A Doctor at Calvary

The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ As Described by a Surgeon

Dr. Pierre Barbet, The Earl of Wicklow

• Publisher: Papamoa Press
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781787209640
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

'We did not know; nobody has ever told us that!' These were the words, spoken in tears, of Pope Pius XII on first reading passages from A Doctor at Calvary, Dr. Pierre Barbet's scientific and reverent study of the Crucifixion of Christ. From an examination of the Holy Shroud of Turin—the authenticity of which Dr. Barbet accepts from medical evidence—a remarkable reconstruction of Christ's terrible agony is presented in language that cannot fail to move the heart.
What kind and what degree of physical torture did Our Lord suffer on Calvary? What was the medical cause of His death? These are among the questions answered in A Doctor at Calvary, one of the most significant contributions to Christological science in modern times. Christ's preliminary sufferings—the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, the scourging, the carrying of the cross—the wounds of the hands, in the feet, in the heart, the causes of the rapid death, and the entombment are recounted with the devotion and compassion of an ardent Christian and with a brilliant doctor's accuracy of anatomical detail.
'Without doubt this is one of the most gripping and moving books to have been published in many a year.'—Harold C. Gardiner, S. J.
'As an aid to vivid viewing of the Passion, this book is peerless.'—Rev. John S. Kennedy, Balancing the Books
'…a profoundly moving study of the Passion.'—Commonwealth
'…a remarkable reconstruction of Christ's agony and death.'—Jubilee
'This volume is an outstanding example of how science can contribute not only to theology, but to solid Christian piety, and thus be an aid to love of Christ.'—The Voice
'This is a gripping and powerful book of the highest stature.'—Voice of St. Jude
'Sincere study of this book will enable us for the first time to understand what is behind the words: 'Jesus suffered and died for us."—America

CHAPTER ONE—THE HOLY SHROUD

The reader who wishes to form a general idea of the problem, should read a little book which is as precise as it is concise, La Passion selon le Saint Suaire, by my friend Antoine Legrand (Librairie du Carmel, 27 Rue Madame, Paris). Paul Vignon’s second book is also of value, on account of its very rich iconography, Le Saint Suaire de Turin (Masson, 1938).

Let us, then, also study the shroud, since I started my experiments in order to discover whether its markings corresponded with the realities of anatomy and physiology. I undertook this study with a completely open mind, being equally ready to affirm that the shroud was an absurd fraud, or to recognise its authenticity, but I was gradually forced to agree, on every single point, that its markings were exact. Furthermore, those which seemed the strangest were those which fitted in best with my experiments. The bloodstained pictures were clearly not drawn by the hand of man; they could be nothing but the counter-drawings made by blood which had been previously coagulated on a human body. No artist would have been able to imagine for himself the minute details of those pictures, each one of which portrayed a detail of what we now know about the coagulation of blood, but which in the 14th century was unknown. But the fact is that not one of us would be able to produce such pictures without falling into some blunder.

It was this homogeneous group of verifications without one single weak link among them, which decided me, relying on the balance of probabilities, to declare that the authenticity of the shroud, from the point of view of anatomy and physiology, is a scientific fact.

A.—THE HISTORY

It is certain that on the day of the Resurrection Peter and John found the shroud of Jesus in the tomb. The synoptics, who, in regard to the burial, only speak of the shroud, on the Sunday found the othonia the linen cloths (Gerson, in 1304, translates this as the shrouds); the shroud clearly formed part of these. St. John, who on the Friday only speaks of the othonia, on the Sunday found the othonia and the soudarion. In company with Monsieur Lévesque we shall see that this soudarion means the shroud, in the Aramean in which St. John thought. If we refused to admit this, we should be compelled to place the shroud among the othonia.

