Nicole Oresme, Mirabilia and Mistranslation

On 5 September 2025 Jack Markwardt and I met head to head on one of Dale Glover’s podcasts,¹ on the significance of the re-discovery of that interesting passage in one of Nicole Oresme’s treatises, concerning the fraudulent clerics of Lirey.

The tenor of the podcast was that I thought the passage was confirmation of Pierre d’Arcis accusation of fraud which he made in 1389, and Markwardt didn’t. This will hardly surprise anybody, but readers here are encouraged to check it for themselves if they want to be sure that I have not misquoted him.

This is the third blog I’ve written on this topic, and I don’t want to repeat myself too much, but on the other hand I’d like this to be my last and most comprehensive on the topic, so a bit of earlier information will be necessary.

Alain Boureau and Béatrice Delaurenti need crediting for bringing the new, or rather re-discovered, snippet of information to our attention, via Nicolas Sarzeaud, in the course of their preparing part of a very academic edition of Nicole Oresme’s works, to be titled, ‘Nicole Oresme, Écrits Métaphysiques, Politiques et Biologiques.’ Boureau is an immensely respected medieval historian, the author of over a dozen significant works on medieval history and the winner of two Prix de l’Académie Française, and has been Director of Studies at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris, in which position Delaurenti, an Associate Professor of Medieval History, has taken his place.

In the course of studying manuscripts of Oresme’s work, they came across a reference to the dishonest clergy of Lirey, which they passed on to Nicolas Sarzeaud, whose doctorate was also from the EHESS, and who specialises in European images of Christ, as catalogued in his 2024 book, Les Suaires du Christ en Occident, which has recently won the prestigious Prix Provins. Sarzeaud then consulted with Italian Professor Andrea Nicolotti, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Turin.

Between them, these four historians represent a formidable body of wisdom and experience on the subject of medieval ecclesiastical history, and although of course our own investigations should not rely on argumenta ab authoritate, it would be misguided to denigrate their opinions, especially those filtered through the strenuous review of their peers, without due consideration.

Let’s begin with the date. Putting aside the ridiculous idea that any evidence you don’t like is probably forged, which was mentioned in the live chat but not taken by seriously by Markwardt or myself, it seems that Problemata was written between about 1355 and Oresme’s death in 1382. Scholarly consensus suggests after 1370, with some debate about how long after. Markwardt would like to date it to 1377 or 1378. Both Oresme and d’Arcis were made bishops in 1377, and what could be more likely, thinks Markwardt, than that d’Arcis told Oresme his invented story at some new bishops’ get-together in Paris, enabling Oresme to quote it in his upcoming treatise?

Well, what Oresme wrote was:

Dico secundo quod non est mini necesse quilibet dicenti, ‘Talis fecit mihi tale miraculum,’ quia sic multi viri ecclesiastici deciperent alios ut oblationes suis ecclesiis offerrent. Patet hoc ad sensum de ecclesia in Campania ubi dicebatur quod esset sudarium domini nostri Iesu Christi. Et de qua infinitur qui finxerunt talia…

“I say secondly that I don’t need people to say, ‘So-and-so performed such-and-such a miracle for me,’ because many clergymen 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 of which there is no end who have fabricated such things…”

If he didn’t think it was generally known to his target readership – scholars at universities across the Latin West – it would not have been sensible to write that the fraud was “clearly the case,” unless Oresme went on to explain why it was clear, and what the case was. That it was clear without further explanation shows that Oresme expected his readership already to be familiar with it.

Furthermore, although d’Arcis could have known about the 1350s exhibitions of the Shroud even before he became bishop in 1377, he surely had no reason to make up the story that it had been withdrawn at his predecessor’s command, let alone that it had been found to be a fake. It was a cold case by then, and the idea that he made up the story to tell his fellow bishops over a bedtime posset at the Sorbonne lacks credibility. Markwardt concocts a scenario in which Oresme tries to find out about the Lirey Shroud, and contacts the bishop of Troyes, who happens to be d’Arcis, who feeds him his story, which he repeats in his treatise, but this depends exclusively on imagination and an unswerving belief in the authenticity of the Shroud, not on any evidence at all.

