The Shroud of Turin
and the
Sainte-Chapelle of Paris

by Mario Latendresse

The following text is a preliminary version of a future publication
July 2015

Note: the following presentation focuses on the Mandylion. Its main claim: the Mandylion was transferred from Constantinople to the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris and disappeared from it well before the French Revolution.

Figure 1: Icon of Abgar, middle of 10th century, Saint-Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai, one wing of a triptych. Saint Thaddeus and King Abgar V holding the Mandylion, also known as the Image of Edessa. Constantine VII, the Byzantine Emperor from 913 to 959, is actually portrayed as playing the role of Abgar. (Photograph in the Public Domain).

Introduction

The Shroud of Turin has a solid historical record from its first exposition at the collegiate church of Lirey (France), around 1356. The collegiate church was founded by Geoffroy de Charny († September 1356), a knight and counselor to King Philippe VI de Valois († August 1350) and King Jean II le Bon († April 1364).

However, the provenance of the Shroud before its appearance at Lirey has been controversial, an historical conundrum for more than a century. Several historical theses have been proposed to explain that provenance, most of them involving the Mandylion, also known as the Image of Edessa, because it is known to be a cloth with an image of Jesus Christ and that its history goes back to the first centuries. However, the historical documents before the 12th century are not always very clear as the true nature of the Mandylion, in particular of its size. The thesis that the Mandylion and the Shroud of Turin are the same object has been proposed by Ian Wilson [Wilson, 2010].

We know that the Mandylion was in Constantinople when the city was sacked by the army of the Fourth Crusade, in April of 1204. But according to many authors, its whereabouts appear to be lost after that, although in this post it is argued that this is not the case. As it will be shown, the main reason for the lack of a clear documented trace of the Mandylion is due to the lack of knowledge of that relic from the Latins when they took over the Bucoleon in Constantinople.

If the Mandylion is the Shroud of Turin, how did it reach Lirey? Several theses have been proposed to answer this transfer of the Mandylion from Constantinople to Lirey involving the knight Othon de la Roche or the Knights Templar. We believe that these theses clouded the simplicity of the most obvious one: the thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle. This thesis can be summarized in the following way.

The thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle
It is historically well established that in the first half of the 13th century, Baudoin II de Courtenay, the last Latin emperor residing at Constantinople, ceded several relics in their Byzantine reliquaries from the Bucoleon palace to King Louis IX of France. Among them was the Mandylion, a cloth bearing an image of Jesus Christ. Unknown to Baudoin II, Louis IX and the clerics of the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris, the cloth bears a complete image, front and back, of the body of Jesus Christ. The Mandylion was kept in its original Byzantine reliquary for about a century in the Grande Châsse of the Sainte-Chapelle, then given to Geoffroy de Charny by King Philippe VI de Valois as a gift for his great services to France. The reliquary of the Mandylion remained at the Sainte-Chapelle until the French Revolution when it was lost. In summary, the Mandylion was transferred from Constantinople to Geoffroy de Charny through the Sainte-Chapelle, and the Mandylion is now known as the Shroud of Turin.
Figure 2: The interior of the upper level of the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris. Photo by A. B. Solomon.

The thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle is coherent with the statements made by the son and grand-daughter of Geoffroy de Charny, essentially stating that the Shroud came from their father and grand-father, as well as with the document written around 1525, probably by the dean of the church of Lirey, in which it is stated that the Shroud was given to Geoffroy by Philippe VI de Valois, King of France[p. 130, Dubarle and Leynen, 1998]. The entire document “Pour scavoir la Vérité” is published in old French with comments by Hilda Leynen [pp. 113–140, Dubarle and Leynen, 1998], which was also first published, in English, by Dorothy Crispino[Crispino, 1988]. This thesis is a direct route of the Mandylion from Constantinople to Paris and then to Geoffroy de Charny, who brought it to Lirey. Many other theses for the transfer of the Mandylion to Lirey, or more generally the appearance of the Shroud at Lirey, ignore or belittle some or all these statements that are well documented and coherent with each other. Compelling arguments ought to be given to propose any thesis that are contradicting these statements.

This presentation gives an introduction to the thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle with new arguments to support it that have not yet been published, and shows that many objections that were raised against it are not valid or compelling.

Development of the Thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle

The Dominican André-Marie Dubarle (†2002), who was professor of theology at the Saulchoir in Paris, and Hilda Leynen (†1997), promoted the thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle. Dubarle and Leynen published detailed arguments, with copies of some of the relevant documents, supporting the Sainte-Chapelle thesis [Dubarle and Leynen, 1998]. We will present similar arguments with new details about the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle to further support the thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle.

Many authors and historians have not accepted this thesis and published objections against it, among them, Emmanuel Poulle (†2011), Dorothy Crispino (†2014), Andrea Nicolotti, Daniel Scavone, Ian Wilson, Mark Guscin, Steven Runciman (†2000), César Barta, Daniel Duque and Maxence Hecquard. On the other hand, Wilson was the initiator of the thesis that the Mandylion is the Shroud of Turin, and Guscin as well as Scavone have defended Wilson's thesis.

We believe that all the objections raised by these authors can be addressed in favor of the thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle when analyzing in details the inventories of the relics kept in the Grande Châsse, the Golden Bull of Baudoin II, and the chronicles of the translations of the relics from Constantinople to Paris. Answers to some of the objections published by these authors are presented below in Section Answers to Objections of the Thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle.

Moreover, the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle show that the Mandylion was a large cloth, not a small cloth (e.g., a towel), as some authors claim. This aspect was not discussed in details by Dubarle and Leynen.

In Section A Summary of the Inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle Related to the Mandylion, most relevant entries of the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle are given. Other important references to relevant documents are given in the Section References.

Five Questions About the Mandylion at the Sainte-Chapelle

The thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle will be divided into several questions to better present the arguments to support it:

In the following, we present evidences that the first five questions can be answered positively. First, a few words about the Sainte-Chapelle and the provenance of the relics and reliquaries in the Grande Châsse.

Louis IX, King of France ordered the construction of the Royal Chapel of Paris, which was completed in 1248. It remained a royal chapel for all subsequent French kings until the French Revolution. It was built with two levels, still in existence today, the lower level was used as a parish chapel where domestics and other residents of the Royal City could attend mass, whereas the upper level, which has stunning walls of stained glasses, was mostly used as a private chapel for the kings of France. Today, the Royal Chapel is more adequately called the Sainte-Chapelle (the Holy-Chapel) because it no longer belongs to any royalty and it is mostly used as a museum. For a multimedia introduction to the history of the Sainte-Chapelle and the cité du Palais, see the Section Selected Videos on the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris. For a detailed presentation of the history of the Palais de Justice and the Sainte-Chapelle, see the French online document [Henri Stein, 1912]. For a recent well illustrated presentation of the Byzantine relics and reliquaries received at the Sainte-Chapelle, which also covers succinct presentations of some of its inventories, see Durand and Laffitte [Durand and Laffitte, 2001]. In the same volume, for a description of the foundation of the collegial of clerics for the Sainte-Chapelle, see [Billot, 2001].

Figure 3: An elevated baldachin on a platform at the same location where the Grande Châsse containing the relics of Constantinople were kept in the choir of the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris.
© Mario Latendresse. Photo taken 26 April 2015.

The Royal Chapel was built to house the relics ceded by Baudoin II to Louis IX, king of France. The twenty-two relics were in Constantinople in the Bucoleon palace and were brought to Paris by three different translations: first, the famous Crown of Thorns leaving Constantinople in 1239 and arriving in Paris in 1239; second, a group of several relics, which would have included the Mandylion, arriving in Paris in 1241; finally, a smaller group of relics leaving Constantinople in 1241 and arriving in Paris in 1241 or 1242. A summary describing the relevant documents and the three translations is presented by Marie-Pierre Laffitte[p. 46, Durand and Laffitte, 2001]. The text of these translations, written in Latin, was first made available by Miller[Miller, 1878] and further discussed by de Wailly[de Wailly, 1878].

However, the Mandylion is unknown in the West and arrives at the Sainte-Chapelle described in uncertain terms, and not by referencing it as the Mandylion or Image of Edessa. A Grande Châsse was made to securely contained all reliquaries and relics from Constantinople. The Grande Châsse was kept elevated on a platform behind the altar and under a baldachin (see Figures 3 and 4). The reliquaries were behind locked doors, as part of the Grande Châsse, controlled by ten keys.

Most of these relics and the reliquaries have been lost or destroyed, including the Grande Châsse, during the French Revolution. At least two of these relics still exist today: the Crown of Thorns and a piece of the True Cross, both kept in the treasury of Notre-Dame church, a few blocks from the Sainte-Chapelle. As it will be argued in the following, the Mandylion was part of the relics received in the Sainte-Chapelle and it was not destroyed during the French Revolution. The Sainte-Chapelle no longer houses any relics or reliquaries, and certainly none from the destroyed Grande Châsse.

The Mandylion had an image of Jesus Christ on it. It has been debated whether the Mandylion was a small or a large cloth and whether it had the image of only the face or the entire body imprint of Jesus Christ. Although the Mandylion was well known in the East, it was unknown in the West, but slowly a similar relic called the Veil of Veronica, or simply Veronica started to be venerated around the 13th century. The term “Veronica” is used in the late inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle to describe the portrait seen in the reliquary of the Mandylion. There are many artistic representations of the Mandylion and the Veronica. Figures 1, 6 and 10 show some of them.

Figure 4: The choir of the Sainte-Chapelle with the Grande Châsse in the background.

The complete list of relics and reliquaries sent from Constantinople to the Sainte-Chapelle is given by an official document given to Louis IX in 1247, signed by Baudoin II, and that is often called the bulle d'or (Golden Bull). See the Section The Golden Bull of Baudoin II below for its text and the list of relics sent from Constantinople to Louis IX. Note that the relics were sent to Paris many years before 1247, which implies that Louis IX and the clerics could verify that the relics listed in that document were indeed received. For a description of the reliquaries kept in the Grande Châsse, see [pp. 113–122, Durand, 2001]. Remarkably, the reliquary of the Mandylion was rarely represented in the many artistic reproductions of the relics and reliquaries, and the earliest known reproduction on which we can approximately infer its size, in particular its depth, dates from the 18th century.

Items 8 and 16 of the Golden Bull are relevant. Item 8 will be shown as being the Mandylion in its reliquary, item 16 is a part of the sudarium that wrapped Jesus Christ in the tomb. These two relics should not be confused. As it will be seen in this Section, many authors and scholars have confused these two relics or their reliquaries, but they are described very differently in the inventories. Note that item 16 is explicitly stated as being only a part, not the whole sudarium. The Cathedral of Toledo has a piece of that part and it is different to the cloth of the Shroud of Turin[Barta, 2001].

As already stated, the main documents supporting the thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle are the inventories of the relics of the Grande Châsse at the Sainte-Chapelle. Alexandre Vidier, among others, compiled and commented these inventories, a major work by itself. This work of Vidier is available online (in French), from the Gallica web site, in Mémoires de la Société de l'Histoire de Paris et de l'Ile-de-France[Vidier, 1907],[Vidier, 1908]. Dom Michel Félibien (1666-1719) also transcribed one inventory of the Sainte-Chapelle[pp. 148-151, Félibien, 1725], which is inventory L of Vidier, done in 1534, but apparently not from the same manuscript because the texts differ. That important inventory of 1534 covers only the Grande Châsse where the likely disappearance of the Mandylion, from the Sainte-Chapelle, was recorded. Note that Félibien transcribed that inventory before 1719, and that he probably had access to documents that we no longer have today, whereas Vidier is using documents still in the National archives of France. Indeed, the fire of 1737 destroyed a large part of the Chambre des comptes, where many manuscripts of the inventories were kept[p. cv, Boislisle, 1873]. Marie-Pierre Laffitte[pp. 142–147, Laffitte, 2001] gives a summary of the inventories with their origins and cites the manuscripts used to compile them. For a summary of the inventories related to the Mandylion, with English translations, see this Section in the Annexes below.

As mentioned, the inventories that we have today are based on various manuscripts some that were copies of the original inventories, and some that are original. In the following explanations, we use the transcriptions provided by Vidier, who labeled each inventory with one or two letters, and one inventory transcribed by Félibien, based on an older manuscript, that corresponds to inventory L of Vidier. We will focus on several inventories starting with inventory R because it is the inventory that most clearly describe the reliquary of the Mandylion. Many inventories published by Vidier do not list the relics of the Grande Châsse because many inventories were not for relics, but for other objects in the Sainte-Chapelle or for relics that were not kept in the Grande Châsse, which explains that in the following, not all inventories of Vidier are mentioned. But no inventory of the Grande Châsse is going to be skipped.