What did the Apostles do with these? In spite of the natural repugnance of the Jews, for whom everything which comes in contact with death is unclean, especially a linen cloth stained with blood, it is impossible to believe that they did not preserve with the greatest care this relic of God made Man. One is also led to think that they would have been careful to hide it. It had to be protected from destruction by those who were persecuting the young Church. Furthermore, there could be no question of offering it for the veneration of the new Christians, who would be deeply imbued with the horror of the ancient world at the infamy of the cross. We shall return later to that long period, during which the cross was concealed under various symbols. We shall find that it is not till the Vth and VIth centuries that one comes across the first crucifixes, which in their turn were very much toned down; not till the VIIth and VIIIth centuries do they become rather more widely diffused. It is not till the XIIIth century that the devotion to the Passion of Jesus becomes general.

We would at this point add what is only a hypothesis, but we shall see, when studying the formation of the markings (E 2°, same chapter—the work of Volckringer), that it is the result of a mysterious biological phenomenon which has however been duly verified: it is possible that the markings of the body did not become visible on the shroud for a long period of years, though it bore bloodstains from the beginning. It is possible that they became distinct subsequently, in much the same way that a photographic film conceals its picture till it has been developed.

There is thus an obscure period when the shroud does not appear, indeed when it cannot appear. It may well have been carefully concealed, and thus have escaped all occasions of being destroyed. Romans, Persians, Medes and Parthians, each in their turn devastated Jerusalem and Palestine, massacring and dispersing the Christians, pillaging and demolishing their churches. What happened to the shroud? Nicephorus Callistus wrote in his ecclesiastical history that in the year 436 the Empress Pulcheria had built in Constantinople the basilica of St. Mary of the Blachernae and that she deposited there the burial linen of Jesus, which had just been rediscovered. It is there that we shall find the shroud in 1204 (Robert de Clari). Meanwhile, in 1171, according to William de Tyr, the Emperor Manuel Comnenus showed the relics of the Passion to King Amaury of Jerusalem: the lance, the nails, the sponge, the crown of thorns and the shroud, which he kept in the chapel of the Boucoleon. Now, all these things were there, besides a veil of Veronica, said Robert de Clari, except for the shroud which was at the Blachernae, according to the same Clari. It is also worthy of note that Nicephorus, who died in 1250, wrote after the capture of Constantinople, in 1204, where the shroud had disappeared. There may thus have been some confusion.

But a long time previously, in 631, St. Braulion, the Bishop of Saragossa, a learned and prudent man, in his letter No. XLII (P.L.t. LXXX, 689), writes, as if telling of something which had been well known for a long time, “de sudario quo corpus Domini est involutum, of the winding-sheet in which the body of the Lord was wrapped.” And he adds: “The Scriptures do not tell us that it was preserved, but one cannot call those superstitious who believe in the authenticity of this winding-sheet” A winding-sheet which had been wrapped round the body of Jesus could only be a shroud; we shall see this in the chapter on the burial. Where then was it during this period?

If we turn to the three books written by Adamnan, the Benedictine Abbot of Iona, About the Holy Places, according to the account of Arculphus, a French Bishop, section III, chapter X, de Sudario Domini, (published by Mabillon—Acta Sanctorum Ordinis Benedictini), we shall find that Arculphus was a pilgrim in Jerusalem round about the year 640. He there saw and kissed sudarium Domini quod in sepulcro super caput ipsius fuerat positum—the winding-sheet of the Lord which was placed over His head in the sepulchre. This follows the words of St. John. Now, this winding-sheet, according to Arculphus, was a long piece of linen which gave the impression of being about eight feet in length. This was no small cloth; it was the shroud.

St. Bede the Venerable, at the beginning of the VIIIth century, also mentions the testimony of Arculphus, in his Ecclesiastical History (de locis sanctis). About the same period St. John Damascene mentions the sindon as being among the relics venerated by the Christians. We thus already find that sindon and sudarium are equally used as synonyms.

It would seem from this that in the VIIth century it was still in Jerusalem or had been brought back there, and that it was only taken to Constantinople at a later date. When? We do not know. Perhaps before the XIIth century, when the pilgrims spoke of the sudarium quod fiut super caput ejus; we have just seen that according to Arculphus this referred to the shroud. In any case, it was there in 1204, at the time of the fourth Crusade.

