The Face Of Jesus Christ from The Shroud

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 45.

THE IMPRESSIONS RESULT FROM SOME ACTION WITHOUT CONTACT

It remains for us to discover the natural law which has produced these impressions, which are something more than stains.

We have pointed out the grave defects which there must be in all impressions made by contact which attempt to reproduce the natural image of a delicately moulded subject. We shall try to learn what sort of action other than direct contact has influenced the production of the impressions on the Shroud of Turin.

Every painting represents things not as they are in reality, but as they appear when projected on a flat surface. Impressions by simple contact cannot produce this effect. Yet this is what we find on the Shroud of Turin.

Take any solid object—a sphere, a cube—no matter what. Suspend it in the air and look at it from underneath. Draw it in this position ; the drawing has the same form as the projection of the object on a horizontal plane. In other words, if from a number of points on our object we let fall the same number of weighted threads, these threads will mark out in plan a figure which is the projection of the suspended object. The drawing will be identical with this projection if it is the same size as the object produced.


If we make the drawing smaller, it will not be the same size, but will be in strict proportion to it.

It is not easy to draw from below an object suspended overhead, but our argument holds good from whatever position we look at an object.

We will only deal as yet with objects of little depth. If our drawing has to represent numerous concave objects on different planes we shall have to consider not only the laws of projection, but also those of perspective. It is enough that every picture represents a fragment of nature reproduced upon a flat surface.

So much for the outline ; but we have yet to consider the shading by which this outline, though flat, shall be made to resemble rounded or hollowed forms.

Here we have no fixed rules. All depends on the way the light falls on the object. We must endeavour to give faithfully the relative shadows as our eyes see them. The portions which receive the rays of light directly will be more highly illumined than the parts which fall away from the light. In like manner the concave surfaces will be darker than the convex.

Let us examine the back of a hand held quite straight with the fingers close together, so that the light falls full upon it. The moulding of the fingers will be as we have described, and the hollows between the fingers will be in dark shadow, deepening where the fingers come in contact.

These facts are familiar to every one, and there is no need to enter into longer explanations of what is lacking in the case of contact-prints. The representation of the head on the Holy Shroud cannot be a print made in this way.

In Plate in. the head looks as if the concave and convex surfaces had been projected on a plane, that is to say drawn or photographed. The modelling is almost as if the light had been from the front. I say almost because some parts seem shaded as if the light came from above, but I shall allude to these further on. This head, then, may be said to be almost the equivalent of a drawing, or even of an ordinary photograph taken through a lens. Yet we know that it is not a drawing, and if it is something of the nature of a photograph it is certainly not an ordinary one. We are speaking now of the head converted to the positive. Let us look at it as it is actually seen on the cloth (Plates n. and iv.). Here we see it projected on a plane, but with all the modelling reversed. The convex portions are the darkest, the hollows are the lightest, just as if it were printed by contact.

But note this difference, a most important one. There is no distortion in the features, and the modelling, though it seems elementary, is yet so correct that the head, in its positive aspect, looks like a drawing by a good artist.

We are nearing the solution of our problem, or at least the partial solution, and shall shortly understand the physical characteristics of the impression on the Holy Shroud.

In the first place it really is a sort of imprint or impression, and it conforms to the general rules of impressions. On the one hand, if the cloth is stretched flat, it will rest only on prominent parts of the body ; on the other hand, if the cloth is not flat, if it is wrapped round the body, it will come in contact with the different planes of the body successively, and the impression will be thus greatly distorted.

In the case in point, if we look for the sides of the face, the shoulders, the ears, the neck, we shall not find them— we must conclude that the linen has not touched those parts. On the other hand, in the front view of the figure, the calves, and also the ankles, which coincide approximately with the lower edge of the photograph, bear evident traces of wrapping. Thus the impression is distorted in the one instance by too much contact, and in the other by too little.

But the figures are produced by some more delicate process than simple contact, since in many parts of the body, and notably on the face, the modelling is excellent.

In the front view of the figure there is no deformation of the parts where the linen lay in approximately one plane.

But if nevertheless in these very places there is also shaded modelling, as in a drawing, it must indicate that on this stretched linen a projection has taken place. Some emanation from the body has acted on the linen, and since the hollows on the Shroud are less vigorously reproduced than the raised portions it must be admitted that this something worked with less intensity in proportion as the distance from the body increased.

Is not the law which this something followed simply the law of distance which governs all natural phenomena ? Under this law effect increases or decreases as the square of the distance, in more or less degree, dependent upon attendant conditions.

In the present case it is indeed hard to determine with what rapidity the unknown action took place between the body and the Shroud; the main point is that we can assert that the action diminished in proportion as the distance of the body from the Shroud increased. We may almost affirm that the decrease was rapid, as the cloth has evidently not received any impression from certain portions of the face and body, no doubt those from which it was too far distant. Thus it is that before making any detailed examination we are able to assert that the impressions are negatives, because the raised parts of the body are reproduced strongly while the hollows have given fainter impressions in proportion to their distance from the cloth.

A print by simple contact, we have seen, produces a negative impression, but a very rough and coarse negative.

In order that the body should act on the cloth, actual contact—no matter how slight—is required. The print on the Holy Shroud is a still more perfect negative, because the image has been also in part produced without contact. Nevertheless we do not pretend that this negative is as true a one as if it had been taken by means of a lens.

To sum up : an impression has been formed on the Shroud. The figure produced is not to be called a photograph, because light has had no part in forming it. In the language of science it is the result of action at a distance (that is to say without contact); geometrically speaking it is a projection. In short, we have before us the equivalent of a rough sketch which has been shaded negatively.

Later on we will argue what name chemical science may give to this impression.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 44.

On Plate VII. we reproduce the three best of these impressions. The three upper heads are the facsimiles of the proofs reduced in size. Below each is its negative print. The cloths bearing the impressions were the equivalents of the Holy Shroud ; the negatives are equivalent to those of M. Pia given on our Plates III. and V.

It will be seen that we radically failed in our attempt to reproduce by a mechanical process impressions similar to those on the Shroud. The best of our attempts is the centre one, and it is very poor.

The print on the left has the nose abnormally developed—the head on the linen is that of a negro ; on the negative it resembles that of a drowned man. The head on the right had the cloth as lightly strained as possible, but the more the cloth was strained over the bridge of the nose the more it made it appear like a hard right angle without modelling and without any sign of the sides of the nose on the cloth ; in their place there is a complete gap, white on the cloth, black on the negative.

The great fault in all three heads is that the eyes are lowered almost to the line of the nostrils, and the cheek-bones and mouth are also in their wrong places, and the cheeks seem swollen. In all the specimens which we reproduce there is some change in the general proportions of the face. In vain the operator tries to alter or correct. It would be impossible to consider the rough print as a sketch, only needing to be touched up to gain the requisite expression. Artists know that a likeness exists in the very first, slightest sketch. If the sketch starts badly, better destroy it at once—to work on a bad beginning where the harmonies are false is to lose one's power of judgment; unconsciously the eye tries to reconcile the model to the bad sketch, which one has not had the courage to sacrifice.

It is useless to enter into further details—to show, for instance, that the beard was not represented though thickly charged with colour and supported from underneath in order to secure its contact with the linen. It was impossible to establish any parallel between our efforts and the impressions on the Shroud. We obtained a face after a fashion, but the features are so distorted that it is only a caricature.

One thing seems certain, if the forger at the Abbey of Lirey had been reduced to work in the way we did, he would never have obtained a portrait which could stand photography. On the Shroud, if the features are faint in places, the proportions remain admirable ; and the powerful effect they produce is mainly due to the perfect harmony which they present as a whole.

The forger could doubtless have obtained the imprints of a body and limbs by simple contact, but he could not have obtained the portrait of a head ; this theory must be abandoned.

No one could assert that the head and the body have been obtained by different processes ; in fact, on the Shroud the entire figures are in harmony with the same geometrical laws, and present the same general characteristics.

At the same time, if the forger had obtained a head no better than those in our illustration he would probably have been quite content with that result, bad as it is. His work would not have been criticized so long as no photographic camera led to an investigation of it.

In conclusion, even if the forger had wished to do better than our effort at the Sorbonne, he could have had no means by which to realize his good intention. In short, no worker by any known pictorial method could have executed the figures on the Holy Shroud.

We have now ascertained two more important points.

The figures on the Holy Shroud are impressions.

These impressions cannot have been obtained by contact only.

But these two propositions involve a corollary of even greater importance.

It is impossible any longer to attribute the figures on the Holy Shroud to a forger.

Before registering this important conclusion we should like to run rapidly through the evidence which has led us to this result.