The Latin above is taken from a mammoth eight-volume study of medieval science by Lynn Thorndike, called A History of Magic and Experimental Sciences, in which, in Volume Three, several chapters are devoted to Nicole Oresme’s thought and works.² Although Markwardt proposed that Oresme was a ‘naturalist’ who didn’t believe in miracles, he failed to grasp the concept of the ‘pyramid of truth,’ explained in a previous blogpost, which restricts naturalistic exploration to those levels of ‘truth’ which were not ‘revealed,’ ‘authorized’ or ‘authenticated.’ Thorndike says:

“Although Oresme admits the existence of Demons as a matter of religious faith and accepts the miracles of the Bible, he does not hesitate to censure certain ecclesiastical frauds and certain superstitious practices which have developed in connection with the exercise of Christian worship. Not only does he accuse many clerics of excessive credulity, he flatly charges that many ecclesiastics have devised fraudulent miracles to secure offerings for their churches, as an illustration of which he mentions the church where there is said to be the sudarium of our Lord Jesus Christ. In another passage the classes, with the superstition that the weather changes more on Friday than other days, the faith placed in a cross made while the passion of the Lord was being read on Easter, or in a ring made from a penny offered on Friday, and on Christmas at the first mass. Such notions and practices are condemned alike by the Catholic Church, faith, natural science, and astrology.”

In his zeal to demonstrate his errant conviction that Oresme would naturally have been biased against the clerics of Lirey, Markwardt refers to the series of investigations in which the reference occurs as concerning ‘mirabilia,’ which he translates as ‘miracles.’ This is a mistranslation, as we might infer from the fact that two of these ‘mirabilia’ are baldness and sleepwalking! Certainly, all miracles (‘miracula’) are wonders (‘mirabilia’) but not all wonders are miracles. Lest I be challenged on how I know this – and Markwardt is very quick to jump on any speculation but his own – I refer the reader to an 11th century dictionary by Pappias the Lombard, Elementarium Doctrinae Rudimentum,³ in which he distinguishes the words like this:

“Miraculum ut suscitare mortuum.
Mirabile […] auriculas hominem posse movere.”

“It’s a miracle if you can rise from the dead.
It’s a wonder if you can wiggle your ears.”

Without knowing anything about Oresme, his philosophy or his works, Markwardt quite bravely tries to minimise the relevance of the little piece of text, but seems to misunderstand the nature of ‘publication’ as it applies to medieval writing. In suggesting that Oresme’s treatise was “not published,” but “found in his papers when he died,” Markwardt ignores the fact that we still have four contemporary manuscripts, in three different universities. No doubt there were more. A medieval treatise could not be sent off to the printers to get a thousand copies done by Tuesday, it was ‘published’ by being copied by hand and sent to other places, which might copy it again if more were felt necessary. It certainly doesn’t seem as if this volume was a best-seller, but it was certainly distributed. Oresme was both very well known and very influential in his lifetime. Markwardt’s supposition that the story of the Shroud was restricted to some kind of private correspondence between d’Arcis and Oresme is not credible. Also, Markwardt grants that d’Arcis might not be actually lying, as he could have got the story from somebody else and believed it. Well, quite, and it could have been true, as was apparently widely believed.

We have reached about 43 minutes in, and Markwardt says, of Oresme, that “three things are rather obvious.”
“1. He believes that the clergy in general, or a lot of the clergy, are liars.”
“2. He does not believe in the authenticity of relics.”
“3. He does not believe in miracles.”

Not one of these is true. If Markwardt had listened to my initial statement instead of dismissing it as irrelevant, or read Sarzeaud’s paper in the Journal of Medieval History properly, he would know that the problemata, within which the Shroud story appears, occur within that level of ‘truth’ which, not being apostolically sanctioned, was fair game for rational inquiry. Oresme himself, for over twenty years, and most of his academic associates were ‘clergy,’⁴ and he certainly did not write that he thought ‘the clergy in general’ were liars, and nor did he question the miracles or relics which were either substantiated by the bible or the church fathers, or, probably, Papal approbation, following Fourth Lateran Council Decree 62. Certainly he believed that some clergy, some relics, and some miracles were fraudulent, but the whole point of this particular passage is not that clergy should be disbelieved in general, but that they should not necessarily be believed solely because they are clergy.

