Produced by deaurider, Chris Pinfield, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
Transcriber's Note.
Apparent typographical errors have been corrected.
Italics are indicated by _underscores_ and transliterated Greek by
=equal signs=. Small capitals have been replaced by full capitals.
Paragraphs in smaller font have been indented.
Combining characters have been used to add tildes and macrons to some
letters. They may not work properly in some applications. The same
limitation applies to a composite character that represents a pointed
cap.
The Errata that follow the List of Illustrations have not been
incorporated in the text.
[Illustration]
The Camden Library.
EDITED BY
G. LAURENCE GOMME, F.S.A.,
AND
T. FAIRMAN ORDISH, F.S.A.
[Illustration: BRASS OF SIMON DE WENSLAGH (CIRC. 1360), WENSLEY,
YORKSHIRE (showing the Eucharistic vestments of a priest of the Western
Church).]
_THE CAMDEN LIBRARY_
ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS:
Their Development and History
BY
R. A. S. MACALISTER, M.A.
_Member of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland_
[Illustration]
LONDON:
ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW
1896
[Illustration]
PREFACE
Within comparatively recent years the discovery has been made that it is
possible to treat the Bible, for critical purposes, as though it were an
ordinary item of national literature, while maintaining a fitting
reverence for it as the inspired Word; and that by so doing a flood of
sidelight is cast upon it which illuminates the obscurity of some of its
most difficult passages.
So, to compare lesser things with greater, it is possible and advisable
to discard all feeling of ecclesiasticism (so to term it) when speaking
of ecclesiastical antiquities. The science of ecclesiology is of
comparatively recent growth, and it has hitherto suffered much at the
hands of those who have approached it not so much to learn the plain
lessons it teaches, as to force it to declare the existence or
non-existence in early or mediaeval times of certain rites and
observances. While we should treat ancient churches and their furniture
with respect—a respect which should not be denied to the despised,
though often quaint and interesting, high pews and west galleries—as
being edifices or instruments formed for the use of the worshippers of
God, yet for antiquarian purposes they should be examined and dissected
in exactly the same spirit as that in which we investigate the temples
of ancient Greece, or the stone weapons of prehistoric man. In this
spirit the author of the present book has worked.
Ecclesiology, besides its sentimental connection with ecclesiasticism,
possesses many features which render it the most popular branch of the
great all-embracing science of archaeology. The objects with which it is
concerned appeal strongly to the senses; the finest works of the
architect, the limner, the silversmith, the engraver, the embroiderer,
the illuminator, and the musician, come within its scope; they are
accessible to all who live within reach of an ancient church or a
moderately good museum, and the pleasant excursions and companionships
with which its votaries are favoured invest its pursuit with the
happiest associations. Above all, it lacks that terrible obstacle which
lies at the threshold of almost every other subject of serious
archaeological study—the necessity of attaining perfection in at least
one foreign language. No one can form more than the merest _dilettante_
acquaintance with the antiquities of India, Egypt, Greece, Ireland, or
any other country, without mastering the language in which the records
of the country are written; but the merest smattering of mediaeval
dog-Latin is quite sufficient to open the door to high (not, perhaps,
_the highest_) attainments in ecclesiology.
These manifold attractions have resulted in hampering the study of
ecclesiology with a serious drawback, which is wanting in nearly all the
other branches of archaeology. The investigation of the marvellous
antiquities of the four countries just mentioned—or, indeed, of almost
any other country—can be undertaken by a student with the certainty that
if he applies himself to it sufficiently to master the many difficulties
which will, no doubt, present themselves, he will be in a position to
break ground as yet untouched; his knowledge will enable him to make
original discoveries of his own. But it is far otherwise in
ecclesiology. So easily understood are the facts of the subject (except
in a few obscure points relating to the early Church); so definite are
the statements of the numberless records, when the vagaries of
symbolical theorizers are sifted away from them; so countless has been,
and is, the army of students, that the scope for research-work is
reduced to a minimum; hardly anything is left for the originally-minded
worker but to discover the personal names of the different artists whose
handiworks he sees before him, or else to propound some startling and
revolutionary theory respecting the use of low-side windows or Easter
sepulchres.
In the subdivision of ecclesiology with which this book is concerned,
originality, whether of fact or treatment, is practically impossible.
This work cannot claim to be more than a compilation, but it can claim
to fill a space not exactly occupied by any other book, in that it gives
in a brief and convenient form the principal facts connected with
vestments and their use throughout the chief subdivisions of the
Christian Church; it is not, as are almost all other works on the
subject, confined to one branch only, or at most to the great Churches
of the West and the East, but includes as well the smaller and more
isolated communities, and those branches of the Universal Church which
have undergone reformation.
