never claimed with certainty that the Shroud is authentic, but you have claimed with certainty or apparent certainty that it is a fake. So maybe you’ve got the whole situation backward. Maybe you should look in the mirror, Marco.

    And as an agnostic, I’ve never believed that the image was created supernaturally, only that it formed naturally. So please don’t put me in that former camp – and especially not together with the most ferocious, fanatical, incessantly blabbering members of it.

    John Loken

  3. Hi John,
    what you hypothesize (intelligent and discerning clerics at Lirey) is theoretically possible but is another conjecture. As far as I know, there is no specific evidence to support this thesis. Furthermore, it contradicts the historical context of the time, in which the rural clergy were largely uneducated. Perhaps you’re thinking of the situation in the 19th or early 20th century, when being a priest meant being culturally superior to most of the faithful. In medieval rural villages, this was not usually the case.
    Regarding scientific studies, neither you nor I are qualified to discuss them. I simply emphasize an irrefutable basic principle (I hope I have to do this for the last time): either something has been verified and counter-verified, or it cannot be used as an argument.
    Naturally, everyone is free to act as if what hasn’t been indisputably verified has been verified. After all, this is the norm in the field of Sindonology. I don’t pretend to convince anyone who doesn’t accept this principle. I hope those who don’t accept it don’t pretend to convince me.

  4. Hi Marco,

    The point you were trying to make in the first sentence/paragraph of your September 6 comment here has unfortunately eluded me. Sorry.

    With regard to your second paragraph, I found it unpersuasive. Let’s start with the clerics of the little church in Lirey. Since the great and famous French knight/chevalier Geoffroi de Charny was the one who founded that church, he presumably had the influence to obtain at least a few intelligent and discerning clerics to serve there, not merely “simple” peasant folk.

    Then, your reference to “today” seems ironic, because the Lirey/Turin Shroud’s multiple unique and extremely rare features have not been duplicated in any impressive combination, even today in the 21st century, by numerous diligent scientists using very hi-tech equipment and after years of attempts.

    Your further reference to “just another fake” is very welcome. I made that very point, of reputed guilt by mere association with all the fake shrouds of the time, in my previous comments here. So thank you for supporting me now (wink, wink).

    The presence of blood, Marco, real blood, is indeed certain, on all of the areas looking like blood on the Shroud. And it usefully proves that those skeptics, including only a few scientists, who have claimed it is really only red paint were mistaken, or worse than merely mistaken. (However, I realize that, chemically speaking, we are not currently able to identify it precisely as human blood. But blood it certainly is, very degraded with age.)

    The silly blood flow experiments done by skeptics Borrini and Garlaschelli a few years ago were very flawed. And it is no mere “hypothesis” to say that a real human body, severely scourged and then nailed to a cross, would have moved a lot (shaking, writhing) in agony, or, when dead, been moved a lot by others while being taken down from that cross, thus creating meanderings in some of the blood flows, as we see on the forearms.

    Moreover, there is apparently no indication of any brush strokes in the blood stains. How, then, do you think it was applied to a fake shroud? One notion, in fact the only one I have ever read, is that the blood was dribbled onto the shroud from a bloody rag held just above the shroud cloth. That seems a far-fetched scenario. But that dribble method has been promoted by skeptics of the Shroud’s authenticity. Another problem with that same scenario is that much of the blood on the Shroud was transferred in a half dry, semi-liquid, semi-solid state, a gel sort of like honey. Please try that yourself and see how well it works. Then let us know. Thanks.

    John L.

  5. John,
    both on the basis of the testimonies (especially concerning the wounds) and on the basis of the artistic reproductions, we can agree that the image was sufficiently visible (if we do not want to say “clearly visible”).
    The new discovery is important because dispels all suspicions about previously known documents (position of local bishops). No one is above suspicion, neither the isolated scientists who support the Shroud’s authenticity, nor individual prelates. But today, based on the available historical documentation, we can deduce that, when the Shroud appeared, it was considered genuine only by “simple” people. I don’t care whether Oresme saw the Shroud or not: it’s clear that in the hierarchies the Shroud was commonly considered just another fake. As I’ve already said, this isn’t definitive and irrefutable evidence against the Shroud, but it certainly speaks against it.
    The presence of blood isn’t certain, but in any case, it doesn’t prove anything. As far as I know, the rivulets aren’t entirely natural: after Borrini and Garlaschelli’s study, sindonologists had to hypothesize movements of the body or irregularities in the skin.

