The D’Arcis Memorandum

(but beginning with…

USS Hugh M Farey

If any of my readers also follow Dale Glover’s podcasts on the Shroud, you will know that he has come to refer to me almost exclusively as Ultimate Shroud Skeptic Hugh Farey. It has become one of his catch-phrases, like “peer reviewed secular scientific journal,” “world renowned expert,” and “godless Atheist.” But I quite like it. The photo above is of USS Missouri, the last US battleship, which after surviving a couple of kamikaze strikes, was eventually the site of the unconditional surrender of Japan at the end of World War Two. I wonder if that’s prophetic?)

THE D’ARCIS MEMORANDUM

Anyway, a couple of recent podcasts from the said Dale Glover, albeit inaccurate and somewhat incoherent, have raised some interesting points regarding a dossier of medieval manuscripts now stored in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, specifically in the ‘Département des Manuscrits: Provinces françaises: Champagne’ department. ‘Champagne’ is divided into 158 sections, of which Champagne 154 contains documents relating to “Reims, Lirey and Troyes,” which seems a slightly arbitrary collection. Troyes, and then Reims, were significant towns in the governance of the Champagne region of France, but Lirey merely a small village in the diocese of Troyes; perhaps the unusual number of manuscripts relating to it justified its inclusion in the heading. Within Champagne 154 are 258 sheets of manuscript, of which Fol. 127 is described as “Pièces concernant le saint suaire de Lirey (depuis 1389).” In this case, the abbreviation Fol. appears to refer to numerous documents, including the one confusingly referred to as Fol. 137 in sindonological circles, being the celebrated D’Arcis Memorandum.

Before being lodged in the Bibliothèque Nationale, this collection was housed in Troyes cathedral, where in 1610, the historian, Canon Nicholas Camuzat compiled a ‘Promptuarium Sacrarum Antiquitatum Tricassinae Dioecesis‘ or Catalogue of the Sacred Antiquities of the Diocese of Troyes. He used the documents stored in the cathedral to compile a somewhat random collection of articles about the bishops of the diocese, various saints associated with it, and the foundation of many of its churches and chapels, including that of Lirey in 1348.

Folio 410 (each numbered folio covers two pages), almost at the end of the book, contains the heading, ‘De Fundatione Ecclesiae B. Mariae de Lireyo Tricassinae Dioecesis’ (‘Of the Foundation of the Church of the Blessed Virgin in the Diocese of Troyes’), and quotes various documents relating to it. Before doing so, after his introduction, Camuzat says:

“Premittam tamen et monebo syndonem seu sudarium quoddam, in quo Christi servatoris effigies impressa conspiciebatur, olim in praenotata Lyrensi ecclefia asservatum fuisse, ex quaquidem eductum est anno millesimo quadringentesimo decimo octavo ab Humberto Comite de Rocha & de Villari sexel in Bisuntina dioecesi…”

“Incidentally, I will also mention that a certain ‘sindon’ or ‘sudarium,’ on which the image of Christ the Savior was seen imprinted, was once preserved in the aforementioned church of Lirey, from which it was taken out in the year 1418 by Humbert, Count of Roche, from Villersexel in the diocese of Besançon…”

The Shroud is also mentioned in passing in a later document, which he quotes, but clearly Camuzat feels it is incidental to his main purpose, and doesn’t dwell on it.

Fast forward to 1898, and Secondo Pia’s photograph, which stimulated more interest in the Shroud than anything in the previous 400 years. As a consequence, another canon, the historian and Catholic priest Ulysse Chevalier, looked into whether the Shroud could be authentic in a little pamphlet called ‘Le Saint Suaire de Turin: Est-il l’Original ou une Copie?’ (1899) in which he quoted verbatim the work of Abbot Charles Lalore of Troyes, who had published a short history of the Shroud in the Revue Catholique in 1877, saying of Bishop Pierre d’Arcis that:

“Il établit que le suaire de Lirey n’est pas le vrai suaire de Jésus-Christ, mais qu’il en est seulement une image ou représentation et qu’il a été peint de main d’homme; d’un autre côté, il montre que toutes les cérémonies qui accompagnent l’ostension de ce suaire exposent les âmes faibles et ignorantes au péril d’idolâtrie.”

“He establishes that the shroud of Lirey is not the true shroud of Jesus Christ, but that it is only an image or representation and that it has been painted by the hand of man; besides, he shows that all the ceremonies that accompany the exhibition of the shroud expose weak and ignorant souls to the peril of idolatry.”