The inventories need to be analyzed in details to draw coherent descriptions of the relics, in particular of the sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam (a holy cloth inserted in a table) given in the Golden Bull, which we will see is the Mandylion. Care must also be taken to match the corresponding relic from one inventory to the next, because the relics are not always mentioned in the same order between inventories. Analyzing one inventory without considering all other inventories is incorrect because it can lead to incoherent interpretation of the text analyzed. We will see that this is particularly important for inventories A, L and R.

Figure 5: An 18th century artistic reproduction of the Grande Châsse containing twenty relics, eighteen from Constantinople. Two relics of the Virgin were added and three relics from Constantinople were placed in the lower level of the Sainte-Chapelle. Many Byzantine reliquaries were replaced by new ones but not for the reliquary of the Mandylion nor the reliquary of the piece of stone from the tomb of Jesus Christ. In the center is the reliquary of the Crown of Thorns. The labels of reliquaries 11, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are emphasized. Reliquary 11 is for the swaddling cloths of the infancy of the Saviour with which he was wrapped in his cradle (pannos infantie Salvatoris, quibus fuit in cunabulis involutus). Reliquary 16 is for the top part of the head of John the Baptist (superiorem partem capitis beati Johannis Baptiste). Reliquary 17 is for a part of the sudarium that wrapped Jesus Christ in the tomb (partem sudarii quo involutum fuit corpus ejus in sepulchro). Reliquary 18 is for the Mandylion (sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam). Reliquary 19 is for a piece of stone from the tomb of Christ (magnam partem de lapide sepulcri domini nostri Jesu Christi). Planche de Sauveur-Jérôme Morand[p. 40, Morand, 1790].

Did the Reliquary of the Mandylion Reach the Sainte-Chapelle?

We first study inventory R [p. 297, Vidier, 1908], done in 1740. That inventory has detailed descriptions of the reliquaries, with a short description of the relics, if any. Item 19, is described in the following way.

19. Une autre boette, de vingt deux pouces de long sur quinze pouces de large, aussy couverte de lames d'argent et garnye de quelques pierres précieuses; au dedans de la ditte boette, le fond est revêtu de lames d'or dans tout le contour, et dans le milieu est la représentation de la sainte face de Notre Seigneur, ou la Véronique.
(Another box, of twenty-two inches long by fifteen inches wide, also covered by silver plates and decorated by a few precious stones; inside the said box, the bottom is covered by golden plates in all its contour and in the center is the representation of the holy face of Our Lord, or the Veronica.)

Note: the inch unit mentioned in that quote is a French inch used before the French Revolution in France, which is about 2.7 cm, not 2.54 cm for the American inch. So the box was about 60 cm long by 40 cm wide. The height, or depth, of the box is not mentioned in this description, but from a representation of the Grande Châsse by Morand (see Figure 5), it can be approximated between 3 to 8 cm.

From this description, it is clear that inside the box there is a representation of the face of Jesus Christ. It is also almost certain that it is directly painted on the bottom of the reliquary because the French text is written in a way that implies it. No mention is made of any cloth or other material, and that, as we will see, all the following inventories describe the painted face with no cloth mentioned. An early text of Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle also describes the painting as directly on the reliquary. There is no other reliquary in the inventories of the Grande Châsse described with a face of Jesus Christ. The term “Veronica” is used in this inventory because, in the West, it was a well known term, that emerged from the 13th century, to describe an image similar to the Mandylion. It actually refers to the Veil of Veronica. Therefore, this box is likely the reliquary of the Mandylion.

There is also another detail of that description that further confirms that this is the reliquary of the Mandylion: the “golden plates in all its contour”, which is similar to the description of King Abgar fixing the Mandylion to a decorated gold panel.

There is yet another important element that confirms that this is the reliquary of the Mandylion, which will be analyzed below when studying inventory L. This inventory states that there is a trellis in the image. It is indeed the case that, for several artistic renditions, the Mandylion was depicted with a trellis around the face of Jesus Christ (see Figures 7 and 10).

We can answer convincingly that the reliquary of the Mandylion that was in Constantinople did reach the Sainte-Chapelle in the 13th century.

Did the Mandylion reach the Sainte-Chapelle?

The reliquary of the Mandylion reached the Sainte-Chapelle, but was the Mandylion inside of it when it arrived? The early documents describing the relics need to be analyzed, which includes: 1) the chronicles of the translation of the relics from Constantinople to Paris, that occurred from 1239 to 1241 (perhaps until 1242, but unlikely); 2) the Golden Bull written in 1247; and 3) the early inventory A written no later than 1315.

1) Translations of the relics

There were three translations of relics from Constantinople to Paris (see Miller[Miller, 1878] and de Wailly [de Wailly, 1878]). The first one does not concern the Mandylion because only the Crown of Thorns was involved.

In the chronicle of the translation of some of the relics written by Gérard de Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle, the Mandylion is described as tabula quedam quam, cum deponeretur Dominus de cruce, ejus facies tetigit[p. 298, Miller, 1878] (a board that touched the face of the Lord, when he was laid down from the cross). It is indeed the only relic that can correspond to item 19 of inventory R. Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle could have seen the reliquary and the relic of the Mandylion or it was described that way to him, in either case, no cloth is mentioned and the portrait is seen directly on the reliquary (i.e., the board).

Since no cloth is mentioned, we could infer that no cloth was in the reliquary of the Mandylion when it arrived in Paris. But the second two following witnesses show that a cloth was in the reliquary. We have to conclude that Gérard de Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle considered the image on the reliquary as the essential element of that relic. The cloth was considered secondary. Also, as we will see later, it is possible that the cloth was in a trellis and partly attached to the bottom of the reliquary such that it was not possible, without interfering with the reliquary, to analyze the cloth.

2) The Golden Bull

In the Golden Bull, there is a list of twenty two relics and reliquaries. By simply reading the items of that list, we can establish a one to one correspondence of these items with the items of inventory R (which is an inventory taken almost 500 years after the Golden Bull was written). Then the only relic of the Golden Bull that can correspond to item 19 of inventory R is sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam (a holy cloth inserted in a table). Because we previously established that item 19 of inventory R is likely the reliquary of the Mandylion, we can now establish that this element of the Golden Bull corresponds to the Mandylion and its reliquary. The Mandylion is sanctam toellam (holy cloth), and its reliquary is tabulae.

The Golden Bull was given to King Louis IX in 1247, in the presence of Baudoin II. It was siz years after the reception of all relics from Constantinople, but before the completion of the Sainte-Chapelle. The relics were kept at the Abbaye of Saint-Denis, not far from Paris. It is at least expected, that the list of relics listed in the Golden Bull was verified and compared to the relics still at the Abbaye of Saint-Denis. Based on the Golden Bull alone, the Mandylion, that is, the “holy cloth”, likely reached the Sainte-Chapelle.

3) Early inventory A

The inventory A given by Vidier [p. 200, Vidier, 1907] contains 24 items, some of which, but not all, are relics from the Grande Châsse, that is, that are identifiable as coming from Constantinople and described in the Golden Bull of Baudoin II. Inventory A was likely done before 1279, and certainly no later than 1315, that is, before the appearance of the Shroud at the collegiate church of Lirey. Item eleven is described in medieval French, as follow

ung escrin de fust peint où il y a ung grant sainctuaire sans escript [p. 200, Vidier, 1907]

which can be translated in modern French and English to

Un écrin peint où il y a une grande sainte relique sans identification (A painted box where there is a large holy relic without identification.)

Note: the word “écrin” means a box containing something precious. The word “reliquary” could be used instead of “box”, although “reliquary” does not tell us that it is a box.

Item eleven of inventory A is the only one that can correspond to item 19 of inventory R based on the term “painted box” and a complete search of other inventories do not show another item that could correspond to item eleven of inventory A. We conclude that these two items, item eleven of A and item 19 of R, are the same but described differently.

This reinforces that the reliquary of the Mandylion did contain a relic after its arrival in Paris and that it was a cloth by considering the Golden Bull of Baudoin II.

Was the Mandylion a small or a large cloth?

An essential word in describing item eleven of that first inventory A is “grant”, in modern French “grande” (large). The relic was not small, but large. How large is unknown, but it plausibly filled up the reliquary, and since there is no description of the face at the bottom of the reliquary, as stated for its corresponding item 19 in inventory R, it means that the relic likely covered it. There is also no mention of any image on the relic. In a few words, it is difficult to imagine for inventory A and the Golden Bull, that an image as prominently as described by inventory R, and all late inventories that we will study later, could readily be visible when looking inside the reliquary. These two early witnesses of the Mandylion from Constantinople to the Sainte-Chapelle demonstrates that no image was readily visible in the reliquary and on the cloth. The Mandylion cannot have been a small cloth, with a prominent image of the face of Jesus Christ when laid out at the bottom of its reliquary, otherwise it most likely would have been stated either by the Golden Bull or that early inventory A.

Another reason the Mandylion should be a large cloth is based on the size of its reliquary. Note that there is no known clear description of the reliquary of the Mandylion besides its description from the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle. A typical Byzantine reliquary was designed to tightly contained its relic and it is even the design principle of the new reliquaries of the Grande Châsse. The size of the reliquary of the Mandylion is well documented as 60 cm long, 40 cm wide and about 5 cm deep. A single sheet of linen at the bottom of that reliquary does not correspond to the expected way of keeping it. For example, we expect the cloth to have been folded to fill the depth of the reliquary, the reliquary should have been made smaller by folding the supposed small cloth or a thin reliquary should have been used.

We can summarize what has been found by combining these two inventories and the Golden Bull: there is a large folded cloth with no visible image on it, but if the cloth is removed or lifted, we can see a face of Jesus Christ at the bottom of the box.

If the Shroud of Turin, which is about 430 cm long by 113 cm wide, was folded inside this reliquary of 60x40 cm, how could it be done? The cloth of the Shroud has a maximum thickness of about 0.39 mm. There are certainly many different ways to fold the Shroud to fit it in such a box. One of the simplest way is to fold the Shroud twice widthwise (giving four layers), which gives a folded width of about 28 cm, and thrice lengthwise (giving eight layers), which gives a folded length of about 54 cm. This folded Shroud has a total of 32 layers, for a thickness of around 1.2 cm (32× 0.39 mm ≅ 12.48 mm), but because a folded cloth has some fluffiness, it will be between 2 to 3 cm thick, depending if it is bound in a trellis or not. The folded Shroud is 54 cm long by 28 cm wide, which fits nicely in the reliquary of the Mandylion (about 5 cm deep, 60 cm long, 40 cm wide), leaving a few centimeters all around the Shroud at the bottom of that box, and enough space to attach a trellis lengthwise. The size also appears similar to the piece of cloth depicted in the Icon of Abgar, a 10th century artistic rendering of Abgar V holding the Mandylion (see Figure 1), but where Constantine VII is portrayed as Abgar.

The double widthwise folding can be done with no crease at the center of the Shroud, which would produce on each side of the folded cloth the appearance of only one layer. For example, by taking both ends widthwise and folding them in towards the middle center, and repeating the same folding. This resulting folding avoids dust to enter between the layers from each side. After the thrice lengthwise folding, the folded Shroud has a total of 32 layers, but due to this specific widthwise folding, its appearance is rather of 8 layers. The very peculiar description of the Mandylion as a “tetradiplon”, which can be interpreted as four two-layer folds, can be applied to such a folded cloth.

Figure 6 shows a reproduction of the reliquary of the Mandylion with a folded linen cloth of the same size as the Shroud of Turin inserted in it. It fits comfortably in the reliquary and it can easily be handled by one person. The word enchâssé can readily be used for this relic in that reliquary, which is what would be expected from a relic in a reliquary.

Figure 6: Partial reconstitution of the reliquary of the Mandylion with a linen cloth of the same size as the Shroud of Turin folded as described in this section, twice widthwise outside-edges towards the center (4 layers of the original cloth, but appears as one layer on each side) and thrice lengthwise (8 layers). This reconstitution is 60x40 cm (outside measurements) as given by inventory R and has a height of 4 cm, which is similar to the depth of the reliquary appearing on the artistic reproduction by Morand. The painted portrait at the bottom of the reliquary was not done in this reconstitution, but would be hidden if it were. The folded cloth fits easily in the reliquary without major space left as would be expected for any reliquary. Eight layers (tetradiplon) are visible on the side of the cloth.
© Mario Latendresse.

Having a holy cloth folded to completely hide its holy image is also what would be expected from the Byzantine clerics. Even leaving only the face apparent as soon as the reliquary was open does not appear appropriate for such a revered relic by the Byzantine. This complete hidden image would also be coherent with the Golden Bull and inventory A, which do not describe any image seen on the cloth.