Have we employed the ordinary forms of reasoning ?—by induction or by deduction ? Truly we do not know, having been so much occupied in presenting our contentions in their simplest and most obvious form. The figures being negative, whence came the negatives ? Could an ordinary painter have so manipulated his medium as to produce this negative ?

Impossible.

Could an ordinary and positive painting become changed into a negative by the effect of chemical transformation ? Assuredly this has not been the case.

Is there any possible method by which a forger in the Middle Ages could have produced the effect of a negative ?

We answer that there is such a method (as we have just seen) but that the results are so imperfect that a positive and natural photographic portrait could not be obtained from them, such as has been obtained from the impressions on the Shroud.

Therefore we may dismiss the question of forgery.

If we have departed from fact in this long chain of argument we are still open to conviction, but we now think ourselves justified in saying that the impressions shown on the Holy Shroud have been spontaneously produced.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 43.

The fact which we find interesting is that the red lead adheres to the paper better and more thickly where the pressure has been strongest and further that the impression thus given is in negative, because the round parts, which make the strongest impression, would be in highest relief if the sole of the foot were looked at in the light and yet represented by the darkest tones. In the impressions obtained by Dr. Recher there are no deformations, as the foot can be applied directly on a flat surface.

THE PROCESS NECESSARY TO PRODUCE PRINTS BY SIMPLE CONTACT

To make the experiment choose an object which can readily be represented on a flat surface—do not try to obtain great depth of effect— try to reproduce the modellings in their relative values by pressing gently with the hand over the subject which the linen covers.

And we may here allude to a want of similarity in Dr. Recher's prints by direct contact, namely that the inside modelling of the foot is shaded, but that the contours have a hard outline; and this is natural. The patient in walking plants his heel firmly ; after resting a moment on his toes, he loses contact with the paper as he walks along, and the impression suddenly ends. The shading corresponding to the distance between the object smeared with red lead and the cloth which receives the impression should be the same on the outside of the print as it is on the inside. It should be so if an impression is to be complete, and it is so in the Holy Shroud.

This criticism is not of a very serious nature, and if the theory of a forger making false impressions by some mechanical process could be met in no better way we would at once admit that with a little additional skill it might have been done. The means are simple. If the shading of the contours is desired, rub gently with the finger when the print is finished in such a way as to graduate them, and it is done.

But some shading may be done without intention. Let us suppose that we are going to take the print of the front view of a corpse lying on the ground. We should firmly press the cloth along the central line of the body and more lightly on the sloping surfaces, graduating our passes so that the general contours take form by degrees.

We specify the front view because it would not be the same if the print were made by a figure lying on a piece of cloth. In that case every point where the body had pressed heavily would seem flat and hard at the edges, just as did the footprint. To round off the outlines it would be necessary to rub them with the finger.

This demonstration is not without value, because it shows us that it is possible to produce the imprint of a corpse on a cloth like that of Turin fraudulently as far as the trunk and limbs were concerned, but utterly impossible to so produce an impression of the head, as we shall see.

In the foregoing arguments we have pleaded the cause of the forger, and have made concessions in his favour which even M. Chevalier seems indisposed to grant. These concessions were legitimate and necessary, but we cannot concede more; and we now affirm that it is impossible by simple contact, even with after corrections, to reproduce a human head.

We will suppose the forger to be at his work, trying to obtain such an impression as may be seen on the Holy Shroud.

Our first remark is that the sides of the face starting from the cheekbones have not touched the cloth (we have already mentioned the small lateral cushions used in mummy burial). Secondly, we see at the sides two locks of hair which seem to have been stiffened and thickened. This hair is on a level with the cheek-bones. As the body is lying on its back, these locks of hair, if they had been free, would by their natural weight have fallen back on the general mass of hair which the back impression reproduces very well. These two strands of hair then must have been separated from the rest, and when the head was bowed forward may have become coagulated with dust and sweat, though this would scarcely suffice to produce this effect. Or these two locks of hair may have rested on the lateral cushions.

We have a second reason for suggesting that there were cushions or similar supports placed on each side of the head. In the front impression the shoulders do not appear, therefore the cloth did not touch this part of the body ; it must have been supported on each side of the head and must have rested again on the chest lower down.

Supposing the forger to have realized all this, he would not have committed the mistake of letting the cloth envelop the nose, nor would he have allowed it to press against the sunken portions of the face as closely as the raised parts.

We will credit him with all the skill that he might have acquired in making prints similar to those of Dr. Recher. The operator, we will say, has stretched the linen with great care, fixing the edges ; he will be content to let the cloth rest on the bridge of the nose, on the forehead, and on the chin ; also on the cheek-bones. To make the modelling possible he will have made the cloth touch the sloping portions, such as the sides of the nose, lightly. He will have endeavoured to let it touch the lips with great delicacy.

Under these conditions even the eyeballs might give an impression which need not be too pronounced.

We have ourselves submitted personally to such an experiment at the Sorbonne, and are therefore able to describe from experience the method which the forger of Lirey might have employed if he had had the patience and skill.

The writer lay down on an operating-table, and his face was carefully smeared with red chalk. The same thing had been done to a false beard which was fixed on to his face in order to approach as nearly as possible to the conditions indicated on the print; in order also to bring all the lower part of the face to one plane. Dr. E. Herouard, Maitre de Conferences at the Sorbonne, and his friend and colleague, M. Robert, Associate of the University, proceeded personally to try and take a print. They were well acquainted with the impressions on the Holy Shroud, and wished to assure themselves as to the possibility of such a portrait being produced by simple contact.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 42.

If the figures on the Holy Shroud are not the work of man, they must be what they seem to be ; that is to say—impressions. A body—we do not yet say a corpse—has really been laid on this cloth in the manner indicated by the figures. This is a great step gained. All our efforts so far have been to dispel misunderstanding. Now we approach the problem itself.

The Holy Shroud, then, has retained the print of a human body. Does this mean that all idea of fraud is now at an end. By no means. It is possible to assert that the forger at Lirey, though not a painter, had some common sense. In his efforts to represent a cloth as the Shroud of Christ he may very well have reasoned as follows :

" Let us cover a human body with some colouring matter and envelope it in a large sheet ; we shall obtain the imprint of the body, after which it will be easy to persuade people that the body was that of Christ/'

We will now inquire how the forger would set to work, and what results he would be likely to obtain. This investigation should prove that it was beyond his power to make the impressions visible on the actual Shroud. But before ourselves undertaking this new investigation we will put forward the reflections made by M. Chevalier on this point in a pamphlet which appeared in 1902.

We were somewhat surprised to read on page 13 in this work by M. Chevalier the following sentence : " Nevertheless it is not enough to eliminate the possibility of a negative being painted—it must be established how the negative became fixed on the sheet."

Surely it is for the supporters, not the opponents, of the fraud hypothesis to establish how the work was done. We shall feel we have gained a point if we are able to refute all the theories which attribute the work to a forger.

To find satisfaction in the lines quoted above we should have to admit that M. Chevalier had a whole arsenal of suppositions at his disposal. He might say, " Although these figures are not the work of a painter, they may be the result of some mechanical process/'

But M. Chevalier does not suggest any new explanation. On the contrary, on page 39 we find him warmly criticizing the hypothesis of mechanical process brought forward by Father Sanna Solaro. This writer believes in the authenticity of the Shroud, but he also believes that the impressions thereon are the result of direct contact.

M. Chevalier does not accept this theory, and we quote his brief and energetic refutation :

" The author supposes that the bleeding body would have left a print at all points where it was in contact with the cloth (p. 122 of P. Solaro). There are many ways of proving the impossibility of this explanation. I am astonished that a sometime professor of physical science can suggest the possibility of such a phenomenon ; an impression is one thing—a portrait, even a negative portrait, quite another. He had only to try the experiment on a willing subject/'

" This has been done by an Italian doctor, Dr. P. Caviglia. Le P. S. S. (le Pere Solaro) may see the results in the journal Presente et Avenire (Roma, re ann., p. 139). They are contemptible ; yet in this way they claim to have demonstrated the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin ! The final argument is worthy of those which preceded it."

P. Sanno Solaro's adversary has not spared him.

But in what a position has M. Chevalier placed himself ? On page 13 he admits that we may put aside all idea of fraud by a painter. On page 39 he disposes of the idea of a fraudulent manipulator. We are obliged to return to our first theory. Surely M. Chevalier must hold in reserve, in order to attribute it to the forger, some extraordinary method which owes nothing to the skill of artists and which can make a negative by other means than contact. He certainly must mean to tell us that the man in 1353 already knew the secrets of photography.