Chevalier’s work aroused a storm of criticism, so the following year he read a paper at the Sorbonne, and in 1902 a further paper at the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, both of which were published, including transcriptions of nearly fifty documents between them, of manuscripts and other papers relating to the history of the Shroud.¹ Among them were several from ‘Champagne 154,’ some of which which had been copied by the assiduous 17th century antiquarian Abbot François du Camps, and were also found in his collection, referred to as the ‘Coll. de Camps.’ Another source of original documents was the Archives de l’Aube, for some of which copies are found in ‘Champagne 154,’ although all these relate to the 15th century onwards, rather than the 14th.

These are the original documents from ‘Champagne 154’:
a) Fo. 128, on parchment, from King Charles VI to the Bailiff of Troyes, in Latin, dated 4 August 1389. Also a copy in the Camps collection dated 1616.
b) Fo. 129, on parchment, from the Bailiff of Troyes to “whom these presents may come,” in French, dated 15. August 1389. Also a copy in the Camps collection dated 1616.
c) Fo. 130, on parchment, from the Bailiff of Troyes to “whom these presents may come,” in French, dated 15 August 1389. Also a copy in the Camps collection dated 1616.
d) Fo. 137, on paper, from Pierre d’Arcis to Pope Clement VII, in Latin, undated. Also a copy in the Camps collection.
e) Fo. 138, on paper, from Pierre d’Arcis to Pope Clement VII, in Latin, undated. Also a copy in the Camps collection.

The second of the documents dated 15 August 1389 is a kind of post script to the first, adding the names of some of the people mentioned only by office previously. The two undated documents are the same, with slight textual differences.

Curiously, very few people have taken the opportunity to re-examine any of these documents, preferring to rely on various analyses by Don Luigi Fossati (1920 – 2007), whose book, La Santa Sindone. Nuova Luce su Antichi Documenti (The Holy Shroud. New Light on Ancient Documents) contained some photographs of the relevant manuscripts. One commonly reproduced on the internet is this:

Although it is the first listed of the two documents 137 and 138, it is clean and without corrections, and carries an inscription, which Chevalier speculated could be in the bishop’s own hand, at the top. It says: “Veritas panni de Lireyo, qui alias et diu est ostensus fuerat et de novo iterum fuit ostensus, super quo intendo scribere domino nostro pape, in forma subscripta et quam brevius potero.” “The truth about the cloth of Lirey, which has was displayed previously some time ago and is now being displayed again, about which I intend to write to the Pope as set out below, as succinctly as I can.” This suggests that the other document (Fo. 138) was more of a rough draft, but that’s less obvious than it seems.

For a start, both versions are almost identical, in size, content, and calligraphy. The idea that one was a “rough draft” or incomplete is not substantiated by comparison. One, Fo. 138, has been slightly corrected, including having one and a half lines deleted, but that deletion is included in Fo. 137, which suggests that the one was not simply a fair copy of the other.

According to Jack Markwardt, “In 1993, Hilda Leynen discovered that two distinct drafts of the D’Arcis Memorandum were maintained in the Champagne collection of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, one very rough and containing bracketed words, and the other a relatively neat and polished product.” ² This is manifestly untrue. Chevalier actually mentions a phrase that was “cancéllée” with the word “va-cat” written above it in one version (Fo. 138), which he called ‘A,’ and says that other version (Fo. 137, ‘B’), is a fair copy (“mise au net”), of the preceding. Here are the two copies, showing the deletion. “Va-” is written just above the beginning of the strike-through, and “-cat” just above the end, which was a typical way of indicating omission.³

Nor is it true that one copy is any less complete than the other. Both begin with, “Seipsum ad devota pedum oscula beatorum, cum omni promptitudine debite servitutis” and end with, “Omnipotens utilem et neccessariam ad regimen Ecclesie sue sancte. Scriptum,” conventional greetings and terminations to letters to 14th century popes.

By writing his autograph as a header to Fo. 137, if it actually is d’Arcis’ handwriting, the bishop informs posterity that this is not the actual document he intends to send to the pope. It seems that a third was originally proposed, which, if it was written, was sent to the pope, but may not have been written at all. On the back of the paper, the ‘addressee’ side, are the words, “Magistro Guillelmo Fulconis,” who may have been the scribe delegated to produce the final document.

[In different, but similar handwriting, is ‘De panno sepulture dominice,’ and there is a more modern inscription below, in French, which says something like, “on the shroud which used to be in the church at Lirey.”]

