SHROVETIDE
763
SHROVETIDE
lievcd that it was the authentic shroud of Jesus
Christ. The pope, without absolutely prohibiting
the exhibition of the shroud, decided after full exam-
ination that in future when it was shown to the people
the priest should declare in a loud voice that it was not
the real shroud of Christ, but only a picture made to
represent it. The authenticity of the documents con-
nected with this appeal is not disputed. Moreover,
the grave suspicion thus thrown upon the relic is im-
mensely strengthened by the fact that no intelligible ac-
count, beyond wild conjecture, can be given of the pre-
vious history of the shroud or of its coming to Lirey.
An animated controversy followed and it must be
admitted that though the immense preponderance
of opinion among learned Catholics (see the state-
ment by P. M. Baumgarten in the "Historisches
Jahrbuch", 1903, pp. 319-43) was adverse to the au-
thenticity of the relic, still the violence of many of its
The Disciples Preparing Christ's Body for Burial, and
Exact Representation op the Holy SHRono
Giulio Clovio, the Royal Gallery, Turin
assailants prejudiced their own cause. In particular the suggestions made of blundering or bad faith on the part of those who photographed the shroud were quite without excuse. From the scientific point of view, however, the difficulty of the "negative" im- pression on the cloth is not so serious as it seems. This shroud like the others was probably painted without fraudulent intent to aid the dramatic setting of the Easter Sequence:
Die nobis Maria, quid vidisti in via Angelicos testes, sudarium et vestes. As the word sudarium suggested, it was painted to represent the impression made by the sweat of Christ, i. e. probably in a yellowish tint upon un- bleached linen, the marks of wounds being added in brilliant red. This yellow stain would turn brown in the course of centuries, the darkening process being aided by the effects of fire and sun. Thus, the lights of the original picture would become the shadow of the image as we now see it; but even in 159S Paleotto's reproduction of the images on the shroud is printed in two colours, pale yellow and red. As for the good proportions and aesthetic effect, two things may be noted. First, that it is highly probable that the artist used a model to determine the length and
position of the limbs, etc.; the representation no
doubt was made exactly life size. Secondly, the im-
pressions are only known to us in photographs so re-
duced, as compared with the original, that the crude-
nesses, aided by the softening effects of time, entirely
disappear.
Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year a. d. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.
Baumgarten stated in 1903 that more than 3.500 articles, books, etc., had at that time been written upon the Holy Shroud. The most important is Chevalier, Etude critique sur Vorigine du saint suaire (Paris, 1900). Some useful df tails are added by M^LY, Le saint suaire de Turin est-il aiilln nlii/nr.' (I'aris, 1902). Baumgarten in Historisches Jahrbuch (MutikIi, 1',)(i:1), 319-43, shows that the preponderance of Cathnlic oiiiniou is greatly against the authenticity of the shroud. See also Braun in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, LXIII (1902), 249 sqq. and 398 sqq.; Thurston in The Month (London, Jan. and Feb., 1903) and in Retiue du clergS frangais (15 Nov. and 15 Dec., 1902).
In favour of the shroud may be mentioned Vionon, Le linceul du Christ (Paris, 1902), also in English translation; Mackey in Dublin Review (.Ian., 1903); DE Johannis in Etudes (Paris, 1902 and Nov., 1910); Loth, La photographie du s. suaire de Turin, documents nouveaux et concluants (Paris, 1910), the promise of "new and conclusive documents" is by no means justified; Garrold in The Tablet, CXVII (1 and 8 April, London, 1911), 482-4, 522^. Of older books may be mentioned: Paleotto, Explicatione del lenzuolo (Bologna, 1598 and 1599); Mallonius, Jesu Christi stigmata sacrw sindoni impressa (Venice, 1606); Chifflet, De linteis sepulchralibus (Antwerp, 1624).
Herbert Thurston.
Shrovetide is the Enghsh equivalent of what is known in the greater part of Southern Iilurope as the "Carnival", a word which, in spite of wild suggestions to the contrary, is undoubtedly to be derived from the "taking away of fle-sh" {carnem lemre) which marked the beginning of Lent. The English term "shrove- tide" (from "to shrive", or hear confessions) is sufh- cieiilly (■xi)l;une(l by a sentence in the Anglo-Saxon "KcclCsiastical Institutes" translated from Theodul- phus l)y .\bl)()t /Elfric (q. v.) about A. D. 1000: "In the week immediately before Lent everyone shall go to his confessor and confess his deeds and the con- fessor shall so shrive him as he then may hear by his deeds what he is to do [in the way of penance]". In this name shrovetide the religious idea is uppermost, and the same is true of the German Fnslnacht (the eve of the fast). It is intelligible enough that before a long period of deprivations human nature should al- low itself some exceptional licence in the way of frolic and good cheer. No appeal to vague and often in- consistent traces of earlier pagan customs seems needed to explain the general observance of a carnival celebra- tion. The only clear fact which does not seem to be adequately accounted for is the widespread tendency to include the preceding Thursday (called in I'^rench Jeudi gras and in German /e</er Doii/ursldg — just as Shrove Tuesday is respectively called Manli (iras and fetter Dienstag) with the Monday and Tuesday which follow Quinquagesima. The English custom of eat- ing pancakes was undoubtedly suggested by the need of using up the eggs and fat which weic, originally at least, prohibited articles of diet during llic forty days of Lent. The same prohibition is, of course, mainly responsible for the association of eggs with t h(> Easter festival at the other end of Lent. Although the ob- servance of Shrovetide in England never ran to the wild excesses which often marked this period of licence in southern (ilimes, still various sports and especially games of football were common in almost all parts of the country, and in the households of the great it was customary to celebrate the evening of Shrove Tucs-