Exception may possibly be taken to the manner in which the alleged
symbolism of vestments has been treated. But it is impossible to
overlook the facts. If, as is now the opinion of every leading
ecclesiologist, the vestments are the natural result of evolution from
civil Roman costume, it is clearly ludicrous to suppose that when they
were first worn they possessed the symbolical meanings they are alleged
to bear; the symbolism is as much an accretion as are the jewels and the
embroidery of the middle ages. Moreover, the symbolical meanings
attached to them are so obviously the 'private judgments' of the writers
who describe them, and are so irreconcilable and so far-fetched, that to
the unbiased mind they do not appear worthy of serious treatment.
In some recent books on ecclesiological and antiquarian matters Greek
words are transliterated into English characters. This practice has not
been followed in the present work because of the unsatisfactory
appearance of Greek words in Roman dress, and because the Greek alphabet
is familiar to all students. Words of other languages, such as Russian
or Armenian, are, however, expressed in English letters, as their
alphabets are not so well known, and they are not so easily set up in
native type.
I must record my indebtedness to my lamented friend the late Prof.
Middleton for useful hints and assistance; to Dr F. R. Fairbank, of St
Leonard's-on-Sea, for many notes and references which have been of great
value to me, and especially for the loan of several blocks; to Mr W. J.
Kaye for the loan of a rubbing of the Sessay brass; to the Rev. S.
Schechter for kind assistance in questions which arose in the first
chapter; to the Rev. A. D. A. van Scheltema for information regarding
the Church of Holland; and for many helps and suggestions to my father,
to whom, in acknowledgment of the interest he has throughout shown in
the preparation of the book, I wish to dedicate it. A list of the
principal works laid under contribution is given in an Appendix.
R. A. S. M.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I.
THE GENESIS OF ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS 1
CHAPTER II.
THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS
IN THE WESTERN CHURCH 24
CHAPTER III.
THE FINAL FORM OF VESTMENTS IN THE WESTERN CHURCH 60
CHAPTER IV.
THE HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROCESSIONAL
VESTMENTS; THE ORNAMENTATION OF VESTMENTS 137
CHAPTER V.
THE VESTMENTS OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES 175
CHAPTER VI.
THE VESTMENTS OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES 192
CHAPTER VII.
THE RITUAL USES OF VESTMENTS 211
APPENDIX I.
COSTUMES OF THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS 235
MEDIAEVAL UNIVERSITY COSTUME 253
APPENDIX II.
AN INDEX OF SYNONYMOUS TERMS 257
APPENDIX III.
A LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO IN THE
COMPILATION OF THIS WORK 258
INDEX 262
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(_For full titles of sources followed see Appendix III_)
