THE DUBLIN REVIEW. JANUARY, 1903. ART. I.-THE HOLY SHROUD OF 1. La Sindone che si venera a Torino. Illustrata e difesa dal P. GIAMMARIA SANNA SOLARO, D.C.D.G. Torino: Bona. 1901. 2. Le Linceul du Christ: étude scientifique. Par PAUL VIGNON, Docteur ès Sciences Naturelles. Paris : Masson. 1902. The Shroud of Christ. By PAUL VIGNON, D.Sc. Translated from the French. With nine photogravure and collotype plates and thirty-eight illustrations in the text. Westminster: A. Constable & Co. 1902. 3. Etude critique sur l'origine du St. Suaire de Lirey- THEA Paris : HE above three works represent fairly well the three thousand books, pamphlets, articles, which have appeared on the subject of the Holy Shroud of Turin during the last three or four years. The first deals with the question in all its aspects, historical, scientific, exegetic, artistic; the second, with its scientific side directly, with the others consequently; the third is almost exclusively [No. 45 of Fourth "eries] 2 historical. With Dr. Vignon's volume we may class Dr. Arthur Loth's, Le portrait de N.S.J.C. d'après le Saint Suaire de Turin (1899), and the articles by Frs. de Joannis and Brucker in the Etudes Religieuses (1902). M. Chevalier, beginning in 1899 with a reproduction of papers by the Abbé Lalore, published in the Revue du diocèse de Troyes (1878), has brought out in all six pamphlets on the subject, three of them in the present year. With him may be joined M. de Mély: Le Saint Suaire de Turin: est il authentique? Les représentations du Christ à travers les âges (1902), and Mgr. Bellet: Le Saint Suaire et les Textes Evangéliques, published in L'Art et l'Autel for August and November, 1902. Sanna's study being in Italian has been little noticed either in France or in England, though it deserved better treatment. It appeared while the world was dazzled by the brilliant attack of Canon Chevalier, and was immediately followed by the still more remarkable defence of Dr. Vignon. It consists of twenty-six chapters. The first thirteen contain the history of the relic. The following nine contain a study of its exact nature, with the consideration of various scriptural and scientific questions, and contain an answer to Canon Chevalier's above-named pamphlet and the two which preceded it (Le St. Suaire de Turin: est il l'original ou une copie? (1899) and Réponse aux observations de Mgr. Colomiatti). Four chapters describing the relic, and relating the manifestations of devotion towards it until the close of the feasts of 1898 complete the work, which is beautifully printed on fine paper, with large margins and numerous photographic illustrations. It is a quarto of 150 pages of text and 27 of "documents." The most interesting of those which are in favour of the authenticity, are the delegation to Cardinal Gorrevod to verify the sacred linen after the fire of 1532, and the description given by the Poor Clares who repaired it in 1534. Fr. Sanna gives also the memorial of the Bishop of Troyes (1389) and the decree of the anti-pope, Robert of Geneva, against the authenticity. Dr. Vignon's essay appears in a quarto even more monumental. Its two hundred pages contain thirty-eight illustrations, and there are nine plates independent of the letterpress. It is divided into two parts. The first consists of a chemico-photographic study of intense interest, with the object of showing, first, that the impression on the Shroud could only be produced by the presence within it of a body under conditions such as those of Christ's body in the tomb, and for such a period of time as it lay there; secondly, the manner in which the impression was actually made. These two points are quite distinct though treated in one demonstration. The Scripture texts are examined at the close of this section. The second part treats of copies and descriptions of the relic, the æsthetic merits of the portrait represented therein, its history. This last subject only occupies fourteen pages, but provokes some acute observations. Canon Chevalier's little volume is a marvel of erudition.* It would be difficult to compress into sixty pages more of bibliographic and historical information on any subject. Practically all the authors who have written upon it are named, with the titles of their works. The chief part of the pamphlet it taken up with facts and reasoning to prove that this so-called relic is devoid of authenticity. Some observations on the nature of the evidence ordinarily required to justify belief in relics occur at the beginning, and some important pages by M. Chopin on the photographic aspect of the question at the end of the essay, which is followed by another sixty pages of documents. The object of the present paper is to show that, so far as the controversy has yet proceeded (and its augumentative limits are fairly visible) believers in the Holy Shroud have no need to modify their opinion. Their old reasons, whatever they were, retain all their force, and are strengthened by a scientific argument, totally new, which enables them better to face the historical objections. These have always existed, and the Etude critique only presents them in a * It appeared first in the Bulletin d'Histoire Ecclésiastique et d'Archéologie religieuse des diocèses de Valence, Gap, Grenoble et Viviers. The text forms the 3rd livraison for 1900; the appendix of documents is a separate supplement to the same number. Throughout this article the pagination is taken from the pamphlet. The number 108 must be added to find the page of the Bulletin. more complete and consecutive form. The text of Holy Scripture which it will be necessary to study in connection with the new argument presents no serious difficulty. Before treating these two, or three, points I would develop another ground for belief of a certain kind in the relic, the ground of authority, existing since the middle of the 15th century, constituting in our day the advantage of possession, and throwing the onus probandi on those (I speak, of course, here of Catholics) who impugn the rights thus guaranteed. 66 This authority consists in the sum of the general countenance given by the Church, the report of miracles fairly well attested, the opinion and practice of saints and Godfearing men during these four and a half centuries. It is no question, however, of supernatural faith; only of that more or less qualified assent to testimony in general, where the virtue to be exercised is chiefly prudence, or docility, and where the belief varies with knowledge acquired otherwise. One person may be justified in believing, another in questioning, or perhaps disbelieving, the same point. Even with a strong opinion or "belief" as to such matters of fact, one must always be prepared to listen to affirmations on the other side. But, withal, charity believeth all things." That is, as St. Francis de Sales explains, "it does not readily believe that any one is lying, and if it sees no signs of falsehood in things which are represented to it, it makes no difficulty in believing, especially when they are things which magnify God's love to men or men's love to God." So long, then, as no contradiction appears, either from the assertions of others or from questions arising within our own mind, we should believe what is told us by reasonable persons, and believe more readily according to the authority which such persons may possess over our thoughts and actions. This is certainly the Christian, the Catholic spirit, which again would lead us, as far as prudence, or, say, common sense, permits, to try rather to reconcile diverging statements than to reject one or other. Let me here get rid of two difficulties. One of them *Treatise on the Love of God, Book vii., c. 12. |