Robert de Clari, a knight from Picardy, who took part in the capture of Constantinople in 1204, leads us on to much firmer ground, (cf. La Conquête de Constantinople in Classiques français du moyen âge, Ed. Champion, 1924). Robert is looked upon by historical critics as a man of moderate education, rather naïve, and whose views may be discounted in regard to the policy of the great barons, of which he knew little. But he was an observant and perfectly sincere witness, whenever he was able to see for himself.

Now, he gives a minute description of all the riches and the relics which he saw in the palaces and the rikes kapeles of the town, especially in the Boucoleon, which he rather amusingly calls el Bouke de Lion, and in the Blachernae. In the Boucoleon he saw two pieces of the true cross, the head of the lance, two nails, a phial of blood, a tunic and a crown. He also saw (described separately, with a long legend of how it was formed, after Our Lord had appeared to a holy man at Constantinople) what he speaks of as a toaille, a linen cloth bearing the face of the Saviour, like the veil of Veronica in Rome, and also a tile on which a tracing of it had appeared.

But it was at the Blachernae that he found the Holy Shroud. The whole account is written in the strange langue d’oil of the XII century, which still lives on in Walloon dialects. It should be read out loud, with a northern accent, perhaps also with Walloon blood in one’s veins, if one wishes to enjoy its full richness. He tells that: “And among the others there was a monastery known as Lady Saint Mary of the Blachernae, in which was kept the shroud in which Our Lord was wrapped; on every Friday this was held out, so well that it was possible to see the face of Our Lord. And neither Greek nor Frenchman knew what happened to that shroud after the town was taken.”

The shroud was thus stolen, or to be more indulgent, it formed part of the spoils of war. Now, according to Byzantine historians, and Dom Chamard in particular, a shroud corresponding to de Claris description was deposited in the hands of the Archbishop of Besançon, by Ponce de la Roche, a seigneur from Franche-Comté, the father of Othon de la Roche, who was one of the chief leaders of the Burgundian army in the crusade of 1204. And this shroud, which seems indeed to be ours, was venerated in the cathedral of Saint-Étienne down to 1349. I would note in passing that Vignon, in his book of 1938, has expressed some doubts as to its sojourn in Besançon; this is however very probable.

In the year 1349 the cathedral was laid waste by a terrible fire, and the shroud disappeared for the second time; only its reliquary was found. It had been stolen, and this fact is the true explanation of the false position which it was to occupy and the avatars from which it was to suffer during the following century. The memory of these still arouses prejudice against it in the minds of certain historians, whose number is steadily growing less, but who refuse to consider the intrinsic value of the sheet or to examine the markings, under the pretext that it can only be a priori a forgery—one might as well refuse to study the moon, because we can never see more than the half of it!

The shroud reappears eight years later, in 1357, in the possession of Count Geoffroy de Charny, having been given to him by King Philip VI. The latter must have received it from the robber, who is believed to have been one Vergy. Charny deposited it in the collegiate establishment at Lirey (in the diocese of Troyes) which he had founded a few years previously. Now, at about the same time there reappeared in Besançon another shroud, of which we have numerous copies, and which was clearly a poor and incomplete painted reproduction of the one at Lirey. The representatives of the Committee of Public Safety proved this in 1794, though this was no credit to them, and it was destroyed with the consent of the cathedral clergy.

The shroud at Lirey was also the object of the hostility of the Bishops of Troyes, first of all Henry of Poitiers, and thirty years later Peter d’Arcy, who objected to it being exposed by the canons of Lirey. They complained that the faithful were deserting the relics at Troyes, and were going in large crowds to Lirey. The Charnys quickly took back the relic, and kept it for thirty years.