FIG. PAGE
BRASS OF SIMON DE WENSLAGH, WENSLEY, YORKS _Frontispiece_
1. VESTMENTS OF THE JEWISH PRIESTHOOD. (_After Bock_) 5
2. BISHOP ADMINISTERING BAPTISM. (_Marriott_) 37
3. ECCLESIASTICS FROM THE MOSAICS IN S VITALE, RAVENNA.
(_Rock_) 46
4. EFFIGY OF A ROMAN CITIZEN IN CAERLEON MUSEUM. (_Bloxam_) 49
5. POPE GREGORY THE GREAT WITH PASTORAL STAFF.
(_Smith and Cheetham_) 57
6. STOLE-ENDS, SHOWING VARIETIES IN FORM AND ORNAMENT.
(_Archæological Association Journal_) 73
7. ARCHBISHOP STIGAND, FROM THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY. (_Willemin_) 76
8. DEACON IN EPISCOPAL DALMATIC. (_Building News_) 78
9. DEACON IN DIACONAL DALMATIC. (_Rock_) 78
10. SIR PETER LEGH, KNIGHT AND PRIEST. (_Haines_) 84
11. BISHOP WAYNFLETE'S EPISCOPAL SANDAL. (_Rock_) 92
12. S DUNSTAN (FROM A MS. IN THE COTTONIAN LIBRARY).
(_Marriott_) 97
13. MONUMENT OF ALBRECHT VON BRANDENBURG, MAYENCE 101
14. BISHOP WAYNFLETE'S EPISCOPAL STOCKING. (_Rock_) 105
15. FIGURE OF A POPE (_temp._ INNOCENT III). (_Rock_) 108
16. A BISHOP, SALISBURY CATHEDRAL. (_Bloxam_) 117
17. MONUMENT OF DIETHER VON ISENBURG, MAYENCE 117
18. PASTORAL STAFF AND MITRA PRETIOSA. (_Bloxam_) 120
19. BRASS OF ARCHDEACON MAGNUS, SESSAY, YORKSHIRE 147
20. BRASS OF ROBERT BRASSIE, KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE 150
21. CHRYSOME CHILD. (_Haines_) 172
22. A COPE-CHEST, YORK MINSTER. (_Archæological
Association Journal_) 173
23. ARMENIAN PRIEST. (_Fortescue_) 177
24. MALABAR PRIEST. (_Howard_) 178
25-28. ILLUSTRATIONS OF ECCLESIASTICS OF THE EASTERN
CHURCH. (_King_) 179-185
29. A SYNOD MEETING OF THE REFORMED CHURCH
OF FRANCE. (_Quick_) 205
30. DEACON IN FOLDED CHASUBLE, WELLS CATHEDRAL.
(_Archæologia_) 216
[Illustration]
ERRATA.
Page 47, line 2, _for_ maniple _read_ mappula.
Page 63, line 2, _for_ Walfrid _read_ Walafrid.
Page 74, line 1 of footnote, _for_ Goodrich _read_ Goodrick.
Page 77, line 3 of footnote, _for_ Whittlesford read Milton.
Page 106, last line, _for_ succinctorium _read_ subcingulum (also called
'succinctorium').
Page 110, line 13, _for_ bishops _read_ ecclesiastics.
[Illustration]
_ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS._
CHAPTER I.
THE GENESIS OF ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS.
The study of ecclesiastical history or antiquities can be pursued from
either of two standpoints. We may take into account those essentially
religious or theological elements which distinguish this subject from
all other branches of antiquarian science, and keep them prominently
before us during our investigations; or else, disregarding those
elements more or less completely, we may consider the subject wholly
from the point of view of the antiquary.
As a general rule, those investigators who lay stress on the
_ecclesiastical_ rather than on the _antiquarian_ side of ecclesiology
and its various subdivisions have been attracted to the study not so
much by the intrinsic interest which, in some degree, every branch of
archæology possesses, as by the wish to settle controversial questions
relating to Church doctrine, usage, or discipline. This is especially
true of the important section of ecclesiology with which these pages are
concerned. There are two schools into which the students of Church
vestments may be divided—the ritualistic and the antiquarian. Each
strives to attain full knowledge of the subject, and the means employed
by both schools are the same—the evidence drawn from a patient
comparison of the works of authors and artists of successive periods.
But while those of the purely antiquarian school regard the knowledge
thus gained as in itself the chief end of their researches, those of the
other consider it rather as a stepping-stone, leading to proofs of the
Divine appointment of the use of vestments, and indicating regulations
to govern the usage of vestments in the modern Church.
It is not surprising that the results of the investigations of two
schools, having aims so diverse in view, should be mutually
incompatible. According to the views of some members of the ritualistic
school, the vestments of the Christian Church were modelled directly
upon the vestments of the Jewish priesthood; and as minute instructions
for the shapes and usage of the latter were laid down in the
divinely-revealed laws of Moses, they thus claim an at least indirect
Divine appointment for the Christian vestments. The antiquarian party,
on the other hand, are unanimous in holding that the vestments of the
Christian Church were evolved, by a natural process, from the ordinary
costume of a Roman citizen of the first or second century of our era.
The consideration of these two theories must first occupy our attention.
Neither is absolutely correct; for, although the balance of probability
is enormously in favour of the second view, yet this theory, in the form
in which it is often stated, does not cover certain changes which were
made in the textures, outlines, and number of the vestments while the
Church was yet comparatively young. These changes were all introduced to
assimilate, as far as possible, the Jewish and Christian systems; and
thus it may be said that both views contain an element of truth.
The theory of a Levitical origin is the older of the two; in fact, it
was the first, and for many years the only, solution proposed. We shall
therefore at the outset devote a page or two to considering its merits.
Very few, even among the students of the ritualistic school, now hold it
absolutely. The weight of argument which can be brought to bear against
it is so great that it is almost universally abandoned as untenable.