Did the Mandylion disappear from the Sainte-Chapelle?

In inventory R, previously analyzed, no cloth is mentioned to be in the reliquary of item 19, that is, no relic is specifically mentioned.

One could argue that the officials in charge of the inventory R did not mention the cloth at the bottom of the reliquary as a distinctive element, that is, as a relic, because they were only paying attention to the reliquaries. This is not the case, because for all other reliquaries, except the reliquary of John the Baptist, a relic is mentioned in inventory R. These relics of inventory R are given in Section “The Description of the Relics in Inventory R (1740)”. Indeed, inventory R appears to have been done to differentiate the reliquaries from the relics. But remarkably, for the reliquary of the Mandylion, the officials appear to be at a lost of what is the difference between the relic and the reliquary, describing mainly the reliquary but emphasizing the presence of the portrait and stating it as a Veronica.

Moreover, later inventories mention that the relic of the top of the head of John the Baptist is in a reliquary of the Grande Châsse, but these later inventories never describe the Mandylion as a cloth but only as a “holy face”, a “Veronica” or using the same wording as inventory R. These other four other inventories after R are

18. Une sainte face. [Vidier, inventory CC, March 10, 1791]
(A holy face.)
18. Une sainte face. [Vidier, inventory DD, March 12, 1791]
(A holy face.)
18. Une autre boite de 22 pouces de long [etc. R 19]. [Vidier, inventory EE]
(Another box of twenty-two inches long [etc. R 19])
18. Une autre boite à coulisse contenant un portrait. [Vidier, inventory II, November 18, 1793]
(Another box with a sliding cover containing a portrait.)

These four inventories, taken during the French Revolution, are very succinct. They are repeating what is already known from the previous inventories, that is, the reliquary contains a face portrait, but with the added new detail that the reliquary cover was sliding. Again, these inventories do not mention any cloth. These four inventories reinforce the conclusion that no cloth is present in the reliquary after the 16th century. This is coherent with the previous inventory R, taken in 1740, which does not mention any cloth.

This apparent disappearance of the cloth is also confirmed by inventory L[p. 189, Vidier, 1908], done on March 22, 1534, which is a turning point where it is difficult to find the cloth anywhere in the Grande Châsse. Interestingly we have two versions of that inventory, one by Vidier, the other by Félibien, the latter being older which is likely closer to the original inventory. We quote both versions:

8. La saincte trelle inserée à la table [où est la face de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ][p. 190, Vidier, 1908]
(The holy trellis inserted in a box [where is the face of Our Lord Jesus Christ])

VIII. La sainte Treille, insérée à la table où est la face de N.S.J.C.[p. 150, Félibien, 1725]
(The holy trellis, inserted in a box where is the face of Our Lord Jesus Christ)

Taken as it is published by Vidier and Félibien, these two manuscripts do not mention the presence of a cloth. The word “toile” (cloth) has been replaced by “trelle” (trellis), or “Treille” (trellis). This is surprising because it appears as an error in the translation from the Golden Bull where the word “toile” was used in a very similar description in Latin, sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam. But there is also an essential comment added after the inventory that will shed more light on what happened during that inventory:

Et au regard du huitième article, contenant la trelle inserée à la table, après plusieurs difficultés, a esté finallement trouvée en un grand reliquaire et tableau garny d'argent surdoré, où y a apparence d'une effigie, ladite trelle comme consommée contre ledit tableau, autour, environ et dans ladite effigie. [pp. 191–192, Vidier, 1908].
(Regarding the eighth item, containing the trellis inserted in a box, after many difficulties, it was finally found in a large reliquary and panel decorated with gilded silver, where there is the appearance of a portrait, the trellis like transformed against the said panel, around, by and into the said portrait.)

Félibien reports a shorter version

Et au regard du huitième article, contenant la treille inserée à la table, après plusieurs difficultés, a esté finallement trouvée en un grand reliquaire ou tableau garni d'argent surdoré, où il y a apparence d'une effigie. [p. 150, Félibien, 1725].
(Regarding the eighth item, containing the trellis inserted in a box, after many difficulties, it was finally found in a large reliquary or panel decorated with gilded silver, where there is the appearance of a portrait.)

Note: see Figure 9 for excerpts from the manuscript on which Vidier made his transcription. The word “trelle” (trellis) is clearly visible.

It is reported that item eight was difficult to find although this is surprising because there are only the reliquaries of the Grande Châsse to search and that inventory is done with the participation of several officials, eight in all, besides François de Montmorency lord of Rochepot, the new bailly of the relics[p. 148, Felibien, 1725]. The officials, though, were likely looking for a cloth, and no cloth was found in the reliquary. This is coherent with all future inventories where no cloth is mentioned. What could have happened is that after several attempts to find a cloth in all the reliquaries they concluded that the previous inventory, or what was previously described as a cloth (“toile”), the officials concluded that it was rather “trellis” (“trelle”) that was intended based on a typographical error of inverting an `o' into an 'r'. This was possible if they could see a trellis embedded in the portrait. So the officials would have used “trellis” instead of “toile”. This was their way out of a difficult situation. This would also explain the added obscure comment in Vidier's copy, because the copyist could see that this entry was hard to understand.

Indeed, Vidier's added segment in the comment is obscured on the word “consommée”, which may have different meanings. It is important for the translation of that word to take into account the following word, that is, “contre” (against), which conveys the meaning that the transformation was done in the portrait as if becoming part of it. We translated “consommée” as “transformed”, but “embedded” could also have been used. The text of all following inventories, starting with inventory M, stop using the words “trelle” (trellis) and “toile” (cloth) altogether because this description was too convoluted to directly express the most obvious: there was a face of Jesus Christ on the bottom of the reliquary. The terms “Veronica” and “Holy Face” will become the preferred way to describe it succinctly, and without ever again mentioning any cloth.

It has been suggested by Emmanuel Poulle [Poulle, 2002] (and also by Andrea Nicolotti) that “trelle” would have been erroneously read from the word “toile” by transforming the letter `o' to `r', that is, a transcription error was done at this inventory L by misreading the previous inventory. Note that this previous inventory is unlikely to be inventory A because many manuscripts were lost. However, this explanation is not coherent in many ways: 1) there is indeed no cloth ever mentioned again in all the remaining inventories, 2) the version of the comment by Vidier has the added explanation, by the copyist, that “ladite trelle comme consommée contre ledit tableau, autour, environ et dans ladite effigie” where the word “trelle” is used again, and tries to explain the presence of the word “trellis”, and this is likely done by the copyist who knew that a trellis is indeed present in and all arround the portrait on the bottom of the reliquary. In other words, a simple error of transcription does not require that additional comment done by the copyist and is therefore not coherent with it. Moreover, the manuscript P 2309 (collection Chambre des comptes) of the Archives Nationales de France (see Figure 9) shows a very meticulous copy with no imperfection at all, which shows that the copyist was very careful in his transcription such that we would not expect a transcriptional error.

In the section answering the objections (see Answers to Objections Raised by Nicolotti), we discuss the translation published by Nicolotti where the word “consommée” was translated “threadbare” and “cloth” was used instead of “trellis”. We also discuss the translation of that same word done by Poulle in Section Answers to Objections Raised by Poulle.

Figure 7: The Icon of the Mandylion at the Treasury Cathedral of Laon, 13th century, produced in Constantinople, wood and tempera, height: 44,1 cm, width: 40,1cm. The old Slavonic inscription reads “Obraz Gospodin na Ubruzje”. Based on tradition, this icon would have been sent in 1249 at the convent Montreuil-les-Dames by Jacques Pantaléon of Troyes, the future pope Urbain IV. It was transported in 1795 to the Cathedral of Laon. See The Icon of the Mandylion at the Cathedral of Laon (French web site) for more details and history about this icon.
Notice the presence of a trellis around the face of Jesus Christ as described by item 19 in the inventory R. Notice also that the size of this icon is close to the size of that reliquary described by this same item.
Figure 8: Reconstitution of the reliquary of the Mandylion as given by the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle, in particular from inventories R (1740) and II (1793, the last one). Hilda Leynen 1991[Durand and Laffitte, 2001]. The reliquary was 60x40 cm and around 5 to 8 cm deep.

The plausible presence of a trellis incorporated in the portrait is further confirmed by artistic representations of the Mandylion with a trellis around a central face of Jesus Christ. The famous icon of the Cathedral of Laon, France (see Figure 7) is an example. That icon is known to be a depiction of the Mandylion and is not the only one. Figure 10 shows three more such depictions. This is not to say that the Mandylion is always or most of the time shown with a trellis. But the trellis is one of the common decoration that was used when one was used. Hilda Leynen, based on the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle, retained this trellis in her reconstitution of the reliquary of the Mandylion (see Figure 8).

There is another reason to support the presence of a trellis embedded in the portrait. Another Byzantine reliquary in the Grande Châsse does have a real trellis to apparently keep the relic well tuck inside its reliquary. That relic is a piece of stone from the tomb of Jesus Christ. It happens to be the only other Byzantine reliquary that was not replaced in the Sainte-Chapelle besides the reliquary of the Mandylion. We can therefore legitimately conclude that the Mandylion cloth was probably also bound in a trellis in its reliquary. That certainly would have reduced the opportunity from the clerics to analyze the cloth by unfolding it.

We can now state that the Mandylion is unlikely to have been destroyed or lost during the French Revolution because it was not present in its reliquary in 1740, and in 1534 it was implicitly recorded as missing from its reliquary by the confusion of the officials taking the inventory. Furthermore, given all the clues about the trellis, it is plausible that the Mandylion was kept in a trellis that was attached at the bottom of the reliquary.

Is it plausible that the clerics would not have noticed the body image on the Mandylion?

It is indeed surprising that if there was a large cloth in the reliquary of the Mandylion, and that it bears a complete body image of a man, that the clerics would not have noticed it. However, the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle gives numerous clues that the clerics barely analyzed the relics beyond their direct observations inside their reliquaries and without manipulating the relics.

For example, the authorities in charge of the inventory A did not try to identify more precisely the nature of the relic for item eleven because they wrote “sans identification” (with no identification). This detail shows that the clerics in charge of safeguarding the relics, at the Sainte-Chapelle, not only did not know the real nature of that relic but that they were not in charge to find out. This lack of curiosity is surprising for us today, but the clerics did not have the task to deeply analyze the relics, and certainly not in a position to determine their authenticity. Their duty was to safeguard the relics, so that none would be damaged, desecrated or stolen. When inventories were done, they describe what they could see without modifying the reliquaries and the relics. This last point is implicit in the safeguard of the reliquaries and the relics. Naturally, it would not have been acceptable, for example, that a reliquary be disassembled to find out the nature of a relic. The reader can consult inventory R to see how the reliquaries are described, with details, up to the point where no attempt is made to disassemble any reliquary.

This lack of analysis of the relics from the clerics explains the surprising observation that if the Shroud had been folded in that reliquary in the Grande Châsse of the Sainte-Chapelle, and inside a trellis attached at the bottom of the reliquary, it is possible that the clerics never analyzed more carefully the relic by detaching the trellis from the bottom of the reliquary, removing the Shroud from the trellis, and unfolding it to see the complete body image. It would have been a disassembly of the reliquary, which was forbidden.

Also, the relics in the Grande Châsse were apparently rarely analyzed in details by outside observers. As far as we know, besides Gérard de Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle, no outside observers, that is, besides the clerics of the Sainte-Chapelle, have written a detailed description of the reliquary of the Mandylion. This lack of outside observers is another factor in the plausibility that if the Shroud was in the Mandylion reliquary, it would not have been analyzed besides the clerics and the kings of France. We also have no drawing, done during its stay in the Sainte-Chapelle, of the inside of the reliquary of the Mandylion, despite being at the Sainte-Chapelle for over five centuries. And the same remark can be made for all the reliquaries of the Grande Châsse.

Finally, the clerics could not analyzed the relics without the permission of the King because he kept all the ten keys to open up the doors of the Grande Châsse[p. 17, Troche, 1855]. This was the case until the fire of 1630, which is after the time the Mandylion had apparently disappeared from its reliquary.

Figure 9a: An excerpt from manuscript P 2309 collection Chambre des comptes, fol. 107, Archives nationales de France (AnF) showing the entry 8 of inventory L for the Mandylion (“la sainte trelle insérée à la table”). The word “trelle” was used instead of the expected “toile”. See below for a comment about this item.
Figure 9b: An excerpt from manuscript P 2309 collection Chambre des comptes, fol. 108, Archives nationales de France (AnF) showing the comment for item 8 “au regard du huitième article, contenant la trelle inserée à la table, après plusieurs difficultés, a esté finallement trouvée en un grand reliquaire et tableau garny d'argent surdoré, où y a apparence d'une effigie, ladite trelle comme consommée contre ledit tableau, autour, environ et dans ladite effigie”.