What Markwardt says which does make sense however, is his query about what exactly Oresme thought the Lirey clergy were lying about. Was it that their Shroud was authentic when in fact it was a fake, or was it that they sought to enhance its reputation by inventing miracles to go with it? Oresme’s text, if I may paraphrase it, says, ‘I can do without people telling me they’ve seen a miracle, because even clergy lie about that, such as the ones of that church in Champagne where they say the Shroud was.” Thus one interpretation of the Shroud passage could be that the clerics of Lirey made up false miracles in order to attract pilgrims to a genuine relic. It’s a point of view but not one I adhere to myself.

Markwardt’s historical objection to the veracity of the d’Arcis memorandum rests on two documents and a political situation, all three of which I don’t think he properly understands. Here they are:

1). Ampliare Cultum Divinum

On 28 May 1356, Henri de Poitiers, Bishop of Troyes, wrote a general letter to his parishes and anyone who might read it, extolling the divinum cultum of Geoffrey de Charny.

It is quoted in Nicolas Camusat’s Promptuarium Sacrarum Antiquitatum Tricassinae Dioecesis (Catalogue of the Sacred Antiquities of the Diocese of Troyes),⁵ and it goes like this:

“Universis presentes litteras inspecturis Henricus Dei at Apostolicae sedis gratia electus confirmatus Trecensis salutem in Domino sempiternam. Noveritis quod nos visis et auditis litteris nobilis viri D. Gauffridi de Charneyo de Savuosyo et de Lireyo militis, in quibus et per quas hae nostrae presentes litterae sunt annexae, ac earum tenore attento diligenter, attentis etiam devotione et affectu dicti militis, quos erga divinum cultum hactenus habuit et habet de die in diem. Volentesque huiusmodi cultum in quantum possumus ampliare divinum, dictas litteras ac omnia et singula in eisdem contenta, declarata, et narrata tamquam rite et canonice prout per legitima documenta fuimus et sumus informati, acta dataque et concessa ac etiam ordinata fuisse, laudamus, ratificamus, approbamus, ac in et super eisdem nostrum praebemus consensum, auctoritatem et decretum. In cuius rei testimonium sigillum nostrum litteris presentibus ad perpetuam rei memoriam duximus apponendum. Datum et actum in domo nostra de aquis nostrae diocesis, Anno Domini 1356, die sabbati 28. Mensis maii.”

According to Markwardt [with some corrections by me], this means:

“Henry by the grace of God and of the Apostolic See, confirmed the Bishop elect of Troyes, to all those who will see this letter, eternal salvation in the Lord. You will learn what we ourselves learned on seeing, hearing, and scrupulously examining the letters of the noble knight Geoffrey de Charny, Lord of Savoy [should be Savoisy, which is nowhere near Savoy] and of Lirey, to and for whom [concerning which] our present letters are enclosed, especially of the said knight’s sentiments of devotion, which he has hitherto manifested for the divine cult [divine worship, see below] and which he manifests ever more daily. And ourselves wishing to develop as much as possible a cult [worship] of this nature, we praise, ratify and approve the said letters in all their parts – a cult which is [which are] declared and reported to have been canonically and ritually prescribed, as we have been informed by legitimate documents. To all these, we give our assent, our authority and our decision, by faith of which we esteem it our duty to affix our seal to this present letter in perpetual memory. Given in our palace of Aix of our diocese in the year of Our Lord 1356, Saturday, the 28th of the month of May.”

The crucial word here is “cultum,” which Markwardt translates as “cult,” and imagines that it refers to a special devotion of some kind. That being so, a “divine cult” suggests devotion to something connected with God or Christ, such as the Shroud, but excluding things associated with, say, the Virgin Mary, who is not, strictly speaking, ‘divine.’

Unfortunately for Markwardt, “cultum” doesn’t mean “cult,” in this or any similar context; it means “worship,” and the expression “divinum cultum” is a stock phrase meaning “divine worship” generally referring to the Mass. The letter cannot be interpreted as referring to any kind of special devotion, so far from being evidence for the existence of the Shroud, it is quite good evidence that neither the bishop nor de Charny knew anything about it. In May 1356, de Charny was in northern France with the King, and the bishop was in Aix. Given the outcome of the subsequent campaign, it is quite possible that de Charny never knew about this letter at all.