For comparative purposes, it will be necessary at this stage to
introduce a short descriptive catalogue of the vestments of the
Levitical priesthood, as prescribed in the Book of Exodus (chap.
xxviii). Josephus ('Antiquities,' iii 7) is also a _locus classicus_ on
the subject, and some additional particulars from that source are here
incorporated:
I. _The Drawers or 'Breeches' of Linen._
II. _The Tunic of Linen_ ('coat of fine linen,' Exod. xxviii
39).—Josephus tells us that this tunic was of fine linen or flax
doubled; that it reached to the feet, fitting close to the body, and was
furnished with tight sleeves. It was girded to the breast, a little
above the level of the elbows, by
III. _The Girdle._—This was a strip of linen which, according to
Josephus, was four fingers broad; according to Maimonides,[1] three
fingers broad and thirty-two cubits long. It was wound many times round
the body; the ends were then tied over the breast and hung down to the
feet, except when the priest was engaged in sacrifice or other service,
in which case he threw it over his left shoulder, so that it should not
impede him in his duty. It was elaborately embroidered with flowers,
worked in scarlet, purple, and blue threads.
IV. _The Priest's Cap_ ('bonnet,' Exod. xxviii 40).—This was an ordinary
turban, fastened round the head. The description given by Josephus is
clear and detailed. He says: 'Upon his head he wears a cap, not brought
to a conic form nor encircling the whole head, but still covering more
than half of it, which is called _mesnaemphthes_; and its make is such
that it seemeth to be a crown [garland], being made of thick swathes,
but the contexture is of linen, and it is doubled round many times and
sewed together; besides which, a piece of fine linen covers the cap from
the whole upper part, and reaches down to the forehead and hides the
seams of the swathes, which otherwise would appear improperly.'[2]
[Illustration: FIG. 1.—VESTMENTS OF THE JEWISH PRIESTHOOD.]
These four vestments constituted the complete equipment of the ordinary
Jewish priest, as prescribed in the Mosaic law. The high-priest,
however, added four more, which were as follows:
V. _The Tunic of Blue_ ('robe of the ephod,' Exod. xxviii 31).—This was
a long garment which, according to some authorities, reached to the
feet, but according to others to the knees only. It was woven in one
piece, with an aperture through which the head of the wearer was passed;
this aperture was guarded by a binding or braid to prevent it from
tearing. Round the lower hem of this garment were hung golden bells and
models of pomegranates, alternating one with another. The meaning of
this remarkable ornament is not clear, and several explanations have
been advanced to account for it; all, however, fanciful, and not worth
recording here.
VI. _The Ephod_, which was at once the most elaborate and the most
important of the Jewish vestments, is more fully described than any of
the rest. The superiority of this vestment over the others is due to the
part which it, and the breastplate intimately connected with it, played
in the mysterious revelations by which the children of Israel were
guided during the period of the Theocracy. For us, however, it would be
as irrelevant as it would be futile to speculate on the nature of the
revelation, or the instrumentality of the ephod in indicating the Divine
will to the priest. We are here concerned only with the ephod as an
element in the equipment of the high-priest, with its shape, and with
such particulars of its ritual use as we can find directly stated in the
different authorities.
'The ephod,' says Josephus, was 'woven to the depth of a cubit, of
several colours [gold, blue, purple, and scarlet are enumerated in
Exodus]; it was made with sleeves also; nor did it appear to be at all
differently made from a short coat.'[3] The vestment seems to have
consisted of two pieces, a front and a back, which were buttoned
together by two onyx stones, one on each shoulder, set in bezils or
'ouches,' and engraved with the names of the twelve tribes, six on one,
six on the other. Round the waist was passed a girdle, which was an
essential part of the vestment—indeed, Josephus tells us that the girdle
and the ephod were sewn together. This girdle, which was made of
materials similar to those which constituted the ephod, seems to have
been embroidered elaborately with coloured threads.
The ritual uses of the ephod, even apart from its supernatural
associations, are obscure. It is distinctly implied both in Exodus and
by Josephus that the vestment was intended for the use of the
high-priest alone; yet we find allusions scattered through the early
historical books of the Old Testament which clearly indicate that it was
worn by others as well. Thus, we read in 1 Sam. xxii 18 that Doeg,
commanded by Saul to fall on the priests who had assisted David, 'slew
... fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod.' Again,
Samuel, when a child in the service of the priests, 'ministered before
the Lord ... girded with a linen ephod' (1 Sam. ii 18). Further, we read
that King David himself, when he escorted the ark from the house of
Obed-Edom to Jerusalem, was 'girded with a linen ephod.' In these three
passages we read of an ephod being worn by the minor priest, the
acolyte, and the layman, for none of whom it was originally intended.