Answers to Objections of the Thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle

In this section, we answer some of the objections raised against the thesis of Sainte-Chapelle, published by several authors, some of them having defended the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and some of them having defended the opposite. Most of these objections could not be answered by Dubarle and Leynen because they were published after their death.

Answers to Objections Raised by Poulle

Emmanuel Poulle, who was professor of paleography at l'École nationale des chartes, wrote a paper specifically about the thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle[Poulle, 2002] to reject it. Poulle also believed that the Mandylion was not the Shroud of Turin, that is, that they were two distinct objects, although he believed that the Shroud is authentic and that it was in Constantinople in 1204.

In his paper, Emmanuel Poulle did refer to some of the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle, in particular, to inventories L and R. Unfortunately, 1) he completely misjudged the size of the reliquary of the Mandylion to store the Shroud of Turin; 2) confused two reliquaries by erroneously attributing one for the Mandylion; 3) was unaware of pieces of cloth missing on the Shroud of Turin; 4) supposed that the use of the word “trelle” (or “Treille”) in inventory L was a transcription error of the word “toile”; 5) and assumed without any explanation that a cloth is mentioned in the reliquary of the Mandylion for the late inventories. In the following, we discuss in details these issues.

On the first two points, Poulle wrote

enfin, les dimensions données, en 1740, tant au reliquaire qui avait contenu la “toelle/trelle”, 9 à 10 pouces de côté, soit 25 à 30 cm, qu'à celui qui avait contenu “la Véronique”, 22 pouces sur 15, soit environ 60x45 cm, n'auraient pas permis d'y abriter un linceul de 4 m de long, fût-il replié en autant de fois que possible.[Note 14, page 18, Poulle, 2002]
(finally, the given dimensions, in 1740, to the reliquary which contained the “toelle/trelle”, of 9 to 10 inches on its side, that is, 25 to 30 cm, as well as to the one that contained “the Veronica”, 22 inches by 15, that is, approximately 60x45 cm, could not have allowed to house a shroud of 4 m long, even if folded as many times as it is possible. )

First, the shroud of 4 m long referred by Poulle is the Shroud of Turin, which is more precisely 4.43 m long and 1.13 m wide. Second, 15 inches (French inches) is closer to 40 cm, not 45 cm. Poulle also confused two reliquaries when he stated that the reliquary of the “toelle/trelle” was 9 to 10 inches on its side because that size was for the reliquary of the piece of the cloth that wrapped Jesus in the tomb and not the “toelle/trelle”, which are words used in the Golden Bull and in inventory L to describe the reliquary of the Mandylion.

The most glaring error shows Poulle's confusion about the cloth of the Shroud of Turin and measurements, because it is certainly possible to fold the Shroud, and in many different ways, to fit in a box of 60x40 cm of about 5 cm deep. It is even an ideal size reliquary to keep the Shroud of Turin. This was discussed for inventory R in Section Was the Mandylion a small or a large cloth?. Poulle did not even consider the depth of the reliquary and the width of the Shroud of Turin, which is necessary to answer the issue of whether or not the Shroud can fit in that reliquary.

In that same note 14, Poulle also wrote

Il est d'ailleurs impensable qu'un successeur de saint Louis ait pu envisager d'aliéner un bien aussi précieux de la Couronne ; certes des fragments de reliques ont été donnés à plusieurs reprises (épines de la Couronne, fragments de la vraie Croix), mais jamais aucune relique dans sa totalité.[Note 14, page 18, Poulle, 2002]
(It is also unthinkable that a successor of saint Louis could consider to cede such a precious Royal possession; true, fragments of the relics were given several times (thorns from the Crown of thorns, fragments of the true Cross), but never a complete relic.)

Note: It should be added that many other pieces or parts of the relics were given, including the Saviour's nappies, milk of the Virgin Mary, parts of the tunic of the Lord, parts of the shroud with which Jesus Christ was wrapped in the tomb, and probably more.

Actually, the kings of France and the clerics considered the Mandylion or its reliquary as a secondary relic. Also, when the Latins took over the relics in the palace of the Bucoleon, they deeply misunderstood the Mandylion as they had never heard of it and never took the time to identify it properly. This last point can be directly observed in the vague description of the Mandylion in the inventories and in the Golden Bull. Considering that the Mandylion had an image on it and that the Golden Bull only describe it as a holy cloth, one readily grasp that they did not even see the image on the cloth.

The lack of perceived relative preciousness of the Mandylion can also be inferred from the lack of any donation of parts of the cloth of the Mandylion, such as a few threads. But it was common to distribute pieces for most other relics.

It is true that we have no known record of a complete relic of the Grande Châsse being ceded. However, due to the misunderstanding of the reliquary of the Mandylion and the Mandylion itself, the large cloth in the reliquary may not have been perceived as a complete relic. It may simply have been perceived as a part of the relic (with no clear function), the other part being the Veronica painted on the bottom of the reliquary. Indeed, in the early 14th century, the Veronica paintings were considered precious. Therefore, it is possible that what was considered the relic was the bottom of the reliquary, not the cloth in it. This perception was previously discussed by the description of Gérard de Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle of the reliquary of the Mandylion written as tabula quedam quam, cum deponeretur Dominus de cruce, ejus facies tetigit[p. 298, Miller, 1878] (a board that touched the face of the Lord, when he was laid down from the cross). That description, written soon after the reception of the relic and reliquary of the Mandylion in 1241, emphasizes the bottom of the reliquary, not the cloth. Therefore, the gift of the cloth may not have been considered a gift of the relic but of an accessory of the relic, or a part of it.

Poulle specifically mentions inventory L and the obscure comment about the difficulty of finding the Mandylion, which is finally found and described as a “trelle”. He assumes that the word “toile” was miscopied into “trelle”, but it is an assumption based on the supposition that a cloth is still present in the reliquary, which needs to be proven.

He also notices that the comment given by Félibien does not have the addition made by a copyist which is reported by Vidier as “the trellis like transformed against the said panel, around, by and into the said portrait”. On that matter, Poulle writes

le responsable de la copie aura noté que la relique a quasiment disparu, « consommée » s'entendant au sens du latin « consummatum est » ; la toile était comme confondue avec l'image qui en avait été faite sur le reliquaire.[p. 18, Poulle, 2002]
(the official responsible for the copy noted that the relic had almost disappeared, “consommée” being understood according to Latin as “consummatum est”; the cloth was like mixed with the image which had been made on the reliquary.)

Notice that Poulle explicitly states that he thinks that there was a portrait painted on the bottom of the reliquary and that the cloth also had the same portrait. That a portrait is painted on the bottom of the reliquary is indeed the only reasonable conclusion when reading all inventories following inventory L. His interpretation of the text is similar to the English translation we proposed by using “embedded” for the word “consommmée”, because the word “confondue” (mixed) used by Poulle says that the “toile” and the portrait can be confused almost as if they were together forming one image. As discussed previously, the word “trelle” (trellis) works even better because we can imagine that a trellis is in the portrait, that is, exactly as the word “confondue” (mixed) means. But the interpretation of Poulle that the cloth was exactly the same size as the bottom of the reliquary with the same portrait on it is unrealistic. Why would such a setup being done? There appears to be no reason. The main purpose of the portrait at the bottom of the reliquary was most likely to state that the main cloth had an image, and it was doing so because the cloth was large and folded with the main image not readily visible inside the folds, but it could not be an identical image as it would make this identification superfluous. Furthermore, we have to conclude that the cloth entirely disappeared from the reliquary, as in taken out of it, because a large cloth well kept in a box cannot normally disintegrate by itself.

And the reason the copyist adds a comment is to clarify what the original text means, if it were “toile” in the original text, as it is supposed by Poulle, there would be no need to add a comment because it would plainly say that the “toile” is present, which requires no further comment. But the word “trelle” in the original copy would prompt the copyist to add an explanation to clarify that obscure usage of “trelle”. To have added such a comment, the copyist should also have seen the trellis or being told that one was present, otherwise he would be reporting false information. Therefore, the copyist is likely another witness of the trellis in the portrait of the painted face on the bottom of the reliquary .

Finally, in discussing the possible origin of the piece of the cloth that wrapped Jesus in the tomb, Poulle wrote “Était-ce un morceau prélevé sur le saint Suaire (ce qui paraît peu probable, puisqu'on n'en voit pas le manque sur la relique de Turin)”[p. 18, Poulle, 2002] (Was it a piece taken from the holy Shroud (which appears unlikely, because we do not see the missing part on the relic of Turin)), shows that Poulle was not aware that pieces are missing at two corners of the cloth of the Shroud of Turin and for which we do not know when they were removed. Poulle was also unaware that a paper published in the previous issue of the journal he was publishing his own paper, showed that a piece of the relic he was discussing had been analyzed by Barta and Duque[Barta, 2001] and that it had been concluded that it was not from the Shroud of Turin. In a few words, Poulle made several substantial errors regarding basic knowledge about the Shroud of Turin.

In summary, besides the glaring errors made by Poulle (e.g., the size of the reliquary vs the size of the Shroud of Turin and confusing at some point two relics and their reliquary), his main conclusion hinges on a supposed transcription error of inventory L of “toile” into “trelle”, although such a supposition can hardly be done because the copyist is further adding his own observation that the word “trelle” is really what is in the manuscript, and that to support it, the copyist describes that he also saw a trellis embedded in the image seen at the bottom of the reliquary. It is also hard to believe that the cloth would have completely disappeared by disintegrating itself without a trace as given by all inventories following inventory L. The natural conclusion is that the cloth, the Mandylion, was removed from the reliquary and that it was not destroyed during the French Revolution as Poulle concluded. Furthermore, his erroneous comment about the size of the reliquary of the Mandylion certainly does not preclude the possibility that the Mandylion could have been the Shroud of Turin.

Answers to Objections Raised by Barta, Duque and Hecquard

Barta and Duque[Barta, 2001] published an analysis of the piece of textile of the Sindon kept in the Cathedral of Toledo. It was donated in 1248 by Louis IX and taken from the relic described as item sixteen in the Golden Bull of Baudoin II. This item is partem sudarii quo involutum fuit corpus ejus in sepulchro. It is not what has been identified as the item that correspond to the Mandylion.

The conclusion by Barta and Duque that this piece of textile cannot have been taken from the Shroud of Turin is clearly true, because its characteristics is very different when compared to the cloth of the Shroud of Turin.

However, the authors categorically state that “Because of this finding there is now no reason to say that Baldwin the Second had the Sindone of Turin still in Constantinople in 1238.” Unfortunately, this conclusion is not valid, because it does not consider the other most prominent candidate item as the possible Shroud of Turin, namely the sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam, that is, what can be identified as the Mandylion. The partem sudarii quo involutum fuit corpus ejus in sepulchro has never been considered a strong candidate for the Shroud of Turin, simply based on the observation that “partem sudarii” signifies only a part and that it was kept in a small reliquary.

Also, the paper of Barta and Duque does not refer to the work of Dubarle and Leynen about the thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle. But, in the English version of the paper, an editorial written by Maxence Hecquard[Barta, 2001] states “L'étude de nos amis espagnols est importante car elle permet d'écarter définitivement l'hypothèse, défendue notamment par le Père Dubarle(1), du passage du Linceul de Turin à la Sainte Chapelle de Paris.” (The study of our Spanish friends is important because it allows to definitely put aside the hypothesis, defended among others by Father Dubarle(1), of the passage of the Shroud of Turin at the Sainte Chapelle of Paris.)

Unfortunately, this statement is obviously incorrect because the thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle defended by Father Dubarle does not involve the partem sudarii quo involutum fuit corpus ejus in sepulchro, from which comes the piece studied by Barta and Duque, but the sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam. Hecquard has confused the two relics kept in the Grande Châsse.

Unfortunately, this confusion is also repeated, in a different way, by a summary written by Amélie Le Ruyet, printed before the paper by Barta and Duque (the English version), where it is stated “l'échantillon de Tolède n'est pas sindon mais sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam”[p. 33, Barta, 2001]. This statement contradicts the paper of Barta and Duque, which does not state that the piece of textile studied could come from sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam. In any case, the last word belongs to the official document describing the gift of the relics from Louis IX to the Cathedral of Toledo, and that document does not even mention sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam.