According to Jack Markwardt again, “Leynen demonstrated that Chevalier had concealed the fact that his study contained a hybrid document comprised of the heading of the later draft mounted atop the text of the bishop’s earlier effort. Despite having created such a Frankenstein historical document, the Canon boldly proclaimed that the authenticity of the D’Arcis Memorandum was “beyond doubt because I found the notes for it separated a long time ago from the archives of the bishopric of Troyes.” This is untrue. As mentioned above, Chevalier had acknowledged the two different documents and noted their differences. Furthermore, in case people thought the document a modern forgery, Chevalier found a précis of it (not “the notes for it”), translated into French, in ‘Champagne 18,’ headed “Extrait sur le manuscrit dans le 4^o recueil de M. de P.” (Extract from the manuscript in the fourth collection of M. de P.), and two references to it in the Archives de l’Aube. The page in ‘Champagne 18’ looks like this:

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

The rest of this blog constitute a response to a couple of pages of a PowerPoint presentation by Dale Glover, who has popped up with the bizarre claim that the two papers in question, in 14th century Latin, in 14th century literary style and in 14th century handwriting, were actually written much later. This is part of a challenge to me to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is wrong, a challenge which I mentioned in a comment to another podcast was more reminiscent of a Flat Earther than a sindonologist. I’ve had an idea, goes the trope, and if you can’t prove me wrong I must be right. In support of his claim he has read, and largely misunderstood, a few articles on the subject, failed to check the primary sources, and come to bizarre conclusions of his own that not even the authors of the articles would support. Mostly all he does is misquote an article by Bruno Bonnet-Eymard⁴ and demand that I refute it, and frankly I can’t be bothered. Ludicrously, he calls it “a list of facts,” and claims that he has given me “a start.” There are eight numbered facts, mostly expressed in several paragraphs, and I am listening to a programme on the (UK) radio called ‘Too Long; Didn’t Read.’ Too true, BBC, too true.

Briefly then, here we go: bring on the big guns! Glover in black, me in blue.

1. “The ‘D’Arcis Memorandum’ as read and utilised by modern Shroud skeptics in the 20th and 21st centuries is not a real historical document that existed prior to the dawn of the 20th century. Instead, the text, as known to such skeptics today, is nothing more than the fraudulent invention of fellow Shroud skeptic Ulysse Chevalier, who, in the year 1900, amalgamated two earlier variant readings of the memo.”

I can’t speak for all “modern Shroud skeptics,” but since Glover knows hardly anything about any of them except me, I’m going to take on the responsibility of replying for all of them. He’s both wrong and confused. The D’Arcis Memorandum is a Latin text, existing in two almost identical versions, found in two 14th century manuscripts kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, in Paris. In 1900, Ulysse Chevalier transcribed both manuscripts into French, publishing Fo. 137, and making precise note of where it differs from Fo. 138 in 16 footnotes, most of which consist of single word substitutions (“et” in Fo. 137 compared to “ac” in Fo. 138; and “confingebantur” compared to “configebantur,” for example). In one case, he notes that a passage in Fo. 138 has been deleted, although it is included in Fo. 137. His text, which can be compared to the photograph in Luigi Fossati’s book, is not a “fraudulent invention,” and it is not true that he “amalgamated” the two texts. Glover goes on to mention Victor Saxer, Paul Vignon and Charles Lalore, without knowing anything about them. TLDR.

2. “The two earlier variant folio readings are the ONLY known draft documents (labelled Folios 137 & 138) of the D’Arcis Memo in existence. […] Both Pro-Shroud historians and experts Brother Bruno and Hilda Leynon found these two folios still maintained there in the early 1990s, so the two folios themselves were very likely not something which Chevalier forged himself, or made up (as he is known to have done in other cases).”

The idea that Ulysse Chevalier might have actually written the manuscripts himself, in 14th century Latin, in 14th century literary style and in 14th century handwriting, is obviously appealing to Glover, but the evidence against it lies much further back than the 1990s (see Chifflet, below). As for the parenthetical “as he is known to have done in other cases,” this is a lie. He is not known to have done so in any other cases. Not, of course, that Glover is a liar; he doesn’t know anything about Chevalier, so is probably merely quoting someone else.

3. “The very first time someone checked the Troyes diocesan archives from this era was by Canon Lalore, writing in the Révue Catholique du Diocèse de Troyes in 1877, where he made a similar presentation of the Memorandum of Pierre D’Arcis.”

It depends what you mean by “this era.” The précis in Champagne 18 illustrated above appears earlier, and is itself an extract from another collection of documents from even earlier still.