The most probable explanation seems to be that the ephod, originally
intended as a vestment for the high-priest alone, was gradually assumed,
probably in a less elaborate form, by the minor priests as well—when or
how we cannot say. This explanation assumes that the regulation was
originally laid down as it stands in Exodus; but it is possible that the
more stringent restrictions may not be earlier than the recension of
Ezra.
We learn from the incidents of Gideon (Judg. viii 27) and of Micah
(Judg. xvii 5; xviii 14 _et seq._) that the ephod, or, rather, copies of
it, early became objects of superstitious veneration. In the two latter
passages quoted, as well as in Hos. v 4, the vestment is coupled with
the teraphim or _penates_, to the worship of which the Israelites showed
marked inclination at different periods of their history. It may be
noticed in passing that Ephod, which signifies 'giver of oracles,' is
used as a personal name (Num. xxxiv 23).
VII. _The Breastplate of the Ephod._—This was a rectangular piece of
cloth of the same material as the ephod. That it might the better hold
the precious stones with which it was set, it was doubled, its shape
when so treated being that of a perfect square, with a side of about
nine inches long. The stones were twelve in number, and fixed in
settings of gold, being arranged in four rows of three each. On each
stone was engraved the name of one of the twelve tribes.
This breastplate was secured by two plaited or twisted chains of gold,
fastened at the one end to the bezils of the shoulder-pieces of the
ephod, at the other to rings of gold in the upper corners of the
breastplate, and by two blue cords secured to rings of gold in the lower
corners of the breastplate and in the sides of the ephod above the
embroidered girdle. Josephus asserts that there was an aperture in the
ephod immediately under the breastplate. For this statement there is no
Scriptural authority; but it is possible that it is the record of a
modification in the details of the vestment naturally evolved and
established at some time subsequent to the institution of the vestment
itself.
VIII. _The Mitre._—This did not differ in essence from the head-dress of
the priests except in one important respect—the addition of a gold
plate, set on a lace of blue, and bearing the inscription, 'Holy to
Jehovah.' Josephus does not mention this plate, but describes the mitre
as a kind of triple tiara, surmounted by a flower-shaped cup of gold,
and covering the turban proper.[4] This, however, is quite at variance
with the original laws on the subject.
In one respect these vestments are similar to those which it will be our
duty to describe in the following pages. Although there is no injunction
on the subject in the Law, the Talmud states clearly that 'he who wears
the vestments of the priests outside the temple does a thing forbidden.'
It is admitted by almost all students that the vestments during the
first six or eight centuries of the Christian era were of much greater
simplicity than those of later times. The evidence of contemporary art
is overwhelmingly opposed to any other view. This fact being admitted,
we need not be surprised by finding that until the eighth or ninth
century no attempt was made to trace any connection between the
elaborate vestments which we have just described, and the vestments worn
by those who ministered in the offices of Christian worship.
It is true that until the time we have mentioned Churchmen did not
greatly trouble themselves with investigations into the history of the
religion they professed or the ritual they performed. But it is also
true that several authors before this date enumerate the Jewish
vestments, and enter at length into the figurative meanings which they
were alleged to bear; but not one of these refers to any supposed
genealogical connection—if the expression be permissible—between the two
systems. This would be inexplicable if the Christian vestments were
actually derived from the Jewish; for not only would the resemblance
between the two be obvious, but the tradition of the assumption by
Christian clerics of the vestments originally instituted for the Jewish
priesthood would still be fresh in the minds of the authors. Yet not
only do these writers not point out any resemblance between the two:
they even make use of words and phrases which point to considerable
differences between the outward appearance of Jewish and Christian
vesture.
Apart from these considerations, may we not ask with reason how the
early Christians, a poor and persecuted sect, could possibly assume and
maintain an elaborate and expensive system of vestments such as the
Jewish? And if the assumption had been made after the days of
persecution were past, surely some record of the transaction would have
been preserved till our own day? We possess a tolerably full series of
the acts and transactions of ecclesiastical courts in all parts of the
known world from the earliest times—how is it that all record of such an
important proceeding has perished?
The first hint of the idea of the Mosaic origin of the Christian
vestments is given by Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz, in his
treatise 'De Institutione Clericorum,'[5] written about the year 850. In
the first book of this tract he discusses each Christian vestment in
turn, endeavouring to find parallels to some of them among the vestments
of the Jewish priesthood, but without much success. The seed thus sown,
however, rapidly bore fruit among subsequent writers, who expanded the
theory with great elaboration.