M. Chevalier declares himself not convinced when we demonstrate that the figures on the Shroud are not paintings, yet he refuses to admit that they are prints by contact.

It remains for him to suggest new arguments.

In a scientific work we have not the right to put aside the possibility of impression by contact as lightly as M. Chevalier does.

If the prints obtained by Dr. Caviglia are as formless as M. Chevalier represents, it may be because the subject was covered with coloured grease and not with powder.

All greasy substances, all aromatic mixtures, would only produce blotches of about the same tint. The colouring substance might be of irregular thickness, and might get blotted ; but it would not shade off in the way necessary to produce a real modelling.

But there is no necessity to cover the subject with grease ; red chalk would give a less coarse result. A ferruginous earth, such as burnt Sienna or red ochre, reduced to impalpable powder, will adhere fairly well to a cloth such as we have in question. To make this adherence reliable—that is to say, to fix the drawing—it will be sufficient to spray the cloth with a liquid albumen, or more simply to drench it with very liquid gum. What amount of sensitiveness would there be in such a method of getting an impression ? Hardly any, you may say ; but this is not quite the case.

We may reason thus. The portions of the body which touch the cloth would stain it in a uniform manner, and those which did not touch the cloth would make no mark. Consequently the impression would not be modelled. This is not all. To reproduce the rounded portions it would be necessary to touch them. Therefore, when the print was completed and the cloth which had been on the receding portions was laid out flat, the figure would be considerably enlarged.

This is why we cannot hope to obtain by simple contact good reproductions of a delicate object, such as the human face. It is possible, however, for a careful operator to place the linen in such a way as to obtain perfect shaded modelling, and it should not be impossible to go further and obtain satisfactory results.

In this way the sculptor and modellist, M. le Dr. P. Recher, so well known for his works in artistic anatomy, wished to show me the tracings he had obtained by making patients suffering from locomotor attaxi walk on long slips of paper after smearing their feet with red chalk. The patient, walking with his ordinary tread, himself diagnoses his illness.

For Dr. Recher's purpose it matters very little whether the prints of the feet are well modelled or not, but as a matter of fact these impressions are really good.

The foot in its different parts presses very unequally on the paper. There is every shade of difference between the energetic pressure made by the heel and the ball of the foot and the delicate contact of the instep.

The outer side of the sole of the foot presses almost as strongly as the heel; but working inward from this outer edge a point is soon reached at which all contact is lost and the impression ceases.

The impression is not lost quite as soon as might be imagined, as the instep bends somewhat under the weight of the body and the toes and heels sink in a remarkable manner. Also the paper which is compressed in the places where the pressure is greatest rises itself under the arch of the instep.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 41.

Displaying the Shroud in Turin, 1613. Engraving by Antonio Tempesta. AKG Images

If therefore they are the handiwork of a painter, they must be executed in wash, with a medium of turpentine, or, better still, a dye. In this case the high lights would either have been left untouched or indicated with a light glaze. But such a painting could not possibly have become a negative by any combination of sulphur, as a painting with body-colour mostly composed of white lead might have done.

We argue thus to prove that the figures are not formed by a chemical inversion of colours.

The Holy Shroud is not a painting which has formed a negative by the action of sulphur in the light tints. Such a picture would be one on which the light tints had gone very black. Whatever might have been their original tones, such colours take on the livid tint which sulphur of lead communicates to the substances with which it is mixed.

The entire figures on the Holy Shroud are formed in reddish-brown tints. Had they been painted they would have faded, not become darker.

We are fully justified in this assertion by the descriptions given in past ages, and by careful examination of the copies of the Holy Shroud; we can also rely on the testimony of several distinguished inhabitants of Chambery, who were able in 1898 to make a leisurely examination of the Holy Shroud.

We know that in 1898 the Holy Shroud was visible for eight days, from May 25 to June 2. M. de Buffet, a learned inhabitant of Chambery, gave us a circumstantial description of the Shroud and the impressions on it. So did Dom Lafond, a learned Benedictine monk, and others, whom we need not mention. The figures, seen close, look like a series of brownish stains, which get fainter at the edges and merge gradually into the light background of the cloth, but seen from further off stand out clearly. Dom Lafond assured us that at a distance of twenty-five yards, he saw them better even than on the photograph. In the sacristy adjoining the Sainte Chapelle at Turin there is a water-colour copy, life size, done in 1898. To have reproduced all the details would have involved much work, but the general effect is faithful.

M. Manus and M. Pia, who examined bits of the linen on which we tried our chemical experiments described in our final chapter (producing pictures by the action of ammoniacal vapour on linen impregnated with oil and aloes), were struck with the wonderful resemblance between my pictures so obtained and the impressions on the Holy Shroud.

Just lately we have tried another experiment. Allowing water to soak into parts of our linen impressions, we have thus obtained dark markings identical with those on the Shroud caused by the water used to extinguish the fire of 1532.

Recent critics cite testimony to prove that the impressions in the Middle Ages were much more strongly marked then than they are now, but there is no means of coming to a conclusion on this point. Certainly photography reveals details with extraordinary minuteness which have been entirely lacking in even the most faithful copies of the Middle Ages, and we think ourselves justified in saying that the Shroud has not essentially changed since it has been known historically.

Our most obstinate opponents bring forward quite different arguments to the two we have cited ; they admit freely that the figures are not paintings changed into negatives — in fact I think that all careful observers must see at a glance that the Shroud could not have been painted by an artist.

All sorts of marks are distinguished in the photographs, which tend to prove that the Holy Shroud retains the impression of a body.

We have already alluded briefly to these marks in the first chapter, we will now return to them in the detail to which the subject is entitled. These markings are particularly important from the moment that the observer renounces the hypothesis that the figures have been fraudulently obtained by painting a direct negative, and begins to think that the negatives are the result of chemical action.

In order to paint this negative directly on the Holy Shroud the ingenious artist must have known the work required of him, and must have been able to imitate the conditions of a natural impression. But in the hypothesis which we are now discussing the author of these impressions could only have been a simple painter, and could only have executed an ordinary portrait on the cloth. We can no longer therefore consider the marks as the perverted ingenuity of a forger, for, artistically speaking, they could have no meaning.

Thus, as we analyze the hypothesis on which our opponents rely, in attributing the execution of the pictures on the Holy Shroud to some artist of the Middle Ages, we perceive that such arguments are untenable.

It would have been easier to have stated these arguments in a few lines and to have left our readers to examine for themselves the traces visible on the Shroud at Turin. Any unprejudiced observer must arrive at the same conclusion as ourselves.

But objections have been made ; and some persons, who have not even seen the photographs, or who have glanced carelessly at the plates, profess themselves convinced by the criticisms of MM. Chopin, Lajoie, or de Mely. Thus M. de Mely has just published a pamphlet entitled Le Saint Suaire de Turin est-il Authentique (Pussielgue), which contains many observations which are quite inexact, and which we can easily refute.

The Holy Shroud is in itself a very remarkable—we may even say unique—object, if we consider the exceptional circumstances which must have produced the impressions, even without reference to their true signification. It is well therefore to say clearly what they are not. This negative statement will prepare the way for the positive study which we now propose to undertake. We will once more mark the limit of what we consider proved by the foregoing arguments. Since the impression is neither a painting executed in negative, nor an ordinary painting transformed by chemical action, then it must be recognized that the figures on the Holy Shroud are in no sense the work of man.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 40.

Many ancient paintings in water-colour are well known. Only last year a number of persons met at the Guimet Museum to see the curios found by M. Gazet in the Greco-Egyptian tombs of Upper Egypt. I particularly recall the full-length portrait of a certain Thais. The regular features of the painted face, the black eyes elongated by henna. The elegance of her ornaments contrasted strangely with the miserable remains of her mummy, placed close by. One Serapion, with his body bound round with heavy iron rings, was a still more lugubrious figure. The painted cloth was almost completely rigid, and the paint had worn off at the creases. Paint, and paint alone, had made the cloth stiff; without the paint it would have been an ordinary limp wrapping-cloth.

The Holy Shroud is a very supple cloth, like our modern linen. Since it is still perfectly flexible in all its parts, and since the figures on it have not disappeared, we may affirm that there is on it no painting executed in any of the above media.

If questioned as to how we are able to assert that the Holy Shroud is supple (apart from the testimony of those who handled it), we refer again to the photographs of M. Pia.

We have only to look at these photographs to see that the cloth, although backed and strengthened with silk, has remained slightly creased. The inequalities formed by the creases have made many slight differences in the tones of the photograph, showing that the material is very supple and is kept stretched with difficulty. One of these creases cuts the head a little above the forehead ; another just below the chin. There are many others, which will at once be noticed. They appear as black lines in Plate iv., because they throw a shadow on the Shroud, and inversely they are white in Plate v. The fineness of the lines shows the thinness of the material.