  6. Hi Marco,

    It’s good to read your thoughts again. We may yet sort this situation out.

    You’ve just stated that you did not “express any opinion” about the 14th century “hierarchies” or authorities. But I tend to think you actually did. If you were neutral about them, that neutrality would leave either position, fake or authentic, equally valid. Surely you didn’t mean that.

    You also say the recent Oresme/Sarzeaud news “certainly isn’t good news” for Shroud authenticists.” Maybe not, but it isn’t very bad news, either. It presents no detailed evidence. Nothing. So I’d call it only slightly bad news, if at all. It’s really only repeating, and merely in a single sentence, the skeptical position of Bishop d’Arcy in 1389, though now sometime between 1370 and 1380, 10 to 20 years before d’Arcy wrote his anti-Shroud Memorandum.

    You label my statement about Oresme merely a “conjecture,” but I would upgrade that to a “reasonable deduction,” because Oresme inserts his sentence about the (Lirey) Shroud directly between his two other sentences about bogus miracles and bogus shrouds of Christ. It’s the only specific example he provides of either type of fraud.

    With regard to my comment about Geoffroi’s widow Jeanne and son Geoffroi II, you say, “we don’t even know what they knew.” But Marco, if they, or the leading clerics there in little Lirey, knew their Shroud was a fake, my earlier argumentation would certainly apply. Why not just admit that “fact” and then use the fake shroud as an icon to rake in at least a little income and on a regular basis. If only art, it was certainly very remarkable, truly astonishing art. And plenty of people pay to see the periodic Turin exhibits of the Shroud who are not believers in its authenticity yet still marvel at its mystery. So to me it seems clear that the Lirey group withdrew it for 34 years, till 1389, not profiting a penny from it in all that time, in order to protect its honor, believing it was authentic.

    You also say, “at the time, the image … was clearly visible.” I’m not sure how you mean that. Are you implying that it was thickly painted and that such paint later fell off? I don’t see any reason to believe that. Artistic copies from the 16th century certainly depicted the image as somewhat darker, because the artists wanted to display the form in an easily recognizable manner. Moreover, in the 500 years since that time, the background cloth has indeed darkened slightly, reducing the original stronger contrast between image and cloth.

    You ask if Oresme would have opposed the Shroud if its image had “appeared inexplicable.” But he never examined it, and no one back then had a microscope, so to him it was not inexplicable, but was presumably man-made. If we today had no scientific information about the Shroud – if, for example, it had actually been destroyed in the 1532 fire which slightly damaged it – we would certainly be obliged to assume that the major 14th century clerics were correct in considering it fake. But in fact it has survived, and therefore today we know too many scientific details about it to simply accept their word. We know the blood is real blood; the blood flows are natural in shape unlike every medieval painting; the body is both naked and life-size, a combination that occurs in no medieval painting or sculpture of Jesus, etc., etc.

    There seems to be no historical record that any spy sent down from Troyes by the skeptical authorities there to view a showing of the Lirey Shroud ever touched it or came close to it. It was apparently kept safely from the audience by a stage and guards as well. So, viewers only saw it from several meters away. Or do you think otherwise? And if so, why?

    Of course, the 1988 C-14 test result remains a very troublesome fact, arguing for a medieval date of origin. But Oresme and his fellow clerics in Paris and Rouen were not aware of that 1988 result, unless you care to grant them clairvoyance. So, what strong forensic evidence did they have against the Shroud in their time?

    John L.

  7. John,
    I have not expressed any opinion regarding the trustworthness of the hierarchies of that time. I am just saying that today, thanks to this new piece of the historical puzzle, we can reasonably deduce that the hierarchies opposed the Shroud. This does not prove the Shroud is fake, but certainly isn’t a good news for those who support the Shroud’s authenticity.
    Saying that Oresme was outraged by the fake relics is a fact; saying that Oresme “seems to have generalized from them and assumed that the Lirey Shroud must merely be another such case” is a conjecture.
    The argument about the widow and the son is also conjecture, John (we don’t even know what they knew). In any case, it would be easy to find counterarguments, partly conjectural but more straightforward, such as the following, which I heard yesterday: as we know, at the time the image on the Shroud was clearly visible. Well, had it appeared unexplicable, would Oresme (and the local bishops, I’d add) have oppsed it?