Many of the identifications brought forward by some of the late writers
are very far-fetched, and mutually contradictory. To these but little
weight can be attributed. It is a significant fact that none of the
writers who endeavour to find parallels between the two systems can
discover an equivalent among the Jewish vestments for the chasuble. Now,
if for each of the Christian vestments there existed a corresponding
vestment among those of the Jews, it would be singular that the most
important of the former should be unrepresented among the latter. The
maniple, too, has no equivalent (this, however, is more intelligible,
since that ornament was certainly a later introduction); while the amice
is the only vestment that even the most ingenious can produce to
represent the ephod, though the similarity between the two is of the
slightest.
There is another important point which the advocates of a Mosaic origin
for Christian vestments overlook. The early Christians certainly did
borrow many details of their worship from the Jews who lived around
them, and from whose religion many of them had been converted; but these
details were taken not from the antiquated ritual of the temple worship,
but from the synagogue worship, to which they had been accustomed. Now,
the vestments which we have described above were appointed for the
tabernacle worship and the temple worship, its direct successor, whereas
no vestments were at any time or by any authority appointed for use in
the synagogue worship;[6] and hence the Christian vesture cannot be said
to 'come directly' from the Jewish.
We have discussed the theory of a Levitical origin on purely _a priori_
grounds, making only the slightest allusion to the vestments themselves
as we find them in primitive times. In considering the second view, to
which it is now time to turn, we shall adopt a different course. We
shall first collect the main facts which can be discovered or deduced
respecting vestments in the earliest centuries of Christianity, from the
beginning till the rupture of the East and the West, and then discuss in
detail the vestments as we find them in the succeeding period, which in
all ecclesiastical matters was a period of transition, comparing each in
turn with its hypothetical prototype among the civil costume of the
Romans. The remainder of the present and the whole of the succeeding
chapter will be devoted to this investigation.
The materials available for an inquiry into the vestment usage of the
early Church are twofold: the incidental statements of contemporary
authors, and the more direct information obtained from a study of
contemporary paintings and sculpture. We shall now discuss the results
which follow from an examination of these sources.
The references in the earliest writers—even including those which have a
very indirect bearing on the subject—are extremely few in number; and
all passages which can possibly throw any light on the question have
been eagerly sought out and called into evidence to support one theory
or another. The two best-known passages are the statement of St Jerome:
'Holy worship hath one habit in the ministry, another in general use and
common life';[7] and the yet more famous passage in the liturgy of St
Clement, in which a rubric directs the priest to begin the service
'girded with a shining vesture.'[8] The phrase =lampran esthêta
metendys= has been translated 'being girded with _his_ "splendid"
vestment,' a translation which the Greek cannot possibly bear; and this
passage, coupled with the excerpt from Jerome just quoted, have been
brought forward to testify that gorgeous vestments were in use even at
the early times when those documents from which they have been extracted
were written.
Mr. Marriott has carefully examined and commented on these and the other
passages cited as authorities. He proves that the first passage given
above is used in a context which shows that Jerome, though possibly he
may have had Christian usage in his mind, was thinking primarily of
Jewish usage; the second (which not improbably is an interpolation) does
not specify a 'splendid' vesture, but a 'white' or 'shining' garment.
Mr. Marriott's inference from these and similar passages is 'that white
was the colour appropriated in primitive times [_i.e._, in the first
four centuries] to the dress of the Christian ministry.' Though this
view is preferable to the theory that the primitive vestments were of
the same elaborate description as their mediaeval successors, yet it
does not altogether commend itself as following naturally from the
authorities cited. It will be necessary to review these passages, for,
as we shall endeavour to show, they are quite consistent with the third
alternative: that _no_ distinctive vestments were set apart for the
exclusive use of the Christian minister during the first four centuries
of the Christian era.
The third passage is also from Jerome. In another part of the same
commentary as the last he writes: 'From all these things we learn that
we ought not enter the Holy of Holies clad in our everyday garments and
in whatever clothes we will, defiled as they are by the usage of common
life; but with pure conscience and in pure garments we ought to hold the
sacraments of the Lord.'[9]
The fourth passage is from Jerome's letter against the Pelagians, in
which occur these remarkable words: 'You say, further, that gorgeousness
of apparel or ornament is offensive to God. But, I ask, suppose I should
wear a comelier tunic, wherein would it offend God? or if bishop,
priest, deacon, and the rest of the church officers were to come forward
dressed in white?'[10]
Only one other passage remains. This is the account of the charge
preferred against Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, before the Emperor
Constantius. It is narrated in Theodoret (Eccl. Hist., ii 27), and, not
being worth quoting at length, may be briefly stated thus: Constantine
had sent to Macarius, the then bishop, a sacred robe—=hieran
stolên=—made of threads of gold, to be worn when administering baptism;
Cyril had sold this robe to a stage-dancer, who wore it during a public
exhibition. It was further stated that the stage-dancer had fallen while
dancing and been fatally injured.