Actually, the study of Barta and Duque is valid when it is concluded that the piece of textile, kept in the treasury of the Cathedral of Toledo, cannot be from the cloth of the Shroud of Turin. On this point there is no doubt, because the piece of textile has characteristics that are very different compared to the Shroud of Turin. This study reconfirms that if the Shroud of Turin went through the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris, it cannot have been the partem sudarii quo involutum fuit corpus ejus in sepulchro. There was little doubt about this fact because these pieces of cloth were clearly too small. There is only one possible candidate from the Golden Bull of Baudoin II for the Shroud of Turin and it is the sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam. It also confirms, that if the Shroud went through the Sainte-Chapelle, the partem sudarii quo involutum fuit corpus ejus in sepulchro could not have been a part of the sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam. In other words, the partem sudarii quo involutum fuit corpus ejus in sepulchro was another piece of textile not from the Shroud of Turin that could have been found in the tomb of Christ.

Answers to Objections Raised by Nicolotti

Andrea Nicolotti, professor at the Università degli Studi di Torino, wrote a complete chapter, in his book on the Mandylion[Nicolotti, 2014], about the thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle, essentially concluding that the thesis is not valid. However, we will see that he: 1) does not consider that a portrait of Jesus Christ, similar to the Mandylion, was painted on the inside bottom of the reliquary; 2) interprets incorrectly a statement written by Arnold von Harff; 3) translates incorrectly the French text of one inventory of the Sainte-Chapelle; 4) assumes that a cloth is present in the reliquary of the Mandylion in all inventories when none are mentioned; 5) does not coherently analyze the references to the Mandylion in the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle. These issues invalidate his main conclusion about the thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle, which are analyzed below.

On this first point, Nicolotti commented a short statement written by Gérard de Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle in his chronicle of the translation of the relics from Constantinople to Paris:

The story of the Translatio sancte corone, written by the monk Gérard de Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle after 1241, mentions, among the relics of the Sainte-Chapelle, a “board that touched the face of the Lord, when he was taken down from the cross,” and “part of a shroud in which the body of Christ laid in the tomb was wrapped.” It is noteworthy that the acheiropoieton image is described as a distinct and separate object from the shroud, without acknowledging the legend of Abgar.[p. 194, Nicolotti, 2014]

First, that Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle does mention these two relics separately is not unexpected because they are related to two distinct relics and reliquaries. That he does not mention the legend of Abgar is very natural because, as Nicolotti pointed out himself, that legend is unknown in the West, and therefore by a monk living in France. What is noteworthy to consider, which is not mentioned by Nicolotti, is that Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle does not even mention a cloth regarding the face of the Lord (i.e., Mandylion), but that he describes an image on the reliquary (the “board”). If we were to interpret that statement alone by itself, we would conclude that the Mandylion (the cloth) did not reach the Sainte-Chapelle, but its reliquary did, which is the exact opposite of what Nicolotti is trying to prove. In other words, the main error by Nicolotti is to never consider that the “face of the Lord” is on the reliquary, that is, to suppose that a cloth is implicit in the text written by Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle regarding the Mandylion, but actually, no cloth is mentioned in his original Latin text. Nicolotti extrapolates the statement made by the text by assuming that the Mandylion (the cloth) is mentioned by the text, but the text does not state that, and it is indeed what needs to be proved.

Next, for the second point, we will analyze a comment made by Nicolotti about a supposed visit of Arnold von Harff to the Sainte-Chapelle at the end of the 15th century.

Nicolotti wrote the following statement to imply that the Mandylion was still at the Sainte-Chapelle at the end of the 15th century. If this statement were true, that would invalidate the thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle because the Shroud of Turin had been in Lirey and was in Chambéry at that time.

In the final years of the fifteenth century the pilgrim Arnold von Harff visited the Sainte-Chapelle and described the relic as “a piece of cloth in which our Lord Jesus sweated blood and water,” indicating his belief that this was the towel that wiped the face of Jesus during his passion. [p. 194, Nicolotti, 2014]

Note: The term “described the relic” written by Nicolotti refers to the Mandylion. For the complete text written by von Harff about his visit to the Sainte-Chapelle, see Section Arnold von Harff's description of his Visit to the Sainte-Chapelle for a translation from Malcolm Letts.

The statement made by Nicolotti gives the impression that von Harff himself saw “a piece of cloth” in the Sainte-Chapelle and that von Harff believed that it was a “towel” and used to wipe the “face” of Jesus Christ. This statement is clearly invalid for many reasons.

First, the text written by von Harff does not even mention “face” nor “towel”. According to Malcolm Letts' translation, von Harff wrote “a piece of the cloth” not a “piece of cloth”. That is, von Harff wrote that he believed that Jesus sweated blood and water in a cloth from which a piece is kept at the Sainte-Chapelle, but he does not mention the face of Jesus nor did he write that it was a small cloth, a “towel” according to Nicolotti. That alone is enough to invalidate the statement made by Nicolotti.

Yet, we can further see that: 1) Von Harff cannot be trusted because his story of his visit to the Sainte-Chapelle is fanciful; 2) Von Harff is repeating the descriptions of relics taken from a writing by Gérard de Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle; 3) Von Harff was not referring to the Mandylion but to partem sudarii quo involutum fuit corpus ejus in sepulchro, that is, a piece of the cloth that wrapped Jesus Christ in the tomb.

First, Arnold von Harff is known to have made up many of the descriptions of the countries he supposedly visited. On this matter, Malcolm Letts writes

Von Harff's credibility has been both attacked and defended in his own country. No one who has studied the Pilgrimage with any care can close his eyes to the fact that von Harff cannot have visited all the countries he describes. On the other hand it is impossible to dismiss him out of hand as a deliberate liar. His whole character, as disclosed in his book, is against it, for his honesty, simplicity and engaging frankness are apparent throughout. After pondering every word of the book, as only a translator can, it is clear to me that von Harff did not visit India, Madagascar, or Central Africa, still less did he climb the Mountains of the Moon or discover the source of the Nile.[p. xv, Malcolm Letts, 2010]

This is enough to warn any reader that von Harff could have made up the story of his visit to the Sainte-Chapelle and that it needs a careful study. Indeed, reading his complete description of his visit of the Sainte-Chapelle, we can see that it contains fanciful statements.

For example, it is very unlikely that von Harff saw all the relics of the Grande Châsse up close, because this is reserved for high dignitaries, and von Harff gives no reason for such an honor. Obviously, a foreign visitor cannot simply walked up to the Grande Châsse and analyze the reliquaries. The access to the upper level of the Sainte-Chapelle is controlled and no one is allowed to analyze up close even the reliquaries, much less the relics, without having a formal invitation to do so. In any case, the manner in which von Harff introduces the list of relics appears to be taken from a document and it is not even clear that he intended the reader to believe that he saw the reliquaries and relics.

The description of his visit gets even more fanciful: on this occasion, according to von Harff, the King of France would have made him a knight. Such an honor requires services to the King and moreover, von Harff is not even living in France. You cannot simply have showed up at the Sainte-Chapelle and be knighted by the King. Von Harff would have had to describe why such a great honor was given to him, but he simply casually mentions it. At this point, it is hard to believe that von Harff even visited the Sainte-Chapelle.

Second, the descriptions of the relics by von Harff is similar to the already quoted 13th century text of Gérard de Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle. One of the relics described by von Harff is written as “a board which was placed under his head when he was taken down from the Cross,” which is very similar to Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle's description written as tabula quedam quam, cum deponeretur Dominus de cruce, ejus facies tetigit[p. 298, Miller, 1878] (a board that touched the face of the Lord, when he was laid down from the cross). Most likely, von Harff copied that description and may never have seen that relic or reliquary.

Third, this description just given by Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle corresponds to the reliquary of the Mandylion. As already mentioned, but in this case if we were to believe von Harff, we could easily conclude the opposite of Nicolotti: von Harff saw an empty reliquary of the Mandylion where no cloth is present. Also, after this description, von Harff gives “a piece of cloth on which our Lord Jesus sweated water and blood,” which Nicolotti quotes as if referring to the Mandylion, but that does not correspond to the Mandylion, but rather to partem sudarii quo involutum fuit corpus ejus in sepulchro, which von Harff modified its description based on the function of the cloth where we would expect blood and water. In other words, Nicolotti is confusing two relics, the Mandylion and the piece of cloth that wrapped Jesus Christ in the tomb.

On the third point, Nicolotti is misinterpreting the French text describing the reliquary of the Mandylion of item eight in inventory L (March 1534). His error is to state that the French text says that the cloth has an image on it, although the text does not say that. Again, this is a tentative to show that the Mandylion was still in the Sainte-Chapelle while the Shroud of Turin is known to have been somewhere else, in this case in Chambéry, which would contradict the thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle. Nicolotti writes:

In March 1534, the first detailed inventory of the Grande Chasse was completed by François Montmorency, Lord of La Rochepot. This list is essentially a French translation of the aforementioned document of 1247, and the author specifically lists the presence of the “holy cloth inserted into the board”. In this cloth—add Michel Félibien and Arthur-Michel de Boislisle— “there is the face of our Lord Jesus Christ”.[p. 195, Nicolotti, 2014]

Note: from this text we have the impression that François [de] Montmorency is doing the inventory by himself. This is certainly not the case because eight more officials are present during that inventory [p. 148, Félibien, 1725].

Actually, the French text from Vidier is “8. La saincte trelle inserée à la table [où est la face de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ]”[p. 190, Vidier, 1908] and Félibien reports a slightly different version, “VIII. La sainte Treille, insérée à la table où est la face de N.S.J.C.”[p. 150, Félibien, 1725]

Grammatically, the inserted text in bracket applies most likely to the “table”, not to the “trelle” (or “Treille”). That is, the face is in the “table” not on the “trelle”. If it were seen on the cloth we would expect to read “sur laquelle est” (on which is) right after “trelle” instead of “où est” (where is) after “table”. Even by supposing that “trelle” needs to be modified to “toile”, the inserted text applies to the “table”. This is also the interpretation that is coherent with the late inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle where no cloth is mentioned and the face (or Veronica) is described to be in the the reliquary.

In Nicolotti's book, the French comment about this item eight of inventory L was translated as

Regarding the eighth article, containing the cloth inserted into the board, after many difficulties it was finally found, in a large shrine and tablet garnished with gilded silver, where there the appearance of an effigy, the said cloth as threadbare on said tablet, around, by and inside the said effigy.[p. 196, Nicolotti, 2014]
And Nicolotti comments this translation as
Apparently while making his inventory, the author experienced some problems finding the object that in Latin was called toella tabule inserta, perhaps because of an ambiguous use of the terms tableau and table to indicate the tabula. The fabric is described as “threadbare” and it seems that the effigy was difficult to see. François de Montmorency may have had difficulty making the image out since it was almost completely faded (an indirect confirmation of Byzantine testimonies that describe the difficulty of deciphering the image on the fabric).[p. 196, Nicolotti, 2014]

First, we are again given the impression that François de Montmorency is doing the inventory alone as he would be the one not making out the portrait. This is not the case at all, because there are many other officials with him. An inventory of the Sainte-Chapelle is obviously not done alone, and Montmorency is not even writing down the inventory, but an official secretary does so. If the “toile” could not easily be found, it is because several officials, eight in all, could not find it.

Second, the comment and it seems that the effigy was difficult to see is nowhere to be found in the text. The French word “apparence” simply means “immediately visible” without further interpretation. That is, an effigy (i.e., a portrait) is readily visible.

Finally, the word “consommée” was translated to “threadbare”, meaning that the cloth appears old and damaged, probably with holes in it. It is also argued by Nicolotti, referring also to Poulle, that the word “trelle” has been incorrectly transcribed, interpreting `o' to `r' in the word “toile”, so that the word “cloth” is used in the translation. But Nicolotti does not quote the version from Félibien where the word “consommée” is not used because a part of the comment does not exist in that version, which is older and most likely the original one. If that older version is used, Nicolotti's argument that the cloth is damaged can no longer be done at all. And as discussed in this Section, there is no cloth mentioned in any of the inventories afterward, so that the coherent way to interpret “consommée” is that it is an added commentary by a copyist of some older manuscript trying to explain that the trellis is embedded inside the portrait because the copyist is indeed reading “trelle”, not “toile”.

Note that Andrea Nicolotti writes that, for this item 8 in inventory L, the face seen is on a cloth and not directly on the reliquary. However, for this same item, Emmanuel Poulle states that there is a portrait on the reliquary and that there is also a cloth with a portrait visible in the reliquary placed above the portrait. This is clearly a different interpretation but Poulle is closer to the French text.

Nicolotti does not discuss inventory A which states that the reliquary of the Mandylion contained a large relic. This inventory goes directly against his arguments that the Mandylion is a small cloth.

In concluding, the interpretation of the inventories by Nicolotti is not coherently taking into account all of them, in particular, he assumes that a cloth is present in the reliquary of the Mandylion in all late inventories but no cloth is ever mentioned in them. He concludes that the Mandylion was still in the reliquary at the French Revolution, but no cloth is ever mentioned in that reliquary starting from the second half of the 16th century. It is a very simple observation that should have been stated. The text of the inventories are not taken as stated.