4. “Folio 137, the better or more refined and complete copy, has been photographed, and it is what you will find on a Google image search today; however, Folio 138, the rough, incomplete copy, has never been photographed unfortunately.”

Both documents have been photographed, and are readily available to anybody who asks for them. It is not actually clear which copy is “more refined and complete.” They are almost identical. It is true that a passage in Fo. 138 is marked for deletion, but the same passage appears in Fo. 137, which one would think unlikely if it was subsequent to Fo. 138.

5. “Brother Bruno, as a world-renowned expert, thoroughly investigated all the Collegial church of Lirey, and those of the associated cities of Aube, and Troyes documents in the archives with his own eyes, and held them in his own hands. He says that the folios are “anonymous, unsigned, undated and unsealed” copies done on paper, lacking therefore the marks of an authentic archive document.”

Brother Bruno is wrong. An “authentic archive document” is not defined by being signed, dated or sealed, and most “authentic archive documents,” by whatever bizarre definition you choose to give that phrase, aren’t.

6. “Ulysse Chevalier flattered himself that he could discover the finished copy of the said Memorandum in the papal and/or Vatican archives. But when all such efforts failed and he had proverbial egg all over his Shroud skeptical face, he stated that “the parchment copy kept in volume 154 of the Champagne collection was the original.”

This is untrue. Chevalier suspected the document might not be found, as he knew (and reported in a footnote) that these particular archives had suffered more than most in being transferred to Paris by Napoleon when he was Emperor, and back again afterwards. Nor did he switch his ideas. The first ‘original’ referred to the official document sent to the pope, which wasn’t found, whereas the second was the “minute original,” or draft, which was the first document actually to be set down on paper.

7. “There is no proof that either of the two folios are in fact probable originals other than the unsubstantiated claim of a biased Shroud skeptic, desperate not to look the utter fool that he was confronted with a total lack of any record of the Memo or the Folios in the archives where we’d expect to find such, & also the document title at its head, allegedly written by the Bishop D’Arcis’ own hand.”

This is incoherent, abusive, and illogical. Glover is losing his grip on reason. I’ve no idea what his point is.

8. “No trace of the Memorandum is found in the ‘Promptuarium Sacrarum Antiquitatum Tricassinae Dioecesis Canon Nicolas Camusat / Nicholas Camuzat (1575 – 1655), a Canon and archivist of the diocese of Troyes.”

See above.

“Jean-Jacques Chifflet (1588 – 1660) wrote a history of the Shroud of Lirey-Turin around 1624 AD (He mistakenly thought it was the same as [the Shroud of] Besançon), whereby he, after being made aware of the documents and therefore of the fallacies of the said Pierre D’Arcis, used the critical method of his time to vigorously reject the assertions of the supposed Memorandum.”

Chifflet’s book was called ‘De Linteis Sepulchralibus Christi Servatoris Crisis Historica‘ (1624), A Historical Determination Regarding the Burial Cloths of Christ the Saviour,’ and was mainly about the Shroud of Besançon, his home town. He was well aware of the Memorandum, but may have known about the earlier exhibitions independently, because he writes about Bishop Henri de Poitiers determining that it was not the true shroud of Christ, and was being exhibited out of greed for money by the Dean and Canons of Lirey, and suppressing it in “about 1355.” He does not mention d’Arcis’ “libellum supplicem prolixissimum” to Pope Clement VII until its chronological position in 1389. Naturally, being an enthusiastic authenticist, he rejected it, but he had no more reason for doing so than any of our similar enthusiasts today.

In 1901 Ulysse Chevalier wrote a pamphlet called ‘Le St Suaire de Lirey-Chambéry-Turin et les Défenseurs de son Authenticité.’ His last words sum up my feelings precisely:

“J’ai donc le droit de coucher en paix sur le champs de bataille,
avec le confiance que le monde savant me maintiendra son adhésion.”

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

1). Étude critique sur l’Origine du St. Suaire de Lirey-Chambéry-Turin, Ulysse Chevalier, 1900
Autour des Origines du Suaire de Lirey; Avec Documents Inédits, Ulysse Chevalier, 1903

2). ‘The Conspiracy Against the Shroud,’ Jack Markwardt, 2001, Newsletter of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, Issue 55, at https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n55part3.pdf

3). See Richard Beadle and Ralph Hannah, ‘Describing and Cataloguing Medieval English Manuscripts: a Checklist,’ in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval British Manuscripts, 2020

4). ‘Study of the Original Documents of the Archives of the Diocese of Troyes in France with Particular Reference to the Memorandum of Pierre D’Arcis,’ Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, 1991