But we may learn more than this from these photographs.

The Holy Shroud is now kept rolled up in a casket; folds are avoided as far as possible, the cloth being so old and easily worn in the creases.

But formerly no such precautions were taken. The burnt places and water-stains show how the cloth was folded at the time of the fire in 1532—just as any ordinary cloth might be folded, lengthways, right down the middle. This crease passed almost down the centre of the face. Had any paint been on the Holy Shroud, the form of the face must have been completely destroyed.

What we have already said should satisfy the most exacting critic. Nevertheless we wished to make other experiments on cloths similar to that of the Holy Shroud, experiments suggested by our examination of the photographs.

For this purpose we consulted M. Gazet, the distinguished author of Les Fouilles du Faijum, and M. Terme, the learned Director of the textile museum at Lyons. These gentlemen were extremely interested by the photographs of the Holy Shroud, and placed at our disposal a series of ancient Egyptian cloths collected in the tombs of Faijum. With these cloths we have established a scale of thickness, so that we have been able to ascertain which materials when stretched bore the closest resemblance to the Holy Shroud as represented in the photographs. We have thus determined a sort of standard which should very nearly represent the quality of the Shroud at Turin.

This material is so fine that it is almost linen muslin.

Satisfied on this point, we had a water-colour painting made on very soft and fine material, mixing white lead with the gum. Such a medium only adheres to the material when it is applied in the form of a very thin wash with a very small quantity of white lead. But no representation of a body could be obtained with so liquid a mixture. It was necessary to paint over this first wash in light and dark tones. A picture was thus obtained, very thin in substance but very fragile. The paint came off at the least touch as soon as the cloth was folded.

This is not all. There are doubtless to-day very few people who have been permitted to hold the Holy Shroud in their hands. We have been fortunate enough to secure the testimony of one of these privileged persons, who accompanied Princess Clotilde when it was shown to the public in 1868. This precious witness, who really handled the Shroud, certified that the cloth was unusually and strikingly supple. We have now a perfect right to conclude that the impressions cannot be pictures executed in water-colour or in oils.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 39.

In the upper church at Assisi there are a series of frescoes hitherto attributed to Cimabue. Tourists as a rule pay little attention to these paintings, which are much dilapidated and extremely ugly; but last year a friend of mine, knowing of the experiments undertaken at the " Sorbonne " in connexion with the Holy Shroud, was struck by the fact that in the frescoes representing the Crucifixion a whole group of figures appeared to be painted negatively. My friend called my attention to this remarkable fact, and I at once procured a photograph of the fresco. An enlarged fragment of this photograph is reproduced on Plate vi.

The upper part of the plate shows the painting in its actual condition. The sky remains light, and the aureole of the figure on the left is still represented in a normal manner; but the heads and draperies are absolutely negative. The transposition is not complete throughout the fresco, and the figures below a sharply defined limit remain positive. The limit corresponds to a change in the plaster on which they are painted. Under the facsimile of the fresco we have placed the reproduction of the photographic plate, giving the portions which were negative in the fresco restored to their positive condition, whilst the sky and the figures on the left are now negative. The plate has been reproduced, so as to give this aspect of the fresco, and also in order that the reader may easily recognize the figures and may get the impression of the work as the painter intended it to be.

This inversion of the picture, the result of chemical change, is particularly striking in the head which occupies the centre of the picture. Before its inversion this head was a really remarkable portrait, but the flesh-tints have now become almost black and the beard completely white. M. Chopin could hardly desire to find a seemingly better example in favour of his thesis. The chemical change produced in so regular a manner hardly alters the artistic value of the painting, and many of the heads are very beautiful.

Granted that it is possible for a painting such as the fresco at Assisi, or a Byzantine icon, to become absolutely negative under certain exceptional conditions, we still contend that it is impossible for the figures on the Holy Shroud to be affected in the same way. For this we give three distinct reasons, the importance of which will be at once recognized.

In the first place, the very fact that the material of the Shroud is very light and supple proves that it could not carry the amount of paint requisite for a picture which could change in the manner described. If such a painting had ever been made on this cloth it would have long since crumbled away and have left hardly any trace.

Let us consider the question of a painting either in oil or water-colour, these being the only methods which need be considered when chemical inversions are in question. Oil-colours with a lead base, whether mixed with sulphide of mercury or not, constitute insoluble substances ; they can only be moistened with oil or water. They then form a semi-fluid paste, and can be spread over the required surface in layers, which may vary in thickness.

When water is used to moisten such paint, a little gum or albumen is added to give the required elasticity and to make it adhere to the canvas. That done, the painting may be preserved as long as the cloth remains flat. Even to roll it up would be unwise, unless it were rolled over a cylinder of fairly large diameter. It would be quite impossible to fold it like a handkerchief, as the painting would crumble off at the folds almost at once. Also, so long as the picture remained on it, the cloth would lose all its flexibility, for the threads would be clogged together by the paint.

Consider any oil-painting. Oil-paint adheres much more firmly than water-colour, and does not flake off so easily. We all know how rigid a canvas becomes when covered with oil-paint. . Even before beginning to paint with colour, a coat of white lead is commonly spread over the canvas, sufficient to make it quite stiff.

These facts are well known. Every one has handled or seen canvases prepared for oil painting. Painting with gum is less well known, being now very little used for large pictures. It is used sometimes for screens made of light gauze, and if the painting is taken out of its frame and rubbed between the fingers the paint quickly scales off in powder and is effaced.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 38.

Here is another hypothesis—so ingenious that it arouses our admiration.

Suppose we take a large blackboard and draw a figure on it in brown chalk. The chalk will stand out light against the black background ; therefore we can mass it thickly for the high lights, and let the black show through the chalk for the deepest shadows. The portrait finished, transfer it on to a white cloth by laying the cloth on the blackboard. Behold we have a negative.

The thickest part of the chalk will now be the deepest shadow, and vice versa , just as in the Shroud. But the difficulty will be to give the modelled contours. We cannot outline our figure in chalk, because on our blackboard the chalk represented the high lights. This knowledge of technique is just possible in a frequenter of the studios of to-day ; but such a complicated process as we have described would have been impossible for the painters of the Middle Ages.

Here then is another step gained. We proved that the impressions on the Shroud are negatives ; now we know that such negatives could not have been produced by any pictorial process,

If it is claimed that the stains on the Shroud are the work of some painter, then we must assume that they were painted in the positive or ordinary manner ; further, we must admit that the chemical change wrought by the centuries which have elapsed since their imprint has transformed this positive painting into the negative which we have to-day. If this hypothesis is not tenable we must give up the idea that the Holy Shroud has been painted.

It is M. Chopin again who puts forward this new hypothesis.

He maintains that the picture on the Shroud, though not a real negative—i.e. a negative to our human eye—is nevertheless a photographic negative. He admits that the light colours, without undergoing visible inversion, may none the less have become impervious to photography, and thus even more inert than the shadows. He even suggests that the dark tones may in part have disappeared.

Our answer is that the human eye could perfectly well distinguish a negative picture on the Shroud.

The technical arguments used by M. Chopin to explain this possible change in the quality of the colours as regards photographic effect may be used with equal reason to support the hypothesis of some change which has taken place and is perceptible to the human eye. We will quote M. Chopin's own words:

" The flesh tints may have been painted with a mixture of white paint, which is usually an oxide of lead or of zinc combined with reds (sulphate of mercury), ochres, or naturally tinted earths ; the shadows may have been done with black paint mixed with the same ochres and natural or burnt earths, or even with bitumen. The lighter portions painted thickly and the shadows less so, in order to give depth.

"Painted in this way, which is the ordinary way, the Holy Shroud passed through critical periods, such as the fire at the Sainte Chapelle in 1532, when the constitution of its colours must have been considerably modified. The oxides of lead in the light colours must have become clouded by the sulphur of mercury in the reds, or by external causes, such as one always sees at work in old paintings. The natural earths may have been calcined by the heat—the bitumen burnt, evaporated, vanished !— all this is possible.

" What would now remain after the fire ? A rude image whereon all the light tints which had been mixed with white would be proportionately black, and portions of which would be more or less obliterated."

We can dispose at once of the theory regarding the fire of 1532, since, as we have shown in Chapter IV., the impressions were already negatives at the end of the fourteenth century.

We must also call M. Chopin's attention to the fact that painting executed in zinc medium does not get blackened by sulphur ; this, however, is of little consequence, painting with a lead medium being much more usual.