The translation isn’t Markwardt’s, of course; it’s by Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, an undoubted scholar but a rather fanatical member of the reactionary ‘Contre-Reforme Catholique,’ and ardent Shroud authenticist, who probably knew very well what he was translating and how to manipulate it.⁶

Here is a 14th century letter, in a remarkably similar style, from Pierre Courpalay, Abbot of Saint Germain des Prés [bolding mine]:

“Universis presentes literas inspecturis, Petrus divina permissione monasterii Sancti Germani de Pratis juxta Parisius abbas humilis, et totus ejusdem loci conventus, salutem in Domino sempiternam. Noverint universi, quod nos attendentes ex intimis et pietatis intuitu considerantes tenuitatem ac indigentiam vestimentorum fratrum nostrorum in conventu residentium, charitativa, diligentique in capitulo nostro generali inter nos deliberatione prehabita, voto et consensu unanimi, tam propter necessitatem, quam etiam propter honestatem ordinavimus, quod perpetuis temporibus quilibet monachus de conventu habeat unam tunicam de panno regulari et sufficienti, singulis annis in festo beati Remigii, et cum hoc unum par socularium regularium, in festo omnium sanctorum, ultra id quod solitum est dari ex officio camerarii. […] Et ne tam necessarium, charitativumque subsidium corporibus exhibitum a memoria futurorum excidat, divinum cultum ampliare cupientes, prompte ac devoto animo instituimus et ordinavimus de novo unam missam qualibet die ad altare beate Maria Virginis in ecclesia nostra per monachum celebrandam; videlicet in hebdomada qualibet tres de gloriosa Virgine, tres de beato Joanne Baptista, unam pro fidelibus defuntis. Qua omnia in scriptis ad perpetuam rei memoriam fecimus redigi, et ut inviolabiliter serventur, sigillorum nostrorum appensione muniri. Actum in capitulo nostro generali, in festo beati Germani, gloriosi patroni nostri, ut moris est, solenniter celebrato, anno domini 1323, mense mayo.”⁷

“To all who to whom these letters are presented, Peter, by divine permission, humble Abbot of the monastery of Saint Germain des Prés near Paris, and the convent in the same place, eternal greetings in the Lord. Let all know that we, attentive from the depths of our hearts and with a view of piety, considering the thinness and need of the clothing of our brothers residing in the convent, have, in our charitable and diligent general chapter, after deliberation among ourselves, by unanimous vote and consent, both for the sake of necessity and also for the sake of honesty, ordained that in perpetual times each monk of the convent should have one tunic of regular and sufficient cloth, each year on the Feast of Blessed Remigius, and with this one pair of regular socks, on the Feast of All Saints, beyond what is customary to be given by the office of chamberlain. […] And lest such necessary and charitable support shown to the bodies should be forgotten by future generations, desiring to increase divine worship, we promptly and with a devoted mind have instituted and ordained one new mass every day at the altar of the blessed Virgin Mary in our church to be celebrated by a monk; namely, in each week, three of the glorious Virgin, three of the blessed John the Baptist, one for the faithful departed. All which we have caused to be written down in writing for the perpetual memory of the matter, and to be preserved inviolably, to be secured by the affixing of our seals. Acted in our general chapter, solemnly celebrated, as is the custom, on the feast of blessed Germanus, our glorious patron, in the year of our Lord 1323, in the month of May.”

Another episcopal grant was for tithes in the diocese of Tours:

“Universis praesentes litteras inspecturis, Matheus miseratione divina carnotensis episcopus, salutem in Domino sempiternam. Sacrae religionis devotio nos inducit ut erga religiosos viros abbatem et conventum majoris monasterii turonensis, et ejusdem monasterii habitatores, affectum benivolum ostendamus, quos caritatis visceribus novimus abundare. Hinc est quid cum iidem religiosi partem cujusdam nemoris sui quod vocatur vulgariter Burcaium siti in territorio prioratus de Lanceio, nostrae dioecesis, de nove redigerint ad culturam, et eam propriis manibus et sumtibus excolant, cultum divinum ampliare, quantum cum deo possumus, affectantes eisdem religiosis donamus et concedimus duas partes decimarum totius dicti nemoris jam ad culturam redacti, et etiam in posterum redigendi, si forsan terras ejusdem nemoris alienarint vel aliquibus tradiderint excolendas. In cujus rei testimonium ipsis religiosis praesentes literas dedimus sigilli nostri munimine roboratas. Datum vanno Domini M.CC. quinquagesimo octavo.”⁸