Answers to Objections Raised by Guscin and Runciman

In his detailed work on the Mandylion, also known as the Image of Edessa, Mark Guscin doubts that the Sainte-Chapelle received the Mandylion[pp. 188–191, Guscin, 2009]. He cites Steven Runciman[pp. 251–252, Runciman, 1931] who associates the item sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam of the Golden Bull with the Mandylion and Guscin comments that

The description is certainly not the most obvious one; there were so many more definite ways of identifying the cloth that such a non-descript name must at least make one doubt that this was in fact the Image brought from Edessa in 944.

It is certainly the case that without any other documents, the description sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam is not specific enough to definitely point to the Mandylion. It does not even describe an image on the cloth (although there are reasonable reasons not to see the image that exists on the cloth, which has been discussed previously). But this description comes from the Latins in power in Constantinople who did not know anything about the Mandylion. On the other hand, without consulting any other documents, if there is one item from the Golden Bull that could be the Mandylion, it is the only reasonable one. As it was extensively described previously, by referring to specific descriptions of an item of the inventories of the Sainte Chapelle we concluded that the reliquary of the Mandylion, and the Mandylion itself, did reach the Sainte-Chapelle and moreover that the term sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam used in the Golden Bull was the only description that corresponds to these descriptions of the inventories.

Runciman did not explain how he made such a connection besides citing De Riant who identified this item as the Mandylion when presenting the Golden Bull of Baudoin II. Runciman did not refer to any specific inventory of the Sainte-Chapelle, but simply states that “the officials periodically made an inventory of the chapel treasury” and concludes

The end came in 1792, when the godless revolutionaries sacked the Sainte Chapelle and destroyed or lost all its contents. And so amid the birth pangs of Modern Europe the Holy Image of Edessa passed from History.[p. 252, Runciman, 1931]

As it was shown previously, this conclusion does not stand, because the Mandylion very likely disappears from its reliquary. This can only be revealed by considering all the details of all inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle, which Runciman did not mention to have studied in his remarks on the Image of Edessa.

Conclusion

It is almost certain that the reliquary of the Mandylion did reach the Sainte-Chapelle as part of the relics ceded by Baudoin II to his relative Louis IX, and it is very likely that the Mandylion was in its reliquary. The size of the Mandylion, which is a cloth, appears large because 1) the first inventory of the Grande Châsse states explicitly that it is large; 2) the Golden Bull of 1247 as well as the first inventory of the Grande Châsse does not mention any portrait in the reliquary and all the late inventories mention an image at the bottom of the reliquary, therefore the cloth appeared large enough to hide that image; 3) because no image is mentioned in the first inventory and the Golden Bull, the cloth also appears folded; 4) the reliquary of the Mandylion was large enough to contain a folded cloth as large as the Shroud of Turin, as a matter of fact, it was just the right size to do so. It is also likely that the Mandylion disappeared from the Sainte-Chapelle between the early 14th century and the early 16th century based on the presence of a cloth mentioned in the first inventory and the Golden Bull although none are mentioned starting in the early 16th century.

In natural sciences, it is customary to formulate an hypothesis to compare it to the observations. It is also a process that is easy to do because once an hypothesis is well described, the comparison is systematic and simple. That same process can be applied to the inventories, which are mainly observations about the reliquaries and relics. In the following, we propose two opposite hypotheses about the Mandylion and its reliquary and compare them to the inventories to see which hypothesis is the most coherent. The first one is similar to Andrea Nicolotti's hypothesis whereas the second one is based on the thesis that the Mandylion is the Shroud of Turin.

  1. The Mandylion did reach the Sainte-Chapelle. It was a small cloth, with a face of Jesus Christ painted on it, attached at the bottom of its reliquary with the face visible. With time, the cloth disintegrate and eventually it was destroyed during the French Revolution.
  2. The Mandylion did reach the Sainte-Chapelle. It was a large folded cloth in a trellis, with a full body image on the cloth, the trellis securely attached along only one edge in its reliquary but which could be lifted and detached if it was done intentionally. A face of Jesus Christ was painted on the inside bottom of its reliquary with a painted trellis decoration around the face. The Mandylion disappeared between the early 14th century and the early 16th century. Although, its reliquary stayed in the Sainte-Chapelle until the French Revolution when it was destroyed or lost.

Using the first hypothesis, there are several incoherencies: a) the Golden Bull and the first inventory did not mention the face of Jesus Christ readily visible on the cloth; b) a portrait is mentioned in all late inventories without any mention of a disintegrating cloth but also described as if it were directly painted on the reliquary; c) the first inventory mentions that the relic is large, although the cloth is very thin at the bottom of the reliquary.

However, using the second hypothesis, it is coherent with the inventories: a) no image is mentioned in the Golden Bull and in the first inventory, because the large folded cloth was hiding the face of Jesus Christ painted at the bottom and the image on the cloth was hidden inside the folded cloth; b) the text of the translation of the relics mentions the portrait of Jesus Christ on the reliquary because the attachment using the trellis allowed the cloth to be lifted up without removing it but still revealing the portrait; b) the disappearance of the large cloth makes the portrait at the bottom of the reliquary prominently visible and the late inventories readily mentioned it; c) the disappearance of the Mandylion explains the obscure description of the relic and reliquary of the Mandylion in inventory L where no clear cloth is described but where an image is suddenly appearing at the bottom of the reliquary; d) this disappearance also explains all the late inventories only mentioning a portrait in the reliquary but no cloth.

Several objections were raised by several authors, but these objections are due to: 1) a confusion between two relics in the Grande Châsse (i.e., the Mandylion and the piece of the cloth that wrapped Jesus Christ in the tomb); 2) an incorrect evaluation of the sizes of the reliquary of the Mandylion and the Shroud of Turin; 3) incorrect translations from French; 4) a lack of analysis of all inventories for their coherent interpretation; 5) an incorrect assessment of the importance of the Mandylion by the Latins; 6) and an incorrect assessment of the lack of attention and knowledge of the clerics of the Sainte-Chapelle towards the Mandylion.

Historically, the Mandylion had a double identity: it always was depicted with only a face imprinted on it but sometimes described as a larger object. This double identity can be explained based on the descriptions of the relic and its reliquary at the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris.

The Mandylion was large, but from which no image could be seen because it was folded almost at all time with the image inside its folds, but a face of Jesus Christ could be seen at the bottom of the reliquary, which was readily visible once the Mandylion was removed from the reliquary. The Mandylion was probably kept in a trellis to keep it folded and make it easily manageable when it was extracted from the reliquary without accidentally unfolding it. Small short threads were probably used along the length of the trellis to keep it securely attached to the bottom of the reliquary, which required the reliquary to be larger than the cloth to accommodate these strings to be nailed down to the bottom panel of the reliquary. The portrait painted on the bottom of the reliquary was based on the face seen on the cloth and the trellis was also part of that painting to remind the way it was inserted into the reliquary. Even when the cloth was attached at the bottom of the reliquary, you could see that the bottom was painted but you could not see the face of Jesus Christ.

The depictions of the Mandylion took different forms based on either 1) the bottom of the reliquary, where the artists reproduced the portrait with the trellis; 2) the cloth folded in its trellis, where the artist reproduces the threads for attachment in the reliquary; 3) the general belief that the Mandylion was a small cloth with a face only.

It is doubtful that the Mandylion was folded in such a way that only the face of the image on it was visible, either inside or outside of its reliquary. It was folded in its reliquary with all the image hidden, and when shown in public it was most often in the same state because it was likely bound with a trellis to keep it folded. Some depictions of the face directly on the Mandylion were simply an informative method to remind the observer that an image existed on the cloth, not that it was directly visible. For example, this method would have been used in the depiction of Abgar V holding the Mandylion (see Figure 1).

This is not to say that there never was an exposition of the Mandylion in Constantinople. Apparently, such an exposition of the Mandylion might have happened late in its history because we have one known witness, a knight of the Fourth Crusade, Robert de Clari, who wrote “Et, parmi les autres églises, il en était une, appelée Notre-Dame Sainte-Marie des Blachernes, qui abritait le linceul dont fut enveloppé Notre-Seigneur, et qui chaque vendredi se dressait tout droit, si bien qu'on pouvait y voir distinctement la forme du corps de Notre-Seigneur. L'on ne sut jamais, parmi les Grecs et les Français, ce que devint ce linceul quand la ville fut prise.”[No 92, Dufournet, 2004] (And, among the other churches, there was one, called Our Lady of Blachernae, which there was the Shroud in which our Lord had been wrapped, and which every Friday raised itself upright so one could see the figure of the body of Our Lord on it).

Between the date of this exposition in 1203 and the first exposition of the Shroud of Turin at Lirey around 1356, there is a 153-year gap. The thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle explains this silence without referring to a complex and obscure scenario. This silence was simply due to the lack of knowledge and attention by the Latins to the most obscure relic in the Grande Châsse at the Sainte-Chapelle. The Shroud of Turin was silently lying down in a reliquary of the Sainte-Chapelle waiting to be discovered by a more attentive and humble group of clerics.

How and why the Mandylion was passed to Geoffroy de Charny has not been discussed. But we can already see that the appearance of the Shroud at Lirey occurred during the disappearance of the Mandylion at the Sainte-Chapelle. It appears to have been given without the knowledge of the clerics of the Sainte-Chapelle as it is not explicitly recorded, which is not surprising because the relics belong to the King of France and the officials doing inventory L misunderstood what was the Mandylion. It remained to be analyzed what are the most probable occasions when the King of France gifted the Mandylion to Geoffroy de Charny.

Annexes

The Golden Bull of Baudoin II

The following text presents the bulle d'or (Golden Bull), which formally list the twenty-two relics ceded by Baudoin II to Louis IX. This version was published by Vidier who based it on Morand and Riant.

We have made the list of relics as a separate paragraph in the Golden Bull itself (Latin text), to easily find them, and duplicated it to create an enumerated list after the Golden Bull. That enumerated list can be compared to the enumerated lists of the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle. For example, we can see that the sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam (the Mandylion) is at position eight, but regresses further down the list in the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle as centuries passes to reach the final position in the last inventories during the French Revolution.

Juin 1247, Saint-Germain-en-Laye.

Beaudouin II, empereur, concede à Louis IX la sainte Couronne, une partie de la vraie Croix et autres reliques que celui-ci avait rachetées et transférées à Paris.

PUBL.: Morand, op. cit., Pièces justif., p. 7; Riant, op. cit., t. II, p. 1341.

Balduinus, Dei gratia fidelissimus in Christo imperator a Deo coronatus, Romaniae moderator et semper Augustus, universis "nsti fidelibus tam praesentibus quam futuris ad quos litterae praesentes pervenerint eternam in Domino salutem. Notum fieri volumus universis quod nos carissimo amico et consanguineo nostro Ludovico, regi Franciae illustrissimo, sacrosanctam spineam coronam Domini et magnam portionem vivificae crucis Christi, una cum aliis pretiosis et sacris reliquiis, quae propriis vocabulis inferius sunt expresse, quas olim in Constantinopolitana urbe venerabiliter collatas et tandem pro urgenti necessitate imperii Constantinopolitani diversis creditoribus et diversis temporibus pignori obligatas, idem dominus rex, de nostra voluntate, redemit magne pecuniae quantitate, et eas fecit Parisius, de beneplacito nostro, trans ferri, eidem domino regi spontaneo et gratuito dono plene dedimus, absolute concessimus et ex toto quitavimus et quitamus. Quas utique venerandas reliquias propriis nominibus duximus exprimendas, videlicet:

praedictam sacro sanctam spineam coronam et crucem sanctam; item de sanguine domini nostri Jesu Christi; pannos infantie Salvatoris, quibus fuit in cunabulis involutus; aliam magnam partem de ligno sancte crucis; sanguinem qui de quadam imagine Domini ab infideli percussa, stupendo miraculo, distillavit; catenam etiam, sive vinculum ferreum, quasi in modum annuli factum, quo creditur idem Dominus fuisse ligatus; sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam; magnam partem de lapide sepulcri domini nostri Jesu Christi; de lacte beatae Mariae Virginis; item ferrum sacrae lanceae quo perforatum fuit in cruce latus domini nostri Jesu Christi; crucem aliam mediocrem, quam crucem triumphalem veteres appellabant, quia ipsam in spemvictoriae consueverant imperatores ad bella deferre; clamidem coccineam quam circumdederunt milites domino nostro Jesu Christo in illusionem ipsius; arundinem quam pro sceptro posuerunt in manu ipsius; spongiam quam porrexerunt ei sitienti in cruce, aceto plenam; partem sudarii quo involutum fuit corpus ejus in sepulchro; linteum etiam quo praecinxit se quando lavit pedes discipulorum, et quo eorum pedes extersit; virgam Moysi; superiorem partem capitis beati Johannis Baptiste; et capita sanctorum Blasii, dementis et Simeonis.