Again, it is not the case that the early painters painted in high lights very thickly, and it is not a good method to give depth to the shadows by painting thinly. To-day we know many painters do this, but always at the expense of the clairoscuro.

It is unnecessary to make too much of these trifling points. M. Chopin passes in review the causes which may produce alteration in old paintings.


Such alterations are generally produced by the action of sulphur on colours whose main ingredient is lead.

It is more difficult to see how the shadows could get darker in proportion to the light parts getting lighter, but this must be the case if our opponent is to prove his case.

We will ourselves cite an example far more convincing than any cited by M. Chopin in support of his own theory.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 37.

Let us imagine our painter, brushes in hand, before a large piece of cloth more than five yards long. Let us think of him as taking his measurements so that in each of the simulated impressions the different parts of the body may correspond exactly. We will suppose him accustomed to the accurate measurements and proportions of casts. We will even suppose that, gifted with preternatural ingenuity, he would know how to assign to the thighs, the calves, the ankles, the extraordinary forms visible on the Shroud, the whole thing done in order to deceive pilgrims who in truth would have been satisfied with less exactitude. We will even suppose him clever enough to avoid all the pit-falls which nature prepares for us when we try to counterfeit her by art.

It is in the modelling of the face that we shall detect our painter.

With a simple object it is easy enough to invert the lights and shades, to reproduce the aspect of an ordinary geometrical figure, such as a cube, a cylinder, or a sphere in negative. But examine Plate n.; search therein for any markings which could have served to facilitate the execution of a fraud.

Whatever M. Chopin may say, nothing could be less regular, nothing could be more unexpected than the nose, the eyebrows, cheek-bones and cheeks ; nothing more obscure than the forehead and the hair and the modelling of the mouth. On Plate n., beneath the nose, a succession of tints are strangely blended, dark and light alternatively. No one could even interpret them without the aid of Plate in. How could these markings have been invented which are so hard to read on the holy Shroud ? Of course, after closely examining the facsimile of the negative on Plate in., which gives their real signification to all the features, we can go back to our examination of the linen cloth and interpret it rightly ; but will any one tell us by what process a negative model could have been executed so that the author, whilst at work upon it, could have judged of what its effect would be when inverted and brought back to its positive condition.

But we go too far. The hypothesis is absurd, and could not be maintained unless the Holy Shroud, instead of being what it is, resembled the copies which have been made of it, such as the Shroud of Besançon.

We must not take a step forward without investigating all the objections which might by any possibility arise.

Could a fraudulent artist of the Middle Ages by any known artifice have executed a head in negative on the linen cloth ? A negative does not exist in nature, but in certain conditions a negative may be simulated. Place your hand flat against a window ; the fingers, with the light shining just behind them, appear as they would in a negative. The same with the cheeks and nose, if looked at in the same way.

But shut your hand and look towards the light through your closed fist. No matter how bright the light, the crevices between the fingers will remain dark ; yet in a real negative these crevices would be light ! In a head we have not only to reckon with prominent features, such as the nose and cheeks ; there are also the eyes and mouth to be considered, and no amount of light would change their normal aspect.

Further argument seems unnecessary.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 36.

M. Chopin's letter is divided into two parts. In the first two pages the author explains how, under certain conditions, different from those indicated by M. Lajoie, plates may give direct positives ; for example, the following process will give this result : " After an ordinary light development wash the plate, .cover it with a silver solution having an alkaline reaction, or any weak alkaline solution, and recommence to develop." Naturally there can be no question of M. Pia having exercised any such manipulation; but M. Chopin explains that the phenomenon may happen accidentally, and had indeed occurred to himself " in the preparation of special negatives for the reproduction of Limoges enamels/' M. Chopin has then the right to use the following phrase : " There is reason to think that when this phenomenon is accidentally produced, one should seek for the cause either in a want of acidity in the silver solution or in the in-sufficent alkalinity of the water used for washing the plates." I do not guarantee that the terms used by M. Chopin are quite exact, and that the washing of a plate in water not sufficiently alkaline would altogether alter its character, but this is what M. Chopin says. In certain conditions it is possible that a plate may become positive without having been over-exposed.

But we will not labour the point. Such exceptional conditions were not present, since M. Pia's plate is really a negative. This point we may consider certain.

We now come to a more subtle objection, which is that although a plate may be generally negative, certain parts of it may not be perfectly so, owing to the effect of colour—yellow, for instance, often comes out black. We do not quite see how this affects our consideration of the Holy Shroud. The argument is only tenable if parts of the object are many coloured, which is not the case here.

We consider then that we have established our first position, which is that the impressions on the Holy Shroud are really and effectively shown there in negative.

If the impressions on the Shroud have the character of a negative, if they are shown with the real values reversed, we cannot believe that they have been painted thus. Of two alternatives one must be taken as true: either they have been executed positively, like all paintings, and have been transformed by time into the negatives which we see, or else they are not paintings at all. Before discussing these alternatives let us see if the impressions are such as to preclude altogether the hypothesis of an ordinary painting done directly in negative fashion.

Let us quote once more from M. Chopin's letter : " M. Loth asserts that the Holy Shroud is not a painting, and that no artist, however clever, could have produced such a work in negative. As for this assertion I am of a contrary opinion, for I am fully persuaded that such crude work could easily have been produced by an artist; but to paint in this manner would be so absurd and incomprehensible that I hesitate to assert that it was so done." Now this quotation contains two propositions, both of which we must oppose. It is not absurd for a painter to reproduce a work in negative, but if he had tried to do so he would inevitably have failed ; practically, then, we agree with M. Chopin, and will refute the hypothesis of a direct negative painting, but for different reasons than those given by him.

To begin with, with regard to a presumed painter, we will grant M. Chopin much more than he asks : we will grant that a clever artist might have painted these impressions in negative, although it scarcely seems possible to do so ; the very term " negative " has only had a meaning since the discovery of photography. The men of the fourteenth century had no reason to suspect the possibility of the inversions of lights and shades which are produced by the action of light on a sensitive plate ; but was not this much knowledge indispensable before it would occur to any one to reverse on a cloth the normal position of lights and shadows ?

But what is the point at issue ? Is it a question of the painting of a portrait, or that a certain piece of linen has been the winding-sheet of Christ ? To intelligent observers all that Christ could have left on His Shroud would be the print of His limbs and the traces of His blood, and not, properly speaking, a portrait of any sort. Now an imprint which marks the raised parts more than the hollows is in itself a negative.

It may be said that I am making things too easy for the forgers of the Middle Ages, who would not have reasoned in such subtle fashion ; that the Holy Shroud would be even more worthy of veneration had the portrait of the Saviour been clearly visible to any observer.

Well, that would simplify the question, for there would then be no hesitation in admitting that the Holy Shroud had not been painted in negative. And yet we are bound in loyalty to science to continue our argument. The arrangement of the pictures alone is enough to show us that if they really are the work of a painter, this painter has endeavoured to give them the effect of being impressions. If he were ingenious enough to know that the two bodies should lie head to head he must have also known that the impressions give us an inverted mould. To ascertain this he need only have placed his blackened hand upon a white wall, or smeared his face with red ochre and then covered it with a cloth.

In either case the marks left on the linen or on the wall could only have been caused by such portions as would appear in relief if the light shone full upon them. The half-tints and shadows on the contrary would leave fainter marks, or no marks at all. This is what fraud might have tried to reproduce in a painting.

Such an attempt must have been faulty in its execution. The real question therefore is, Are the pictures such as an artist of the fourteenth century could have executed if he had tried to imitate in his painting a true impression ? M. Chopin gives a decided " yes " to this question, but our own opinion is different.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 35

M. Pia's original negative was taken on an Edward 50 x 60 gelatine-bromo isochromatic plate (sensitive to yellow). He used a yellow screen, and a Voigtlander lens, with a diaphragm having an aperture seven millimetres in diameter. The exposure lasted eighteen minutes, with the light evenly distributed. The lens was opposite the centre of the Shroud, which is reproduced without any distortion. The plate was developed with oxalate of iron, and fixed with hyposulphite in the ordinary way. The photograph also includes the case containing the Shroud, and part of the altar, which had been temporarily erected above the high altar of the Cathedral. The negative is excellent in every way—very finely graduated, very transparent. It has not been intensified. All the markings are clearly visible, just as we have described them. This negative is so precious that M. Pia only used it to obtain a positive on glass, from which he in turn procured a negative. These two plates were intensified, which in no way altered the picture, the only effect being to make it easier to see the details. It is from this secondary original negative that all the subsequent prints, on paper or on glass, were obtained by direct printing, the Shroud only being reproduced.