In 1389 they presented their cause to the legate of the new Avignon Pope, that Clement VII who had just started the Western schism, and then to the anti-Pope himself. Both of these authorised the exposition in spite of Bishop Peter d’Arcy’s prohibition. Then, when the latter complained, Clement VII ended by deciding (a somewhat unworthy solution) that the Bishop could no longer oppose the expositions, but that a declaration should be made at each one that this was a painting representing the true shroud of Our Lord.

In the memorandum which he presented to Clement, Peter d’Arcy made grave and malicious accusations of simony against the canons of Lirey. He further claimed that his predecessor had made an inquiry and had received the admission of the artist who had painted the cloth.

No traces have even been found of this inquiry or of these avowals; if there was a painter, it is probable that he was the one who copied the shroud of Lirey to make that of Besançon. The fact is that all the decisions were the result of private interests and were based on the argument that the Gospels remain silent in regard to the existence of the markings. It seems that no impartial examination was ever made of the sheet itself; had this been done, they would have seen, as one can see today, that there is no trace of painting. But the pseudo-Pope Clement VII never seems to have concerned himself with this.

It is not easy to summarise these rather squalid disputes. But it seems that the poor shroud was only guilty of one fault, it was without its credentials. How could it have had them, if its presence at Lirey was the result of a double theft, in regard to the second of which the King of France was compromised as a receiver of stolen goods. And it was this absence of an identity card which was held on all sides as an objection against the last owner, Marguerite de Charny, when she took it to Chimay in Belgium. In consequence, after a number of journeyings to and fro, she made a present of it in 1452 to Anne de Lusignan, the wife of the Duke of Savoy.

That is how it came to Chambéry, and became what it still is, the property of the house of Savoy which was formerly reigning in Italy. Please God it will one day come to rest in the hands of the Sovereign Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the only person on earth in whose custody it should be.

From then onwards the history of the shroud is well known. The Duke of Savoy had a chapel built for it at Chambéry. There was a series of expositions, and according to Antony de Lalaing the chronicler, it was made to undergo some strange tests in order to prove its authenticity. It was several times boiled in oil and also washed, but it was found impossible to remove the markings. A horrifying idea, if indeed the chronicle is to be trusted, but it anyway shows they had an obstinate determination to make themselves sure.

As if the ways of men were not enough, a fire broke out in the chapel in 1532, which narrowly missed destroying the relic. A drop of molten silver had burnt its way through the corner of the sheet where it was folded in its reliquary, and thus it is spangled with a double series of burns which we shall find equally spaced. These two holes are fortunately on each side of the central marking. The water used to put out the fire has left broad symmetrical rings along the whole length of the shroud. This was its second fire after its second robbery.

The fortunate result of this was a canonical inquiry so as to establish the genuine character of the damaged shroud; and the repairs made by the Poor Clares of Chambéry were accompanied by an official descriptive report which was drawn up by these holy women.

The shroud then made various journeys, following on the political vicissitudes of its proprietor; it finally arrived at Turin in 1578 where it was venerated...

Table of contents

• Title page
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
• ILLUSTRATIONS
• PREFACE
• CHAPTER ONE-THE HOLY SHROUD
• CHAPTER TWO-CRUCIFIXION AND ARCHÆOLOGY
• CHAPTER THREE-THE CAUSES OF THE RAPID DEATH
• CHAPTER FOUR-THE PRELIMINARY SUFFERINGS
• CHAPTER FIVE-THE WOUNDS OF THE HANDS
• CHAPTER SIX-THE WOUNDS IN THE FEET
• CHAPTER SEVEN-THE WOUND IN THE HEART
• CHAPTER EIGHT-THE DESCENT FROM THE CROSS, THE JOURNEY TO THE TOMB AND THE ENTOMBMENT
• CHAPTER NINE-THE BURIAL
• CHAPTER TEN-VILLANDRE’S CRUCIFIX
• CHAPTER ELEVEN-LAST THOUGHTS
• CHAPTER TWELVE-THE CORPORAL PASSION OF JESUS CHRIST
• APPENDIX I
• APPENDIX II
• REQUEST FROM THE PUBLISHER