In cujus rei testimonium et perpeperpetuam firmitatem nos signavimus presentes litteras nostro signo imperiali et bullavimus nostra bulla aurea. Actum apud Sanctum Germanum in Laya, anno Domini millesimo ducentesimo quadragesimo septimo, mense junio, imperii vero nostri anno octavo.

The Enumerated List of Relics in the Golden Bull

To better establish a correspondance between the relics of the Golden Bull and the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle, an enumerated list of the relics appearing in the Golden Bull is given below. If we compare that list to inventory R, we can conclude that item 8 is the Mandylion and Item 16 refers to a piece of a cloth that was in the tomb of Jesus Christ, which we know today is not from the Shroud of Turin[Barta, 2001]. These two relics should not be confused when analyzing all the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle.

  1. praedictam sacro sanctam spineam coronam et
  2. crucem sanctam;
  3. item de sanguine domini nostri Jesu Christi;
  4. pannos infantie Salvatoris, quibus fuit in cunabulis involutus;
  5. aliam magnam partem de ligno sancte crucis;
  6. sanguinem qui de quadam imagine Domini ab infideli percussa, stupendo miraculo, distillavit;
  7. catenam etiam, sive vinculum ferreum, quasi in modum annuli factum, quo creditur idem Dominus fuisse ligatus;
  8. sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam;
  9. magnam partem de lapide sepulcri domini nostri Jesu Christi;
  10. de lacte beatae Mariae Virginis;
  11. item ferrum sacrae lanceae quo perforatum fuit in cruce latus domini nostri Jesu Christi;
  12. crucem aliam mediocrem, quam crucem triumphalem veteres appellabant, quia ipsam in spemvictoriae consueverant imperatores ad bella deferre;
  13. clamidem coccineam quam circumdederunt milites domino nostro Jesu Christo in illusionem ipsius;
  14. arundinem quam pro sceptro posuerunt in manu ipsius;
  15. spongiam quam porrexerunt ei sitienti in cruce, aceto plenam;
  16. partem sudarii quo involutum fuit corpus ejus in sepulchro;
  17. linteum etiam quo praecinxit se quando lavit pedes discipulorum, et quo eorum pedes extersit;
  18. virgam Moysi;
  19. superiorem partem capitis beati Johannis Baptiste;
  20. et capita sanctorum Blasii, dementis et Simeonis.

A Summary of the Inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle Related to the Mandylion

This section gives a list of the entries of the inventories of the Grande Châsse of the Sainte-Chapelle where the reliquary of the Mandylion is mentioned. The original French text is given with my own translation in English. The text was taken from the work of Vidier [Vidier, 1907],[Vidier, 1908] in addition to the text given by Félibien [Félibien, 1725] for inventory L.

For each inventory of the Grande Châsse, the item number preceding the description of the reliquary of the Mandylion and the number of entries in that inventory is given. For example, in inventory L, “8/22” means that the Mandylion was item 8 and that 22 entries were listed for that inventory. Throughout the inventories, there were between 19 and 22 items in the Grande Châsse, so that, starting with inventory M, the reliquary of the Mandylion is placed either as the last item or as the item before the last one. The position of a relic appears to be related to its perceived importance, or preciousness, of that relic by the clerics of the Sainte-Chapelle. In the inventories, except for inventory A which has a special status, the first relic listed is always the Crown of Thorns, which was indeed considered the most precious relic at the Sainte-Chapelle. This ordering related to the importance of the relics appear to be the same for the Golden Bull of Baudoin II. The reliquary of the Mandylion is listed at position 8 in the Golden Bull, and for inventory A it is slightly displaced further down at position 11, but it is again listed at position 8 in inventory L, but then drops at the end of the list at position 19 for the next inventory M, as the least precious relic, to essentially stay at the end or near the end of the list until and during the French Revolution. This is a sign that something major in the perception of that relic occurred at inventory M which coincides with the apparent disappearance of the cloth in the reliquary of the Mandylion.

Starting with the inventory CC (March 10, 1791), the last four inventories, done during the French Revolution, were ordered for the transfer of the relics and reliquaries from the Sainte-Chapelle to the Abbey of Saint-Denis and back. Vidier published two inventories, DD and EE, where the Mandylion is listed but these inventories were done at the Abbey Sainte-Denis when the relics from the Sainte-Chapelle were received. So, strictly speaking, these two late inventories were not done at the Sainte-Chapelle but they were included here, for the reliquary of the Mandylion, because they were inventories of the relics and reliquaries that had been in the Grande Châsse.

The manuscript provenance for each inventory is also given for several cases. It is either from the Archives nationales de France (AnF) or the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF).

  1. Inventory A, 1256–1315[p. 200, Vidier, 1907].
    BnF, français 2833, fol. 139v–140 (15th century). BnF, français 4426, fol. 269–270 (17th century)

    11/24. Item ung escrin de fust peint où il y a ung grant sainctuaire sans escript.
    (A painted box where there is a large holy relic without identification.)

  2. Inventory L, March 22, 1534[pp. 189–192, Vidier, 1908].
    AnF, P 2309, fol. 103–110.

    8/22. La saincte trelle inserée à la table [où est la face de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ].
    (The holy trellis inserted in a box [where there is the face of Our Lord Jesus Christ])

    The following comment is added after the list of relics,

    Et au regard du huitième article, contenant la trelle inserée à la table, après plusieurs difficultés, a esté finallement trouvée en un grand reliquaire et tableau garny d'argent surdoré, où y a apparence d'une effigie, ladite trelle comme consommée contre ledit tableau, autour, environ et dans ladite effigie [pp. 191–192, Vidier, 1908].
    (Regarding the eighth item, containing the trellis inserted in a box, after many difficulties, it was finally found in a large reliquary and panel decorated with gilded silver, where there is the appearance of a portrait, the trellis like transformed against the said panel, around, by and into the said portrait.)

    From Félibien,

    VIII. La sainte Treille, insérée à la table où est la face de N.S.J.C.[p. 150, Félibien, 1725]
    (The holy trellis inserted in a box where there is the face of N.S.J.C.)

    The following comment is added after the list of relics,

    Et au regard du huitième article, contenant la treille inserée à la table, après plusieurs difficultés, a esté finallement trouvée en un grand reliquaire ou tableau garni d'argent surdoré, où il y a apparence d'une effigie[p. 150, Félibien, 1725].
    (Regarding the eighth item, containing the trellis inserted in a box, after many difficulties, it was finally found in a large reliquary or panel decorated with gilded silver, where there is the appearance of a portrait.)

  3. Inventory M, between 1534 and 1573[pp. 192–193, Vidier, 1908].

    19/19. La Veronique, où il y a faute de dix pierres.
    (The Veronica, where ten stones are missing.)

  4. Inventory O, October 8, 1575[pp. 278–279, Vidier, 1908].
    BnF, Nouv. Acqu. Fr., NAF 10698, fol. 2.

    19/19. La Veronicque, où y a faulte de dix pierres.
    (The Veronica, where ten stones are missing.)

  5. Inventory R, August 30, 1740[pp. 293–298, Vidier, 1908].
    AnF, L 620, no 28.

    19/21. Une autre boette, de vingt deux pouces de long sur quinze pouces de large, aussy couverte de lames d'argent et garnye de quelques pierres précieuses; au dedans de la ditte boette, le fond est revêtu de lames d'or dans tout le contour, et dans le milieu est la représentation de la sainte face de Notre Seigneur, ou la Véronique.
    (Another box, of twenty-two inches long by fifteen inches wide, also covered by silver plates and decorated by a few precious stones; inside the said box, the bottom is covered by golden plates in all its contour and in the center is the representation of the holy face of Our Lord, or the Veronica.)

  6. Inventory CC, March 10, 1791[pp. 324–325, Vidier, 1908].

    18/20. Une sainte face.
    (A holy face.)

  7. Inventory DD, March 12, 1791[pp. 328–331, Vidier, 1908].
    This inventory was not done at the Sainte-Chapelle, but at the Abbey of Saint-Denis when the items from inventory CC were received. This inventory lists the relics of the Grande Châsse up to number 20 as in CC, but then add a list of other relics probably all coming from the lower chapel of the Sainte-Chapelle.

    18/55. Une sainte face.
    (A holy face.)

  8. Inventory EE[pp. 332–333, Vidier, 1908].
    This inventory is undated but similar to inventory DD and done at the Abbey of Saint-Denis. The text is also very similar to inventory R.

    18/20. Une autre boite de 22 pouces de long [etc. R 19]
    (Another box of twenty-two inches long [etc. R 19])

  9. Inventory II, November 18, 1793[pp. 338–339, Vidier, 1908].
    This last inventory was done at the Sainte-Chapelle when the relics from the Abbey of Saint-Denis were transferred back to the Sainte-Chapelle. After that, the relics and reliquaries were either destroyed or dispersed to other locations. It is the only inventory that describes the box of the Mandylion with a sliding cover.

    18/35. Une autre boite à coulisse contenant un portrait.
    (Another box with a sliding cover containing a portrait.)


Inventory A (likely before 1279, no later than 1315)

This section presents the inventory A as given by Vidier. It was done when Eudes was the treasury of the Sainte-Chapelle before 1279 and until 1285. It is likely that this inventory was done when Eudes was given the title of treasury, so that this inventory was done before 1279. This inventory is not as well structured as the other inventories mentioning the relics of the Grande Châsse, mixing items from different parts of the Sainte-Chapelle. In some cases the relics and reliquaries are not described with precision but with general terms that do not allow a clear identification. Most items of that inventory were not in the Grande Châsse.

The Golden Bull or other inventories need to be used to identify some of the reliquaries and relics. Item 11 can only correspond to sanctam toellam, tabulae insertam of the Golden Bull, that is, to the Mandylion and its reliquary.

CY SONT LES CHOSES BAILLÉES A MONSEIGNEUR EUDE, MAISTRE DE LA CHAPPELLE ROYAL DE PARIS.

  1. Premierement ung vaissel de fust couvert d'argent où la Saincte Croix fu apportée.
  2. ung orcel d'argent à eue benoiste, doré par dehors.
  3. cinq tabernacles d'argent dorez.
  4. une boite d'argent.
  5. ung vaissel d'argent et une petite boite dedans où l'en cuide que ly lez Nostre Dame fu apportez.
  6. ung escrin d'argent couvert de fust où il y a six petites pieces de sainctu[ai]res et en chascune son escript.
  7. ung autre escrin tout d'argent où il y a du fust de la Saincte Croix, envelopé en cendal, et une croisette où il y a de ce fust mesmes, et une aumosniere où il y a du suaire et du vestement Nostre Seigneur et des draps de son enfance.
  8. et d'autres petiz sainctuaires envellopez en sendal et en aumosniere où il y a chacun son escript.
  9. ung autre escrin de cuir boulli où il y a ung anel à emeraude qui fu pape Climent et ung grant anel à evesque et ungs gans et trois costes de sains.
  10. ung vaissel d'argent où il y a ung autre petit vaissel dedans où l'en cuide qu'il y ait huille, et ung sainctuere sans escript, et une couppe d'argent dorée à porter Corpus Domini.
  11. ung escrin de fust peint où il y a ung grant sainctuaire sans escript.
  12. deux mitres brodées et trois blanches de dyapre. Et toutes ces choses dessus nommées sont en une huche par soy.
  13. es aumoires vermeilles sont deux vaisseaulx d'argent à pié où il y a en chascun du chief saint Jaques le jeune.
  14. le chief saint Clement et le chief saint Symeon.
  15. une couppe d'or à porter Corpus Christi et du vestement saint François.
  16. ung vaisselet où il y a des ossements à la Magdaleine.
  17. ung vaisselet de cristal où il y a de ... de sainte Anne et d'autres sains.
  18. ung escrin d'argent plat où il y a des menuz sainctuaires, en chascun son escript.
  19. ung ymage de Nostre Dame d'ivoire, et deux cors d'ivoire, et deux crosses à evesque, et une mittre, et la coste saint Nicaise.
  20. en une huche une croix de gest[re] et ung crucefiz d'yvoire.
  21. ung autel de jaspe benoist, une chasuble de diapre doré.
  22. pièces de texus ouvrez à perles et à pierretes pour faire estolles et fanon.
  23. deux bacins d'argent.
  24. deux petiz chandelliers et la belle pareure de toalle.