M. Pia also took two smaller photographs. One of these was taken by electric light, with five minutes' exposure, and gives the whole altar, with the Shroud diminished to the length of 13 cm. 5 mm. The other was taken in daylight, with forty-five minutes' exposure, and gives a large portion of the choir, with the entire canopy, and in the background the Chapel where the Holy Shroud is habitually preserved. On this photograph the length of the Shroud is 5 cm. 8 mm. Both photographs were taken on isochromatic plates, without a screen, and they sufficiently establish the veracity of the first precious negative. The general appearance of the Shroud is identical, and even the details are distinguishable.

The same may be said of a negative taken by M. Felice Fino, which he lent us for a fortnight. It had not been intensified, and we took two prints from it on paper. M. Fino's plate is 21 x 27, and the length of the Shroud on it is 13 centimetres. The whole altar is shown, and part of the carpet which covered the paved floor of the choir. There are also a fireman standing beside the altar, and two kneeling figures in the foreground. Add to these the instantaneous photographs reproduced by P. Solaro in his book, the duplicate of which he has been kind enough to send us, and you have the whole photographic evidence upon which our work is based.

In 1534 the Holy Shroud was strengthened by a lining of linen. In 1694 Sebastien Valfre replaced this linen lining by a black material. Finally, on April 28, 1869, the Princess Clotilde herself changed the lining, which had become worn, and replaced it by a new one of crimson silk. Thus it would have been impossible to photograph the impressions transparently through the substance of the Shroud, even if it had been desirable to do so. This is not all. Pere Sanna Solaro, in his work which appeared in 1901, reproduces on page 142 an instantaneous photograph taken by one of the visitors present at the Exhibition of 1898. This valuable photograph shows the frame of the relic placed on the altar, the altar itself, and the first three rows of spectators. In this photograph the Holy Shroud and the impressions on it present the identical appearance which they do in M. Pia's fine prints. We may affirm, then, that this instantaneous photograph was not obtained by transparency.

M. de Mely admits that the plates of 1898 are genuine and normal as far as the photographic process is concerned. The argument we now have to combat is that the photographic plate has not given us a faithful image of the object itself.

The first of these critics, M. Lajoie, founds his argument on a phrase used by M. Loth in his pamphlet of 1900: " When a photograph is taken of any person or thing, the image obtained on the sensitive plate, which appears after development, is, in consequence of the inversion of tones and the reversion of positions, the negative of the person or thing— that is to say, the contrary of what it is naturally ; it is always and necessarily a negative impression, because there is nothing in nature which is not positive. Here, by a unique exception, the impression on the Holy Shroud has produced on the photographic plate a positive."

This passage contains an error. There are certain cases when, by over-exposure, it is possible for a plate to bear a positive impression, that is to say, the exact reproduction of the object photographed, without any reversal of values. M. Loth's contention is that it is not unlikely that such conditions were realized in 1898, and that in this way may be explained the whole of the, as he thinks, ridiculous fuss made about the impressions on the Holy Shroud.

M. Pia's plate, however, is incontestably a correct negative—the black traces of burning are white ; the pieces of white material used to patch the burns are black ; the borders of the lozenge-shaped patches are light in colour, in harmony with the tone of the cloth. If M. Lajoie had not at his disposal the original photographs of M. Pia, he had only to examine the illustrations in M. Loth's pamphlet. He would have seen all this at a glance.

We have already referred to the instantaneous photograph taken at the public Exhibitipn, a facsimile of which was referred to above as reproduced by P. Sanna Solaro. In an instantaneous photograph there can be no question of inversion by over-exposure. Figure 16 of Pere Solaro's work confirms Plate iv. of our work ; in it the marks on the Holy Shroud are visible in negative. And yet in other respects the instantaneous photograph is positive and normal; there is the white marble altar, and the back view of the three rows of spectators is quite natural. Inversely, figure 15, in Pere Solaro's work is equivalent to our Plate v. In his figure 15 the altar is black, the dark heads of the spectators are white, and, as these spectators are nearly all of them ecclesiastics, the marks of the tonsure on their heads are shown by dark circles. But on this figure 15, which is a perfectly correct negative, the modelling of the figures on the Holy Shroud are represented as positive, exactly as they are shown on the plate taken by M. Pia.

Thus M. Lajoie's objection, although given with all semblance of scientific truth, is valueless. Its author wishes to reduce all the problems raised by the Shroud of Christ to a mere confession of photographic error. The apparent mistake, however, is not that of the photographer.

We will now examine M. Chopin's objections, contained in a letter addressed to M. Chevalier, who inserted it in his Etudes Critiques, after having first requested Professor Lippmann, Member of the " Academie des Sciences " to be good enough to verify the assertions therein. Professor Lippmann examined the photographs, and recognized that the plate was normal and that the images of the Holy Shroud were incontestably negatives.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 34.

CHAPTER VI

THE IMPRESSIONS ARE ACTUAL NEGATIVES—THESE NEGATIVES CANNOT BE PAINTINGS —THESE NEGATIVES CANNOT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY CHEMICAL TRANSFORMATION—THE SHROUD HAS RETAINED THE IMPRESSION OF A HUMAN BODY—THE PROCESS NECESSARY TO PRODUCE PRINTS BY SIMPLE CONTACT — THE IMPRESSIONS RESULT FROM SOME ACTION WITHOUT CONTACT

THE IMPRESSIONS ARE ACTUAL NEGATIVES 

 After the exhibition in 1898 many people asserted that the figures on the Holy Shroud could not be paintings, for the simple reason that they appeared as negatives. It was said, with truth, that it would be impossible to paint thus. This argument, however, was met by a counter assertion that the impressions might not be negatives. The first thing then to establish is this. Are they, or are they not, negatives ?

We propose now to examine the different opinions put forward by hostile critics who desire to prove that these are ordinary paintings by ordinary painters, quite unworthy of the stir made about them.

In the Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosity, which is a supplement to the Gazette des Beaux Arts of September 8, 1900 (p. 304), M. de Mely remarks that " these photographs of the Holy Shroud might be negatives, without the impressions on the Shroud itself being of that nature. The Shroud," he adds, " having been photographed by electric light, transparently through its substance, the paint, even though white, being opaque, would come out dark in the photograph, and produce a negative effect." Here M. de Mely grants that, photographically speaking, the plates of M. Pia are correct; other critics maintain the contrary. We wish to avoid useless discussion, and will not argue also whether the Shroud has or has not got opaque layers of paint upon it, or whether, if one looked through it against the light, it would have a negative appearance. The question to be answered is quite simple. The allegation of M. de Mely is incorrect, because the Holy Shroud was not photographed in the manner suggested.

We have before us an official statement of M. le Baron Antonio Manno, President of the Executive Committee of 1898, under whose supervision the whole of the photographic operations were conducted. In this duly attested document we find that the Holy Shroud, extended in its frame above the altar, was lighted from the front by two powerful electric lamps, placed about ten yards from the relic. It would not occur to any one to doubt the good faith of this Executive Committee. We may add, however, that not even this official testimony was necessary to prove that M. de Mely's statement is a mistaken one.

When we published the first edition of this work we based it on the belief (which for us was a certainty) that M. Pia's photographs were as sincere as they were scrupulously exact. We had only to look at the negative plates in our possession to ascertain that there was no trace of touching up visible, and the peculiarities and creases on the stuff were so well given that they testified to the accuracy of the original plates. But sundry of our critics, hostile to the authenticity of the Shroud, yet finding it impossible to maintain their hostile arguments without incriminating the loyalty of the Commission of 1898, have actually proceeded to do so, without the very slightest foundation for their charges. We will therefore mention here that we ourselves have been to Turin, and have seen M. Pia's original plates, and we can testify that the marks on the Holy Shroud are such as our illustrations represent them.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 33.

Can we go to the immortal Raphael for the right conception of the Redeemer ? Neither in the Last Supper at Florence, nor in his Transfiguration at the Vatican, can we admit anything Divine in the aspect and attributes of the Saviour as there represented. He is one of the personages of the picture, playing His decorative part with all due fitness, just as the Apostles and others fulfil their roles.

Of choice we end our review with the Christ of Leonardo da Vinci (fig. 30). Was the artist right when he protested that he was powerless to deal with such a subject ?

The rough sketch of the figure is in the Brera collection at Milan.

The finished head at St. Marie des Graces is now almost indistinguishable, while in the various copies, the copyists seem to have worked according to their own fancy. It is then to the rough sketch alone that we must look for the artists ideal; and if the original conception was pure and noble, the drawing somewhat lacks power. At first one seems to realize that the thought which the artist wished to render was that of self-abnegation, but as we continue to gaze at it we recognize that the basis of the idea is morbid and sentimental. The artist evidently drew upon his own imagination, and so we find the eyebrows commonplace in outline, the eyes vaguely prominent, the nose too rounded, and the lips weak and commonplace. Yes, Leonardo has failed, as he feared he must.