“To all who to whom these letters are presented, Matheus, bishop of Carnot, with divine mercy, eternal greetings in the Lord. Devotion to sacred religion leads us to show a benevolent affection towards the religious men, the abbot and the convent of the greater monastery of Tours, and the inhabitants of the same monastery, whom we know to abound in the bowels of charity. Hence it is that since the same religious have newly brought a part of a certain grove of theirs, which is commonly called Burcaium, situated in the territory of the priory of Lancé, in our diocese, to cultivation, and cultivate it with their own hands and at their own expense; then to increase divine worship, as far as we are able with God, we give and grant to the same religious two parts of the tithes of the entire said grove now brought to cultivation, and whatever else may be brought back in the future, were they to pass on the lands of the same grove or hand over to someone else to cultivate. In testimony of which matter we have given the same religious the present letters strengthened with the strength of our seal. Given in the year of our Lord 1258.”

In neither of these letters, and there are a great deal more, does the phrase ‘divinum cultum ampliare’ refer to any specific devotion we might call a ‘cult.’

At Vatican.va, the official website of the Holy See, can be found the Codex Iuris Canonici, or Book of Canon Law, in which the phrase ‘divinum cultum’ occurs several times, never once implying particular devotion to a relic.

It has long been my contention that Geoffrey de Charny never knew anything about the exposition of the cloth in Lirey, whether or not he had brought it there in the first place. No writings from him, to him or about him ever mention it, directly or obliquely, and d’Arcis attributes the fraud entirely to the Dean of the chapel, and doesn’t mention de Charny. I believe the Shroud was first exhibited in his absence, in the last quarter of 1356, during which, of course, he died at the battle of Poitiers (19 September 1356).

2). Twelve Bishops

Another string to Markwardt’s bow is a grant of indulgences to pilgrims to Lirey dated 5 June 1357. He denies that twelve bishops would all agree to grant indulgences to pilgrims visiting a church whose senior clerics had been disgraced, but were still, nevertheless in office. However, when seen in context, it is apparent that the grant is entirely conventionally formulaic, as can be seen be comparing it to the dozens transcribed in Analecta Bollandiana, such as this one from 1296:

“Universis presentes litteras inspecturis, Iohannes prepositus sancti Iacobi Frigidi Montis in Bruxella ordinis sancti Augustini salutem et noticiam veritatis.
Noverit universitas vestra nos litteras venerabilium in Christo patrum ac dominorum quorum nomina sunt subscripta non cancellatas, non abolitas, non in aliqua sui parte viciatas, ipsorum sigillis prout prima facie apparebat sigillatas vidisse in hec verba:
Universis sancte matris ecclesie filiis ad quos presentes litere pervenerint, nos miseratione divina Basilius Hierosolimitanus archiepiscopus, Romanus Croensis, Ciprianus Bonensis, Stephanus Opidensis, Ricardus Esulanus, Basilus Calnensis, Petrus Pistoriensis, Andreas Liddensis, Salernus Thelesinus, Aymardus Lucerie, Pasqualis Cassanensis et Lambertus Veglensis episcopi salutem in Domino sempiternam.
Alma mater ecclesia de animarum salute sollicita devotionem fidelium quasi allectivis muneribus invitare consuevit ad debiti famulatus honorem Deo et sacris edibus impendendum ut quanto crebrius et devotius illuc confluit populus christianus, tanto celerius delictorum veniam et gaudia mercantur eterna. Cum igitur ad huiusmodi presulatus simus assumpti preeminentiam, cura debemus sedula anelare ut gregem dominicum nobis commissum sibi possimus acceptabilem reddere et devotum. Cupientes igitur ut ecclesia sancte Gudile virginis, beati Michaelis Archangeli et gloriose virginis semper Marie in Bruxella; Cameracensis dyocesis, congruis honoribus frequentetur et a cunctis Christi fidelibus iugiter veneretur, omnibus vere penitentibus et confessis qui ad dictam ecclesiam causa devotionis seu peregrinationis in festis subscriptis, videlicet Nativitatis Domini, Parasceve, Resurrectionis, Circumcisionis, Epyphanie, Ascensionis et Pentecostis, in singulis festis gloriose semperque virginis Marie ac in festis beatorum Petri, Pauli, Andree, Iacobi, Laurentii, Bartholomei, Symonis et Iude et Iohannis Evangeliste apostolorum, in festo beatorum Iohannis Baptiste, sancti Michaelis archangeli, Nicholai, Martini, Augustiniet in festis sancte Crucis ac in festo Omnium Sanctorum, in festis beatarum Marie Magdalene, Elysabeth, Katarine, Gudile, Cecilie, Agnetis et xi millium Virginum ac in dedicatione ecclesie prefate et per octavas predictarum festivitatum octavas habentium, accesserint ac in singulis sabbatis seu quocienscumque altaria prefate ecclesie devote visitaverint vel ibidem divinum officium seu verbum exortationis in festis sive diebus suprascriptis devote audierint, vel qui prefate ecclesie fabrice luminariis, libris, vestimentis, calicibus, campanis, altarium ornamentis seu aliis necessariis manus quocienscumque porrexerint adiutrices, vel quicumque facultatum suarum in extremis laborantes eidem ecclesie seu canonicis, presbiteris, vicariis, clericis ibidem servientibus vel mense Sancti Spiritus seu domesticis pauperibus eiusdem ecclesie legaverint, donaverint, miserint quocumque tempore seu procuraverint, nos de omnipotentis Dei misericordia, beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum eius auctoritate confisi, singuli nostrum singulas dierum quadragenas de iniunctis sibi penitenciis; dummodo consensus dyocesani ad id accesserit, misericorditer in Domino relaxamus. In cuius rei testimonium presentibus litteris in perpetuum duraturis sigilla nostra duximus apponenda.
Datum Rome apud Sanctum Petrum, anno Domini M°CC°XCVI°, pontificatus dni Bonifacii pape VIII anno secundo.”⁹

“To all who to whom these letters are presented, John, provost of St James, Froidmont, in Brussels, of the order of St Augustine, greetings and notice of the truth.
Everybody should know that we have seen the letters of the venerable fathers and lords in Christ, whose names are signed below, and not cancelled, deleted or degenerated in any way, and sealed with their seals as they first appeared, in these words:
To all the sons of holy mother church to whom these letters have reached, we, by divine mercy, Basil of Jerusalem, Archbishop Romanus of Croesus, Cyprian of Bonn, Stephen of Opidum, Richard of Esula, Basil of Calne, Peter of Pistorius, Andreas of Liddes, Salerno of Theles, Aymar of Lucerne, Pasquale of Cassis and Lambert of Veglio, bishops, eternal greetings in the Lord.
Our nourishing mother the Church, anxious for the salvation of souls, is accustomed to invite the devotion of the faithful with, as it were, alluring gifts to the honor due to God and to the sacred food, so that the more frequently and devoutly the Christian people flock there, the more quickly the forgiveness of sins and eternal joys are purchased. Therefore, since we have been assumed to this preeminence of presbytery, we must diligently strive to make the Lord’s flock entrusted to us acceptable and devoted to Him. Desiring therefore that the church of St Gudula the Virgin, Blessed Michael the Archangel and the gloriously ever-virgin Mary, in Brussels, in the diocese of Cambrai, with appropriate honors, shall be frequented and constantly venerated by all the faithful of Christ, all truly penitent and confessed who shall come to the said church for the purpose of devotion or pilgrimage on the feasts listed, namely the Nativity of the Lord, Good Friday, Resurrection, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension and Pentecost, on each feast of the glorious and ever-virgin Mary and on the feasts of the blessed apostles Peter, Paul, Andrew, James, Lawrence, Bartholomew, Simon and Jude and John the Evangelist, on the feast of the blessed John the Baptist, the holy archangel Michael, Nicholas, Martin, Augustine, on the feasts of the Holy Cross and on the feast of All Saints, on the feasts of the blessed Mary Magdalene, Elizabeth, Catherine, Gudula, Cecilia, Agnes and the eleven thousand Virgins and on the dedication of the aforementioned church and on the octaves of the aforementioned festivals, and on each Saturday or whenever the altars of the aforementioned church shall be devoted have visited or devoutly heard the divine office or the word of exhortation there on the feasts or days above-mentioned, or who have at any time extended their helping hands to the aforesaid church building with lamps, books, vestments, chalices, bells, altar ornaments or other necessities, or who, working to the utmost of their means, have bequeathed, donated, sent at any time or procured for the same church or the canons, presbyters, vicars, clerics serving there or in the month of the Holy Spirit or the domestic poor of the same church, we, trusting in the mercy of Almighty God, and in the authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, each of us, relieves him, through the mercy of the Lord, of forty days from the penances imposed on him; provided that the diocesan consent has been obtained. In testimony of which matter we have caused our seals to be affixed to the present letters, which will last forever.
Given at Rome at Saint Peter, in the year of our Lord 1296, in the second year of the pontificate of Pope Boniface VIII.”