As the reader will see, these passages give but few data for deductions
as to the vestment-usage in the early Church. There is no indication,
for instance, in the passage from Theodoret of what sort the sacred robe
in question was: it may just as well have been a splendid garment
originally from some temple or other. The fact that the early Greek
ecclesiastical writers do not use the word =stolê= to denote a sacred
vestment further weakens the force of this anecdote as an argument. Only
Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (early seventh century), supplies
another instance, where he says: =hê stolê tou hiereôs ... kata ton
podêrê Aarôn=; and this latter passage can be explained away, as =stolê=
refers here to Jewish vesture, in which connection it is also employed
by the Septuagint.
On a careful and unbiased reading of these passages, it will be noticed
that nothing is said which can be construed into denoting garments of a
special prescribed shape, and that their colour is only specified by
such indefinite words as =lampros= and _candidus_.
It is also important to notice that although in the first and third of
the passages cited from Jerome a more special mention is made of the
dress of the clergy, yet it is not straining the meaning of either of
them to regard them as applying equally well to the dress of the lay
worshippers. This, of course, would preclude the supposition that they
deal with any special ritual observance. The second of these quotations,
if translated into homely nineteenth-century language, resolves itself
into a simple but strong injunction to all worshippers (not the minister
only) to wear their Sunday clothes. Mr Marriott lays great stress on the
passage in the letter against Pelagius; its testimony is one of the
strongest arguments which he can bring forward to support his thesis,
that it was specially appointed, in the primitive church, that white
vestments (something like the modern surplice) should be worn by the
minister. But Jerome does not say, 'Is God displeased _because_ the
officers of the church dressed _candida veste_?' but '_would_ God be
displeased _if_ they were so vested?' The entire passage is
hypothetical; and nothing is more clear than that Jerome was not
contemplating any hard and fast rules.
We may dismiss the passage from the Clementine Liturgy with very few
words. =Lampros=, which the ritualists translate 'splendid,' in
classical Greek always means 'bright, brilliant, radiant,'[11] and is
applied in Homer to the sun and stars. It is also applied, in the sense
of 'bright,' to white clothes; indeed, we find in Polybius[12] (_flor.
circa_ 150 B.C.) this very phrase, =lampra esthês=, equivalent to the
Roman _toga candida_. Other meanings are 'limpid' (of water), 'sonorous'
(of the voice), 'fresh, vigorous' (of action), 'manifest,'
'illustrious,' 'munificent,' 'joyous,' 'splendid' (generally, in outward
appearance, health, dress, language, etc.); but it never wears the
definite meaning which we should expect were the word intended to be
applied to a definite vesture. The =lampra esthês= of the Clementine
Liturgy is, in short, a bright, clean robe, but no more an article of an
exclusively ecclesiastical nature than is the 'fair white linen cloth'
with which the rubric of the Anglican Communion Service directs the
altar to be covered.
Another passage, somewhat later in date, may be cited as a type of a
large class of passages very apt to mislead too credulous students. It
is the Gaulish description of St Berignus cited by Lipomanus (de Vitis
Sanctor., Ed. Surius, Venice, 1581, vol. vi, p. 4), 'Vidi quendam
hominem peregrinum, capite tonso, cujus habitus differt ab habitu
nostro, vitaque eius nostrae dissimilis est.' The context, however,
makes it plain that secular, not religious, dress is intended.
And when we refer to the few early frescoes and mosaics which have come
down to us from the primitive epoch, we find ecclesiastics, apostles,
and Our Lord Himself, represented as habited in the tunic and toga or
pallium of Roman everyday life.
We gather, therefore, from these scattered shreds of evidence that,
during the first centuries of the Christian church, no vestments were
definitely set apart for the exclusive use of the clergy who officiated
at Divine service: that clergy and people wore the same style of vesture
both in church and out, subject only to the accidental distinctions of
quality and cleanliness.