  8. Hi Marco,

    Thanks for your thoughtful comment. It seems to me a bit vague, though. Please read my eight points again and more carefully. You may find some of them more valid than you first did.

    Your 14th century “ecclesiastical hierarchy” may not have been as trustworthy as you think. I can easily envision only one or two of the elite, or a mere handful at the top, deciding against the Lirey Shroud, and all the rest obediently accepting their judgment. It happens that way in other organizations all the time, as you well know (with some dissenting voices only whispering to the contrary). Besides, Church clerics of the 14th century believed a lot of weird things. Even Oresme did.

    As I fully admitted, there were at least a few apparently valid reasons to doubt the Shroud’s authenticity in the 1350s. And as I’ve already said, I sympathize greatly with the clerics who did doubt it.

    It wasn’t “conjecture” by me to point out that Oresme’s full passage reads, “I do not need to believe anyone who claims: “Someone performed such miracle for me”, because many clergy men thus deceive others, in order to elicit offerings for their churches. This is clearly the case for a church in Champagne, where it was said that there was the shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ, and for the almost infinite number of those who have forged such things, and others” (from an IFLScience article of early September 2025 by James Felton, quoting Dr. Nicholas Sarzeaud).

    Oresme’s opening and closing sentences there have usually been omitted from the recent mainstream news media articles skeptical of the Shroud’s authenticity. He was obviously worried about bogus miracles and bogus “shrouds of Christ,” all of which were common in the 14th century. And he seems to have generalized from them and assumed that the Lirey Shroud must merely be another such case.

    Another thought I’ve often had, but don’t recall reading or hearing anywhere before, is this: If the little group of people in Lirey who apparently first publicly promoted the Lirey Shroud as authentic – the widow and young son of Geoffroi I de Charny, and the clerics there in the newly built little wooden collegiate church – knew the Shroud was not authentic, why did they not simply admit that “fact” in 1356, apologize to the authorities, make a contrite donation to the regional church in Troyes, and request permission to continue the showings while clearly stating during them that the Shroud was only a marvelous imagining, a speculative replica of the real one, now with a usefully evocative image of Jesus on it? An icon not a relic. They could then have had steady, annual income from such showings, though less income than a shroud claimed as truly that of Jesus would have brought in. Their “artistic marvel” would have run no risk of being forbidden by the higher authorities. So, why did they not do so? Instead, they waited 34 long years – which could easily have lasted 44 or 54 long years – before trying such showings again, in 1389. Meanwhile, of course, people died. Many people died. Most of the clerics of the Lirey church in 1356 were presumably dead by 1389. Geoffroi II, a mere teen in 1356 if I recall right, died in 1398, only nine years after the disputed 1389 showings. His mother Jeanne, the widow of Geoffroi I, did happen to live on till 1428, dying at a very ripe old age, but she surely never counted on living so long, considering the generally short life expectancy of the time. So, why not settle for a minor or modest but nevertheless steady and honest income over all those decades after 1356, instead of gambling for a dishonest jackpot with their “known fake” Shroud, a jackpot which, because the Lirey Shroud was so controversial, never came? Your thoughts on this situation would be appreciated, Marco. I remain puzzled. Grazie mille.

    John L.

  9. Hi John,
    even if someone here believes that writing history is a fantasy and manipulative activity (what is true only for “bad” history), the historical method is based on a fairly clear and objective distinction between facts, presumed data, and conjectures. Therefore, what we can say is that the newly discovered document, along with those already known to us, allows us to deduce that in the ecclesiastical hierarchies of the second half of the 14th century, the Shroud was commonly considered a fake. To transform this data into evidence supporting the thesis of authenticity, one must resort to conjectures. The problem with conjectures is that they can be used to support any thesis. That’s why sindonology is the realm of conjectures (as well as of petitions of principle).

  10. Hi Hugh,

    It seems to me, at this moment in any case, that, despite the claim by the author of the new Turin Shroud article, that is, Dr. Sarzeaud, and by his immediate supporters, and by the mainstream news media who have followed such unnuanced suggestions by him, this recently discovered 14th century information about the Lirey Shroud (later Turin Shroud, where it was moved in 1578) is ironically almost a best-case scenario for the Shroud authenticity believers (including me, tentatively).

    Why? Because:

    1) It was always highly probable that any newly discovered documentary source on the Lirey Shroud between circa 1356 and 1389 to be found in our times would come from the side opposed to the Shroud’s authenticity, since they were far greater in number and they certainly penned far more official documents during those decades than the other side in tiny little Lirey village did.