Analecta Bollandiana Volume 44 contains transcriptions of twenty of these, and there are dozens more in other volumes, almost identical in structure and phraseology, and signed by up to eighteen bishops or cardinals. The point was that no individual was able to grant more than 40 days indulgence (again, as specified in Fourth Lateran Council Decree 62)¹⁰ for any particular act, so if a church wanted to award more (to attract more pilgrims), it paid for multiple bishops each to award his 40 days to the deserving pilgrim. So formulaic are these documents that we can be fairly certain that none of the bishops or cardinals signing these documents had ever even heard of the churches they were granting indulgences to, let alone any minor scandal that may have been associated with them. It is not beyond the bounds of credibility to surmise that the Dean of Lirey himself applied – and paid for – for this document, knowing full well that whether or not his relics were true or false, or even if he had any relics at all, the ‘Indulgence Mill’ at Avignon would neither know nor care.

3). Healing the Schism

Finally, Markwardt contends that since the Avignon Pope was engaged in delicate negotiations with the Byzantine Emperor regarding the healing of the Great Schism of 1054, he would not have admitted that he knew the Shroud was genuine, as no doubt the Emperor would have demanded it back, it having been stolen or illegally acquired. However, he has the situation completely the wrong way round. The Western Church had no specific interest in healing the Schism, and made no advances towards the Byzantines. It was John V Paleologos who offered to bring his whole empire under Papal authority if Innocent VI would only grant him military assistance to support his own side in the incipient civil wars, and against the Turks who were threatening to overthrow the empire. In this he was probably encouraged by his mother, who had been born a Roman Catholic (though she converted to the Eastern Church to marry Andronicos III). The last thing he cared about was the provenance of any relics the Western Church may have acquired, legally or illegally, from Constantinople. If he had anything of any worth himself there’s no doubt he would have surrendered it with alacrity, as his mother had done, while she was regent, with the imperial Crown Jewels.

====================================================

1). ‘Shroud Wars Panel Review (Part 20) – Debating the Earliest Medieval Document Just Discovered,’ Real Seekers, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gW4nOpz000.

2). Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Sciences, Volume 3, 1934

3). Papias, Elementarium Doctrinae Rudimentum, 11th century, digitized by Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum, at https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb00057500?page=212.

4). In the podcast, Markwardt said Oresme had become a clergyman only in 1377, when the King awarded him the Bishopric of Lisieux as a reward for his scholarship and friendship. Biologies of him, however have him studying theology from 1348, achieving his Master’s degree in 1355, and becoming successively Archdeacon of Bayeux (1361), Canon at Rouen (1362), Canon at the Sainte Chapelle (1363), Dean of Rouen (1364), and Bishop of Lisieux in 1377.]

5). Online at Google Books

6). In Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, ‘Superabundant Historical Testimony,’ Catholic Counter Reformation in the XXth Century, Issue 237, 1991

7). In Antoine Le Roux de Lincy and Alexandre Bruel, Notice Historique et Critique sur Dom Jacques du Breul, Prieur de Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Vol 2, 1868, online at persee.fr

8). In Abbé Charles Métais, Marmoutier, Cartulaire Blésois, 1890, online at Google Books

9). In Hyppolitus Delahaye, Paulus Peeters and Robertus Lechat, ‘Les Lettres d’Indulgence Collectives,’ Analecta Bollandiana, Vol 44, 1926, at archive.org

10). Fourth Lateran Council: 1215, at papalencyclicals.net