Inventory L (1534)

DECLARATION DES SAINTES RELIQUES ETANTS EN LA SAINTE CHAPELLE
ROYALE A PARIS, LESQUELLES FEU MONSEIGNEUR SAINT LOUIS, ROY
DE FRANCE, FIT APPORTER.

  1. La sainte couronne d'espines de Nostre Seigneur Jésus Christ.
  2. La sainte Croix.
  3. Du sang de nostre sauveur.
  4. Les drapeaux d'enfanse de nostre sauveur, esquels il fut envelopé en son jeune aage.
  5. Une autre grande partie du bois de la sainte Croix.
  6. Du sang qui par miracle merveilleux [fut] distillé d'une image de Nostre Seigneur, qui avoit esté frapée par un infidelle.
  7. La chaisne ou lien de fer faite en manière d'aneau, duquel on croit que nostre sauveur fut lié.
  8. La saincte trelle inserée à la table [où est la face de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ].
  9. Une grande partie de la pierre du sepulchre de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ
  10. Du lait de la benoite Vierge Marie.
  11. Le fer de la sainte lance, duquel fut percé en la croix le costé de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ.
  12. Une autre croix moyenne, laquelle les anciens appelloient triumphale, parce que les empereurs avoient de coustume de la porter en bataille en esperance de victoire [contre leurs ennemis].
  13. Le mantel de pourpre que les chevaliers baillerent à Nostre Seigneur en se mocquant de luy.
  14. La runce qu'ils mirent à la main de Nostre Seigneur au lieu de septre.
  15. L'esponge qu'ils luy baillerent à la croix plein de vinaigre quand il dit sitio.
  16. Une partie du suaire auquel fut envelopé son corps au sepulchre.
  17. Le linceul que Nostre Seigneur avoit ceint quand il lava les pieds de ses disciples, et duquel il essuya leurs pieds.
  18. La verge de Moyse.
  19. La haute partie du chef du benoit saint Jean Baptiste.
  20. Les chefs de saint Biaise, saint Clement, saint Simon.

The Description of the Relics in Inventory R (1740)

Inventory R, done in 1740, which is late in the history of the Grande Châsse, describes in details the reliquaries mentioning succinctly the relics. Each entry was written with the clear intention of distinguishing the reliquary from the relic, according to the understanding of the clerics, because each relic is mentioned separately, when it is present. This aspect is very important for the reliquary of the Mandylion where no relic is mentioned separately.

In the following list, the order of the relics presented in inventory R has been kept, and the descriptions of the reliquaries have been removed, so that only the short descriptions of the relics of that inventory R are presented. This focused list shows more clearly that there are only two cases where no relics are mentioned: item 6, the reliquary of the top of the head of saint John the Baptist, and item 19, which is the reliquary of the Mandylion. But in many other late inventories, item 6 is described containing a relic, which is not the case for the reliquary of the Mandylion. Therefore, item 19, the reliquary of the Mandylion, is the only reliquary for which the late inventories do not mention any relic. This is another observation that the Mandylion disappeared from the Sainte-Chapelle before the French Revolution.

The description of item 18 is also interesting because it mentions a “treillage” (trellis) under which is the relic. The relic is described as a piece of stone from the tomb of our Lord. This observation reinforces the possibility that the Mandylion itself may have been kept in a trellis, which is a natural way to make sure that the cloth does not move around when the reliquary is manipulated. This possibility is further reinforced by the description of the reliquary of the Mandylion in inventory R where a trellis is described at the bottom of the reliquary, although it appears as part of the painted image, not as a real trellis. It is as if, the bottom of the reliquary depicts what is in the reliquary: a cloth kept in a trellis on which there is an image of Jesus Christ.

  1. Dans lequel vaze est renfermé une relique qui est la sainte Couronne d'épines de Notre Seigneur;
  2. est enchâssée une partye considérable de la vraye croix de Notre Seigneur, en figure de croix, aussy avec deux traverses.
  3. est enfermé un morceau de la robbe de pourpre de Notre Seigneur.
  4. des reliques, qui sont les drappeaux d'enfance de Notre Seigneur Jésus Christ.
  5. renfermant plusieurs reliques;
  6. [rien]
  7. renfermant un rozeau qui a servy de sceptre à Notre Seigneur.
  8. est un morceau du linceul qui a servy au lavement des pieds des apostres.
  9. sont des reliques, avec cette inscription: « DE SINDONE DOMINI. »
  10. ce vaze renferme un morceau de l'éponge qui fut présentée à Notre Seigneur
  11. ce vaze renferme une portion du Sang miraculeux de Notre Seigneur
  12. avec cette inscription : « DE LACTE VIRGINIS »; laquelle relique
  13. « DE SANGUINE CHRISTI. » Laquelle relique
  14. « DECATENA QUA LIGATUS EST CHRISTUS »; laquelle relique
  15. est enfermé quelque partie du voile de la Vierge
  16. Une croix de bois, de quatorze à quinze pouces de haut ... la ditte croix appellée la Verge de Moyse
  17. est enfermé un morceau du fer de la lance qui a percé le costé de Notre Seigneur.
  18. sous lequel treillage est enchâssé un morceau de la pierre du sépulcre de Notre Seigneur.
  19. [rien]
  20. sont enfermées des reliques que l'on croit être des cheveux de la sainte Vierge.
  21. Plus s'est trouvé dans une boette ...

Artistic Representations of the Mandylion

Figure 10: Artistic representations of the Mandylion. A trellis is used to decorate the Mandylion around the face of Jesus Christ, which is similar to the description of item 19 in the inventory R, reinforcing the conclusion that the reliquary of the Mandylion was in the Sainte-Chapelle.

Selected Videos on the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris

  1. For a great and detailed introduction, in French, to the Sainte-Chapelle, please see this video.
  2. For an exceptional celebration of a mass at the Sainte-Chapelle in 2014, the first one since the French Revolution, more than two centuries ago, preceded by a procession with the Crown of Thorns, please see this video.
  3. For an impressive 3D reconstitution of the Sainte-Chapelle and the Royal Palace of Paris in the 14th century, please see this video.
  4. For a 360 degree view of the interior of the upper level of the Sainte-Chapelle, please see this web page.

Arnold von Harff's description of his Visit to the Sainte-Chapelle

Late in the 15th century, Arnold von Harff wrote that he visited the Sainte-Chapelle and saw the King of France venerating the relics of the Grande Châsse, even giving a list of these relics. The story of his visit does not appear genuine for reasons discussed in Section Answers to Objections Raised by Nicolotti. The list of relics appears to be taken from the work of Gérard de Saint-Quentin-en-l'Isle, with some rewording, in particular for the last three items.

We reproduce below the text of the visit of Paris and the Sainte-Chapelle by von Harff, translated by Malcolm Letts[pp. 288–289, Malcolm Letts, 2010].

Paris is a fine large and round city, built throughout, where the King of France holds his parliament. The town is not strong or surrounded with ditches, towers and walls, for in many places, as I was standing on the ground, I could put my hand on the walls. In this town of Paris there are three hundred and fifty numbered alleys and streets, large and small, of which some are well built on both sides of bridges over the water. Item in this town of Paris there are one hundred and fifteen numbered churches and chapels great and small, of which the cathedral or minster is called after our blessed Lady. It is very beautiful and finely built, lying between two streams. Item in about the center of the town is the King's palace, built very beautifully and splendidly. In it is a fine hall in which the parliament and law-givers sit daily. From this hall one goes through a passage, which is full of jewellers and shop-keepers, who have all kinds of precious things. Then one comes further into a small but beautiful and splendid chapel, called the Holy Chapel, into which with the help of the highborn lord Englebert Duke of Cleve, Count of Nevers etc., I was taken. King Louis was then within, hearing Mass with all his lords, and after Mass they showed him the following relics.

Item a cloth and some milk of our blessed Lady. Item a cloth in which our Lord Jesus in his childhood was swaddled. Item a towel with which our Lord Jesus girded himself, and with which he dried his disciples' feet. Item an iron chain with which our Lord Jesus was bound and led, and kept in prison. Item a piece of the Holy Cross. Item a thorn from the Crown of Thorns, which was pressed down on his blessed head. Item a piece of the purple garment in which our Lord Jesus was mocked, and the rod which was placed in his hand as a scepter, also in mockery. Item the sponge from which our Lord Jesus drank on the Holy Cross. Item a large piece of the spear which was thrust in our Lord Jesus's right side. Item a board which was placed under his head when he was taken down from the Cross. Item a piece of the cloth on which our Lord Jesus sweated water and blood. Item a piece of St. John Baptist's head. Item a piece of Moses's rod, and other notable relics which are all kept in a splendid casket above the high altar. Item, when this was ended, King Louis of France dubbed me a knight before the altar, which I desired, as all other Christian and heathen kings had also knighted me.

References

  1. ↑César Barta et Daniel Duque, The Sindone Sample from Constantinople in Toledo, Revue Internationale du Linceul de Turin, No. 21, pp. 34–37, september 2001.
  2. ↑Claudine Billot, La fondation de saint Louis, Le Collège des chanoines de la Sainte-Chapelle, in Le Trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle : Paris, Musée du Louvre, 31 mai 2001-27 août 2001, Réunion des musées nationaux, pp. 98–105, 2001.
  3. ↑Dorothy Crispino, To know the truth, a sixteenth-century document with excursus, Shroud Spectrum International, No. 28/29, pp. 25–40, September/December 1988.
  4. ↑A. M. de Boislisle, Chambre des Comptes de Paris, Pièces Justificatives pour Servir à l'Histoire des Premiers Présidents, Nogent-le-Rotrou, 1873.
  5. ↑Natalis de Wailly, Récit du treizième siècle sur les translations faites en 1239 et en 1241 des saintes reliques de la Passion, Bibliothèque de l'école des chartes, tome 39, pp. 401–415, 1878.
  6. ↑Louis-Claude Douët-d'Arcq, Inventaire des reliques de la Sainte-Chapelle, Revue archéologique, t. V, A. Leleux Éditeur, april–september, pp. 167–208, 1848.
  7. ↑ André-Marie Dubarle and Hilda Leynen, Histoire ancienne du linceul de Turin, Tome 2, 944–1356, François-Xavier de Guibert, 1998.
  8. ↑Jean Dufournet, Robert de Clari, La conquête de Constantinople, Champion Classiques, Honoré Champion, 2004.
  9. ↑ Jannic Durand, Marie-Pierre Laffitte and Musée du Louvre (Paris), Le Trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle : Paris, Musée du Louvre, 31 mai 2001-27 août 2001, Réunion des musées nationaux, 2001.
  10. ↑Michel Félibien, Histoire de la Ville de Paris. Receuil de Pièces Justificatives pour servir de preuves à l'Histoire de Paris (en cinq volumes), mise à jour par B. Guy-Alexis Lobineau, Tome 3, Guillaume Desprez and Jean Desessartz, 1725.
  11. ↑ Mark Guscin, The Image of Edessa, Brill, 2009.
  12. ↑Malcolm Letts, Pilgrimage of Arnold von Harff, Knight, from Cologne : Through Italy, Syria, Egypt, Arabia, Ethiopia, Nubia, Palestine, Turkey, France and Spain, which he Accomplished in the years 1496–1499, Hakluyt Society, Second Series, vol. 94, 2010.
  13. ↑ E. Miller, Les reliques de Constantinople, Journal des Savants, pp. 292–309, Mai 1878.
  14. ↑Sauveur-Jérôme Morand, Histoire de la Sainte-Chapelle royale du palais, enrichie de planches, Paris, 1790.
  15. ↑Andrea Nicolotti, From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin, the Metamorphosis and Manipulation of a Legend, Brill, 2014.
  16. ↑ Emmanuel Poulle, À propos des reliques de la Passion à la Sainte-Chapelle, Revue Internationale du Linceul de Turin, No. 23, pp. 12–18, 2002.
  17. ↑ Steven Runciman, Some Remarks on the Image of Edessa, Cambridge Historical Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 238–252, 1931.
  18. ↑ Henri Stein, Le Palais de Justice et la Sainte-Chapelle de Paris, notice historique et archéologique, D. A. Longuet Éditeur, 1912.
  19. ↑ N.-M. Troche, La Sainte-Chapelle de Paris, notice historique archéologique et descriptive sur ce célèbre oratoire de Saint Louis, Boucquin, 1855.
  20. ↑ Alexandre Vidier, Le Trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle, Mémoires de la société de l'histoire de Paris et de l'Île-de-France, Tome 34, pp. 199–324, 1907.
  21. ↑ Alexandre Vidier, Le Trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle (suite), Mémoires de la société de l'histoire de Paris et de l'Île-de-France, Tome 35, pp. 189–339, 1908.
  22. ↑Ian Wilson, The Shroud — The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved, Bantam Press, 2010.