Our examination, then, has brought us to a definite conclusion; a conclusion which we believe that art-critics and men of science cannot fail to arrive at also; namely, that among all the works of art which the world has ever known, sculpture or painting, the portrait on the Holy Shroud has never been equalled, much less surpassed. It stands quite alone. Reproducing as it does, the actual lineaments of our Lord, it seems to bring Him living before us, with all the heroism, all the goodness of the Redeemer still visible on the dead face.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 32.

We need not allude to the works of Flemish artists of the second rank, nor to the German masters of the fifteenth century, such as Roger van der Veyden, or Bouts (whose Christ on the Cross is in the Berlin Gallery); none of these in truth rise above mediocrity. In the works of Rubens and Van Dyck we find incomparable ability, but none of that humble religious faith and feeling which is often displayed by lesser artists. We must perforce pay homage to the incomparable Christ at Emmaus by Rembrandt. Yes, here at last we have the true Christ of infinite goodness, love, and pitifulness, bearing on His countenance the unmistakable traces of His agony, yet emanating Divine mysterious light. In spite of these transcendent attributes, we return with satisfaction to the Christ of the Holy Shroud. Here the sacred image is instinct with greater majesty, but is imbued with so supernatural, so wonderful a calm, that as we gaze we think of His own words, " Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you, not as the world gives give I unto you," and the longings of the soul are appeased.

It is with some hesitation that we venture into the maze of the Italian schools in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; but here as elsewhere fine examples of the conception of Christ are rare. It would be easy to show that such artists as Verrocchio, Piero della Francesca, Mantegna, and many others have very insufficiently rendered the type of Christ. Of Ghirlandajo there is in the Berlin collection a Pieta, where a slender-bodied Christ is supported uneasily on the knees of His mother, but the picture leaves us cold and dissatisfied.

There is no coldness about the Christ of the Column by. Sodoma, the celebrated fresco at Sienna ; the figure might be that of a defeated gladiator, and is so pagan in feeling that we find ourselves almost regretting the miserable Christs of the Flemish school in the fifteenth century.

There is a Dead Christ by the Venetian master, Giovanni Bellini (fig. 29) which we may mention. The picture represents the Saviour supported by His Mother, while Saint John appears to be appealing to the spectators of this sad scene. We reproduce here a portion of the work, showing the anxious grief of the Mother, who gazes with anguish on her Son's face, in the hope of finding some last ray of hope. The Christ here is entirely human ; it is a man exhausted by the inutility of sacrifice, who has laid down his life and has definitely done with it.

Let us notice here the persistence, we might almost say the tyranny, of an art formula or tradition, which could impose itself on three such different painters as Perugino, Fra Bartolommeo, and Andrea del Sarto. The dead Christ is seen in profile; the Virgin or St. John sustains the body, while a number of spectators are grouped around in different attitudes. It is the stereotyped Italian method of treating the same scene which has been expressed by Quentin Matsys with so much force and feeling. There is no spontaneity in any one of the three painters we have mentioned; their rendering of Christ is in all equally smooth and conventional. The Christ of Andrea del Sarto, indeed, is neither more nor less than a poor representation of some beggar-man who, having fallen exhausted by the way, is surrounded by charitable and compassionate spectators.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 31.

We must give a special place apart to a sculptured head of Christ dating from the fifteenth century which is in the collections of the Louvre (fig. 26). This head has since become come classic, and may be found reproduced with hardly any modification in the crucifixes which have since been made. How strong is the influence of a fashion will be realized when we find in a different country, and at a much later date, that Guido Reni has taken this very head as his type and model, and reproduced it, though with some loss of power. It became in fact an artistic type, and as such was universally adopted. The head is expressive of the bitter moment in our Saviour's agony when He cries to His Father, " My God, My God,  why hast Thou forsaken Me ? "

It is not difficult to show that we cannot look to the Flemish school of Art to give us the ideal Christ—pitiful, loving, heroic. The Christ of Van Eyck is sufficiently well known ; it is a painting doubtless executed by that great artist about the year 1438, and is preserved to-day in the Gallery at Berlin. Nothing could be colder than this inexpressive Flemish countenance, with its enormous forehead and symmetrically arched eyebrows, rising above a pair of small piercing eyes. It is the head of a man who does not think, and from whose lips we have nothing to learn.

Roger van der Veyden, a pupil of Van Eyck, is more touched by his subject. At the National Gallery there is a Christ Crowned with Thorns by him, which is in many ways admirable. The eyes are full of tears ; the face is full of grief and pain, the lips are slightly open. He pardons his tormentors, but all grandeur is absent from the tragedy. The sufferer is feeble, the head too long, the eyes too small. Such a Christ as this is no voluntary sacrifice—He is suffering a martyrdom from which there is no escape ; He is a mere dreamer, a victim. In another work, the triptych of the Seven Sacraments, the artist has depicted a yet more miserable sufferer. This is at the Antwerp Gallery. It is a Christ upon the Cross.

Let us now turn to Quentin Matsys, that great master of the sixteenth century. We do not much care for his Christ, the Saviour of the World, at the National Gallery, which, gives the figure of Christ hard and wooden, beside an exquisite Virgin. Still less do we like The Holy Face at Antwerp, which is a grimacing head, without light and shadow, and with a mouth singularly contorted.

But, on the other hand, attention may well be arrested by two heads, which Matsys himself may have loved to place side by side as his own conception of the Divine model, one dead, the other living. The Christ in the Act of Blessing of the Antwerp Museum (fig. 27) may almost be said to radiate light, but in spite of the wonderful effect which the artist has produced there is a lack of power ; we look in vain for any trace of the sacrifice which marked the life of Christ throughout. But now let us turn to the central piece of the great Antwerp triptych, The Dead Christ (fig. 28). Here the artist's power amounts to genius. This is in truth one of the gems of Flemish Art ; but when we analyse this great work—the Christ is in very truth dead, dead without hope of resurrection—hope, as well as life, has gone out of the corpse. Thus one of the greatest artists in two of his best paintings has not been able quite to attain the ideal. The glorious living: Christ is without pity ; the dead Christ is without that hidden force which has changed the whole world.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 30.

Giotto was doubtless a contemporary of the unknown author of the Assisi fresco, and we know that for picturesque grouping and general movement, his work is excellent. But the Christs painted by him are uniformly uninteresting, whether we consider the heads only, or the general treatment. There is at Padua a fresco of Christ raising Lazarus , which has been photographed ; the outlines are badly drawn, but the grouping and general movement are well rendered.

From our point of view, the two most instructive works of Giotto are The Descent from the Cross and The Entombment, both in the Lower Church at Assisi. In a general way the qualities and defects of these two works are much the same as in the fresco of Padua ; above all, we recognize the puny imagination of the artist when he attempts to depict the body of Christ borne by the reverent hands of the disciples to the sepulchre. It is a difficult subject, but we may add that in the many heads of Christ executed by this artist the work is usually bad.

As a parallel to The Calvary of Assisi we should wish to put a work by Duccio di Buoninsegna on the same subject, which is at Sienna. Here we shall see that art has made rapid progress. The group of Pharisees is painted with singular force, but as soon as spirituality of expression is necessary the power of the artist diminishes, and we find the holy women and the friends of Christ only moderately conceived, while the figure of the Christ Himself is without strength—without beauty—it leaves us cold.

At Assisi also is to be found some of the work of Taddeo Gaddi, an energetic but unequal artist a few years younger than Giotto. We reproduce here his Calvary (fig. 25), if it be but to show that the task was greater than he was able to perform. The composition gives just the three essential figures, the Christ, the Virgin, and St. John, a proof that the artist desires to concentrate his powers of imagination and technique. Some parts of the work are in fact quite admirable. The Saint John is most powerful ; never has painting, even at its best, given a more sincere and dramatic attitude, or more expressive line of drapery—the head in its agony of entreaty is inexpressibly grand. The figure of the Virgin, however, is, we think, less powerfully conceived ; the expression of sorrow is almost a grimace. But let us consider the central figure, the Christ. Here it is that the artist's lack of power is conspicuous ; the head might have been hewed out with a hatchet, and the rendering of the body, while aspiring to truth, is really little else than vulgar. No doubt Taddeo Gaddi wished to emphasize the anatomy of the figure—to show the muscles, the veins, and the distortion of the feet violently drawn together—but the effect is repulsive.