    2) The newly found passage itself in Nicole Oresme’s long unpublished book “Problemata” consists of merely a single sentence, no more. Very skimpy, in other words.

    3) That single sentence is devoid of any details as to the evidence used to judge the Shroud question then, instead being very vague.

    4) The sentence bears no indication that Oresme himself or whoever advised him on the Shroud subject ever saw the Shroud, although one English-language press service has recently asserted dishonestly that Dr. Sarzeaud “argued” that Oresme “is likely to have examined it” (see The Times, 8/28/25), which even Sarzeaud did not claim. And there is no evidence or any likelihood that Bishop Oresme in the 14th century ever traveled from his Paris, Rouen, or Lisieux locations down to distant little Lirey on a journey of several weeks there and back.

    5) Oresme’s sentences immediately preceding and following his Lirey Shroud sentence relate his concern over the very serious problem of bogus Christian miracles and bogus Christian relics in 14th century France, which were being peddled, sold for profit, by corrupt clergymen. That compositional factor strongly suggests, in the absence of better or actual evidence, that Oresme and others could well have judged the Lirey Shroud to be bogus merely through a “guilt by association” process, which is unfair, however understandable at the time.

    6) The mysterious provenance of the Lirey Shroud, a provenance undeclared by its 14th century owners in Lirey, would very naturally have raised suspicions among the higher Church authorities such as Oresme in the 1350s and later when they were confronted with the Lirey showings. Yet such secrecy would be very understandable if the Shroud had been taken from the Byzantine Empire in the 1200s in a manner involving very disreputable doings by the French crusaders. The little Lirey group would not have wished to get involved in a major tug-of-war over the famous Shroud of Christ with the current Byzantine emperor and the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Constantinople.

    7) The bogus healing miracles reported in the 1389 d’ Arcis Memorandum as having accompanied the showings of the Shroud in Lirey would naturally also have alarmed the higher Church authorities and made them very suspicious, yet would not at all necessarily mean that the Shroud itself was bogus. Countless good and valid causes throughout human history have been subject to exploitation by scammers or profiteers. It is simply a part of human life.

    8) It is well known that one major medieval objection to the authenticity of the Shroud, repeated by Calvin in the 16th century but surely also common already in the 14th century, was that the New Testament makes no mention of any image on the burial shroud of Jesus. That omission, however, has long been recognized as weak grounds for assuming the Lirey/Turin Shroud to be bogus, because a few New Testament passages possibly do contain garbled or veiled references to the Shroud (though not nearly as many such passages as some recent researchers claim). And verses 5-8 of Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John also seem strangely fixated on the burial cloths in the tomb, another very possible Shroud clue.

    And so, I might suggest again: The newly discovered Oresme sentence ironically seems to be almost a best-case scenario for Shroud supporters.

    John L.

  11. Are the two incompatible? My CV would fill a book!
    ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν αὐτῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε αὐτούς
    Cheers,
    Hugh

  12. Hi Hugh,
    You write that you are a GCSE Maths Tutor, but I was under the impression that you were in fact a Science teacher.
    All the best
    Patrick

  13. Well, you know what? I’ve had a look at James Hannam, whom I didn’t know, and Charles Freeman, whom I used to correspond with quite a lot, and was interested to find that although Freeman disliked Hannam’s book, he agreed with him about Oresme. It was Freeman, in fact, who introduced me to the Quem Quaeritis hypothesis for the origin of the Shroud, in an article he wrote some years ago in History Today. Anyway, I’m happy to reverse on this one, and have altered “not-terribly-important” to “sadly neglected,” which I hope you won’t mind.
    Best wishes,
    Hugh

  14. Yes, in the scheme of things. Historians of medieval science like Hannam and Falk put him as pretty much the pinnacle. The guy came up with detailed arguments for the rotation of the earth two centuries before Copernicus. He was a significant figure.

  15. You’re probably right, but in the great scheme of things? William of Ockham? Raymond Lull? Duns Scotus? Oresme is in Wikipedia’s top 30…
    And as a GCSE Maths Tutor, I of course respect his speed/time achievements!
    Best wishes,
    Hugh
    Oh, and by the way, welcome to the blog. I’m told it takes a bit of getting used to…

  16. Good review. But historians of science will probably disagree that the remarkable Oresme was “a not-terribly-important 14th century philosopher”.