Fashion in dress or ornament is subject to constant changes which,
though perhaps individually trifling, in time amount to complete
revolutions; but the devotees of any religion, true or false, are by
nature conservative of its doctrines or observances. Combined with the
conclusions at which we have just arrived, these two universally
recognised statements yield us presumptive evidence of the truth of the
theory which views the Roman civil dress as the true progenitor of
mediaeval ecclesiastical costume. We have seen that at first the
worshippers wore the same costume both at worship and at home. Fashion
would slowly change unchecked from year to year, while ecclesiastical
conservatism would retard such changes so far as they concerned the
dress worn at Divine service: small differences would spring into
existence between everyday dress and the dress of the worshipper, and
these differences, at first hardly perceptible, would increase as the
process went on, till the two styles of costume became sharply
distinguished from one another.
Parallel cases are not wanting to show that this is not altogether mere
random theorizing. For example, the ministers of the Reformed Church of
Holland maintained, till comparatively recently, a picturesque fashion
of dress over a century old, which they wore only when conducting Divine
service.[13] Perhaps, however, the objection may be urged against this
view of the case, that if the process were such as we have described, it
should apply as well to the worshippers as to the minister: that they,
as well as he, should wear service-robes. It is possible that this would
actually have been the case had the church services maintained their
most primitive form, as St Paul describes it in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians: 'When ye come together, every one of you hath a
psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an
interpretation';[14] that is, had all the worshippers maintained an
equally prominent position instead of selecting one of their number to
conduct their services. As it was, the outstanding position of the
minister rendered his equipment especially liable to such stereotyping
as we have imagined.
In the following chapter we shall submit the truth of this theory to a
test. If the genesis of ecclesiastical vestments actually took place in
some such manner as this, then the vestments as we find them described
in the earliest writers ought to bear conspicuous points of resemblance
to the civil costume of the Roman people during the first three
Christian centuries. We shall now inquire whether this be so.
[1] Mishneh Torah, VIII, section _de vasis sanctuar._, viii 19, where
some other particulars are to be found regarding the textures of which
the Jewish vestments were made, etc.
[2] =Hyper de tês kephalês phorei pilon akônon, ou diiknoumenon eis
pasan autên, all' ep' oligon, hyperbebêkota mesês; kaleitai men
mesnaemphthês. tê de kataskeuê toioutos estin hos stephanê dokein, ex
hyphasmatos, lineou tainia pepoiêmenê pacheia, kai gar epiptyssomenon
rhaptetai pollakis. hepeita sindôn anôthen auton ekperierchetai
diêkousa mechri metôpou, tên te rhaphên tês tainias kai to ap' autês
aprepes kalyptousa=—Translation from Whiston.
[3] =Hyphantheis epi bathos pêchyaion ek te chrômatôn pantoiôn kai
chrysou sympepoikilmenou, ... cheirisi te êskêmenos, kai tô panti
schêmati chitôn einai pepoiêmenos.=
[4] =Hyper auton de synerrhammenos heteros ex hyakinthou pepoikilmenos,
perierchetai de stephanos chryseos epi tristoichian kechalkeumenos.
thallei d' ep' autô kalyx, chryseos tê sakcharô botanê par hêmin
legomenê apomemimêmenos, hyos de kyamon Hellênôn.=
[5] I, cap. xiv _et seq._ (Migne, 'Patrologia,' vol. cvii, col. 306).
[6] Such a vestment as the _talith_ is not here considered, for this is
worn by all the worshippers alike, as well as by the officiating
minister.
[7] Hieron. in Ezek., cap. xliv. 'Religio divina alterum habitum habet
in ministerio alterum in usu vitaque communi.'
[8] =Euxamenos oun kath' heauton ho archiereus hama tois hiereusin kai
lampran esthêta metendys kai stas pros tô thysiastêriô to tropaion tou
staurou kata tou metôpou ton cheiri poiêsamenos eipatô k.t.l.=
[9] 'Per quae discimus non quotidianis et quibuslibet pro usu vitae
communis pollutis vestibus nos ingredi debere in sancta sanctorum sed
munda conscientia et mundis vestibus tenere Domini sacramenta.'—Hieron.
in Ezek., cap. xliv.
[10] 'Adjungis gloriam vestium et ornamentorum Deo esse contrariam.
Quae sunt rogo inimicitiae contra Deum si tunicam habuero mundiorem? si
episcopus presbyter et diaconus et reliquus ordo ecclesiasticus in
administratione sacrificiorum candida veste processerint?'—Hieron.,
Adv. Pelagianos, lib. i, cap. 9.
[11] See Liddell and Scott, Greek Lexicon, edit, maj., _sub voce_.
[12] Polyb., 10, 5, 1.
[13] See Chapter VI.
[14] 1 Cor. xiv 26.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]