With the painters Giotto and Duccio we were conscious of an "effort to idealize—to draw from the inward vision a touching and spiritual representation—but in Taddeo Gaddi we have also a honest conscientious worker, who in his endeavour to paint naturally, sinks to the level of mere realism.

But at this very period, at this epoch in the history of the world's Art, the Christ on the Shroud shows neither weakness nor brutality.

Thus we pass beyond the fateful date of 1353. The suppositious author of the figure on the Shroud has been vainly sought in France, while in Italy we have found no work of that period which could rank as its artistic equal. We may now usefully glance at the subsequent centuries and their productions.

In France we may mention the Enshrouding of Christ at the Abbey of Solesme. It is an important piece of fifteenth century work, a model of which may be seen at the Trocadero. Many portions of it are very good ; the body of the recumbent Christ is a fine piece of modelling, but the head is cold and lacks expression. A somewhat similar subject is The Entombment of Saint Mihiel at the Church of St. Stephen, a sixteenth-century group by Ligier-Richard. A cast of this is also to be found at the Museum of Comparative Sculpture. The artist is a perfect master of technicality, but the figure of Christ is heavily done—a large, unenlightened head. Let us notice in passing the Christ of Puget, the original of which is at Marseilles ; here the artist errs on the side of conventionality and senti-mentalism, characteristic faults of the seventeenth century.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 29.

It is clear, then, that the .contemporaries of the supposititious forger of Lirey were not men of any lofty artistic ideals, as shown at either Paris or Semur. In a Wooden bust of Christ attributed to the fourteenth century, which is to be found at Pontoise (fig. 24), we rise, however, to a slightly higher level. Here at least is a sincere attempt on the part of the artist to represent the Christ in His true ethnical type, and we realize that in so doing he has had to break with the traditions of his time. The long aquiline nose of the Christ of Pontoise is entirely different from that of the Beau Dieu of Amiens or of the apostle of the church of St. Jacques. Here, then, at least is a man who means to plough his own furrow. What is the result of his efforts ?

Alas! the head is in no way striking, for without laying stress on the poverty of design shown in the brow and mouth, the eyes, cast down, show no indication of intelligence, love, or pity. Such a Christ as this could inspire no respect, no veneration. The formal awkwardness of the head proves moreover that the sculptor was by no means master of his craft.

It may be thought that to strengthen our argument we are purposely bringing forward the commoner class of works, but this is not so.

In the second half of the fourteenth century, there lived an artist of really high renown, Andre Beauneveu of Valenciennes. To arrive at a just appreciation of this artist we have only the statue by him of Charles V at Saint Denis, and the reproductions of some miniatures of his which are given by Monsieur P. Durrieu in his interesting review of this artist's work. The recumbent statue of Charles V is in truth very fine ; it is indeed of the nature of an actual portrait: but many a master could produce a striking likeness when working directly from life, who would fail, when drawing only by his imagination. In a miniature which adorns the Tres Belles Heures du due de Berry we find this to be the case. The portrait of Charles V seen in profile occupies the foreground. This portrait is excellent in every way, but behind the King are the figures of two of the Saints, and these, alas ! are executed in a very inferior manner. How awkward the drawing of the nose and mouth in the St. John the Baptist ! The feet are almost ridiculous, and the same may be said of the hands of St. Andrew.

When M. Durrieu goes on to attribute to Beauneveu Les Petites Heures du due de Berry (an assumption which we are not prepared altogether to endorse), it cannot be denied that in one of the miniatures representing the Trinity the two heads representing God the Father and God the Son are sadly wanting in expression ; indeed it might almost seem that they are modelled on the same lines as the unpleasing heads of St. John the Baptist and St. Andrew, to which we have just referred.

In the first half year of the Gazette des Beaux Arts for 1898 there are two articles by Monsieur A. de Champeaux treating historically of all the ancient schools of Burgundian and Flemish painters, and it must be confessed that the treatment of the figure of Christ as conceived by these ancient masters is anything but attractive. We may specially call attention to a dead Christ, supported by God the Father, by Malouel (about 1400), and to another of Christ on the Cross by Henri de Bellechose (about 1415): both are neither more nor less than ugly.

To sum up, then: neither to Andre Beauneveu, nor to any other sculptor or painter of like ability, can we attribute the artistic breadth and vigour, far less, the nobility of conception, so wonderfully expressed in the Holy Shroud.

We should have given an incomplete idea of what could be done by the art of the fourteenth century if we were to limit our outlook to France alone. The first French Renaissance does not, it is true, seem to us worthy of such a task as the production of the Holy Shroud, but let us consider the claims of the great Italian masters, such as Giotto, Duccio, and others. We may call to mind the Calvary of the Upper Church of Assisi, of which in Plate vi. we have reproduced a curious fragment. Can the author thereof have been Cimabue ? We think not ; that would be to increase its age by half a century. The fresco is much deteriorated by time, and, having turned negative for the most part, it is somewhat difficult to decipher. A whole legion of angels are flying round a Christ of supernatural size ; the grouping and flight of this angelic host is well rendered. Unfortunately, however, the features of the Christ Himself are barely distinguishable, and in this much, our examination must be incomplete. The ability of the artist, however, to produce beautiful and energetic heads cannot be denied, for in the group to the left, the enemies of Christ, there are some remarkable heads, as may be seen in the facsimile we give. But even these heads are so rough in execution, that we see how impossible it would have been for the painter to execute a face with the delicacy and nobility of expression which such a task would demand.

The Shroud Of Christ By Paul Vignon D.Sc (Fr) Part 28.

To complete the artistic tradition which has inspired the author of the Amiens head we must compare it with other statues of a like place and period. Let us take the figure of Christ, which stands over the central entrance of Bourges Cathedral (fig. 20), not the ancient figure on the tympanum, but the more spirited and so to speak elegant one which stands on the pillar separating the two doors. This also is a "Christ teaching," but it is only an inferior copy of the " Beau Dieu " ; the drapery is treated in the same way, only it is a little less natural and happy in general execution. The head has not the same beauty, it is more emaciated, and perhaps not quite anatomically correct ; but the main features of detail—the eyebrows, the eyes, the nose—are the same. The mouth is of the Amiens type, but grosser and more common. The hair and beard are alike in both examples ; specially we may notice the moustaches, which, somewhat thin and drooping, curve inwards not very gracefully. The thick curls of the beard in both statues take exactly the same somewhat heavy and formal contours.

Look now upon the Divine face in the Holy Shroud ; it is nature itself.

In this short sketch of the different representations of Christ, dating about the thirteenth century, we have only alluded to the head, because in all the statues and pictures mentioned the body is covered with drapery. It seems clear that no artist of that date has produced anything that can compare in natural truth of form and beauty with the image on the Shroud of Turin.

If, then, the Christ of the Holy Shroud is found to be so incomparably superior to the representations of the thirteenth century, it compares even more favourably with those of the century following—works which are often beautiful but unequal in execution, and often attain only to mediocrity in artistic ideal. It is sufficient to refer to a few of the best known examples ; for instance, the statue of an apostle belonging formerly to the ancient Church of St. Jacques, but now preserved in the Cluny collection (fig. 21). We reproduce this merely in contrast to the severe religious austerity which characterized the work of the previous century, and to show the kind of art which was produced in the north of France at the time that the Charny family founded the Abbey of Lirey. The art of the fourteenth century was weaker, languid, and more affected.

Sometimes it descended even to vulgar ugliness. At Notre Dame de Paris, for instance, in the choir screen there are scenes from the life of Christ, sculptured and painted ; those on the right can be well seen in the afternoon light. We give here as an example of this work the figure of Christ when He was mistaken by Mary Magdalen for the gardener (fig. 22). This series of scenes may well be considered as the work of the best artists of the period, and they are curious and interesting as studies, but altogether wanting in depth of thought or nobility of design. It is not that the artist has made the figure of Christ vulgar only by placing a spade in its hand ; it is by the want of proportion in the head, which is too big for the body, by the shortness of the commonplace nose, the heavy brows, the obstinate expression, all conveying poverty of detail, a characteristic indeed which pervades the whole work.

Further examples of the decadence of the period are not
wanting. Let us take the group (here reproduced) where St. Thomas touches the wound in the Saviour's side (fig. 23). The original is to be found in the Cathedral of Semur in the ancient province of Burgundy. It may be urged that the level of art in so remote a locality could not be expected to rise to the height of the capital; but, on the other hand, was the town of Troyes, near which the abbey of Lirey was found, any less provincial than Semur ? The man who chiselled the head of St. Thomas was no novice ; but can the name of artist be given to him who conceived in his mind the type here given of the Christ ?