THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS IN THE WESTERN CHURCH.
The last chapter has carried us down to the end of the fourth century
A.D. For some time back the Roman Empire had been showing signs of
disintegration. Already the three sons of Constantine had divided the
imperial power among themselves; but the rule thus severed had again
been united in the person of Constantius. In 395, however, the emperor
Theodosius died, and left the empire of the world to be parted between
his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius.
It would be outside our scope to enter into the details of the
far-reaching consequences of this great event. For our present purpose
it is sufficient to state that, with the empire in which it had been
born and nurtured, the church was divided into two parts, which were
thenceforth to develop independently, now in parallel, now in widely
divergent lines.
It will be convenient to regard the first chapter as dealing with the
period between the institution of Christianity and the partition of the
Roman Empire; and in the present chapter to discuss the interval between
the latter event and the accession of Charles the Great. We thereby
divide the history into two epochs of approximately four centuries each,
with characteristics sufficiently well marked to distinguish one from
the other. Following Marriott, we shall name the first the _primitive_,
the second the _transitional_ period. We have seen that there is no
evidence that vestments of any definite form were prescribed for use
during the former epoch; we shall see in the present chapter how
vestment-usage rapidly developed in the churches of the West till it
culminated in the gorgeous enrichment of mediaeval times.
Although the differences between the vestments of the Western and the
Eastern churches consist largely in matters of detail, they are
sufficiently conspicuous, and their histories are sufficiently
divergent, to render their independent treatment advisable. We shall
therefore postpone the discussion of the latter till we have
investigated the evolution and subsequent elaboration of the former.
The empire to which Honorius succeeded consisted of Italy, Spain, Gaul,
and Britain. Although the evidence which is extant does not permit us to
trace completely the history of vestments throughout this period, yet
from scattered documents we are able to see that for the most part the
development of ecclesiastical costume proceeded on the same lines
throughout this vast area.
Ritual in matters of dress had rapidly been growing. Pope Celestine, who
occupied the Roman See from 423 till 432, found it necessary to write a
sharp letter to the Bishops of Vienne and Narbonne for 'devoting
themselves rather to superstitious observances in dress than to purity
of heart and faith.' Certain monks, it appears, had attained to
episcopal rank, but had retained their ascetic costume. Some of
Celestine's sentences are very striking in this connection; and although
they refer primarily to outdoor costume, we cannot but think that, in a
later age, when the regulations governing the ritual uses of vestments
had been formulated, and the vestments themselves had been elaborated to
their ultimate form, the force of his words would have been somewhat
modified. 'By dressing in a cloak [_pallium_],' he says, 'and by girding
themselves with a girdle, they think to fulfil the truth of Scripture,
not in the spirit, but in the letter. For if these precepts were given
to the end that they should be obeyed in this wise, why do they not
likewise that which follows, and carry burning lights in their hands as
well as their pastoral staves? We should be distinguished from the
common people, or from all others, by our learning, not by our dress; by
our habit of life, not by our clothing; by the purity of our minds, not
by the cut of our garments. For if we begin to introduce novelties, we
shall trample under foot the usage which our fathers have handed down to
us, and give place to vain superstitions.'
The fullest information on the subject of vestments during this period
comes from Spain, in the oft-quoted acts of the fourth council of
Toledo, which sat under the presidency of St Isidore of Seville in the
year 633. Of the canons which were drawn up at this council that which
is of the highest importance in this inquiry is the twenty-eighth,
although it is not directly connected with vestment-usage. It provides
for the case of a cleric who had been unjustly degraded from his order,
and ordains that such a one, if he be found innocent in a subsequent
synod, 'cannot be reinstated in his former position unless he regain his
lost dignities before the altar, at the hands of a bishop. If he be a
bishop, he must receive the _orarium_,[15] ring, and staff; if a priest,
the _orarium_ and _planeta_; if a deacon, the _orarium_ and _alba_; if a
subdeacon, the paten and chalice, and similarly for the other
orders—they must receive, on their restoration, whatever they received
on their ordination.'[16]
On the principle which is all but universal, that the clergy of the
higher orders added the insignia of the lower orders to those of their
own, we are enabled by the help of this act to draw up a table of the
vestments recognised in Spain, which shows at a glance the manner in
which they were distributed among the different orders of clergy:
_Alba_: worn by all alike.
_Orarium_: worn by deacons, priests, and bishops.
_Planeta_: worn by priests and bishops.
_Ring and staff_: exclusively for bishops.
Some letters of Gregory the Great (Bishop of Rome 590-604) give us
particulars relating to three other vestments not in general use
throughout the church. These are the _dalmatica_, the _mappula_, and the
_pallium_. Lastly, an anonymous MS. of uncertain date[17] enumerates the
_pallium_, _casula_, _manualia_, _vestimentum_, _alba_, and _stola_ as
the vestments worn in the Gallican Church. It is to be regretted that
none of the British authors of the period have preserved any record of
contemporary vestment-usage in this country; we have, however, no reason
to suppose that it differed from that of the Continent.
Let us now take each of the above vestments in order, and collect
whatever information is obtainable upon their appearance and history,
comparing each in turn with its supposed Roman prototype.
I. _The Alba._—This word is the abbreviated form of the full name,
_tunica alba_, by which a flowing tunic of white linen was denoted. It
appears that the first use of this word as a technical term for a
special robe is in a passage of Trebellius Pollio (in Claud., xiv,
xvii), who speaks of an _alba subserica_, mentioned in a letter sent
from Valerian to Zosimio, Procurator of Syria, about 260-270 A.D. In the
41st canon of the fourth council of Carthage (_circa_ 400 A.D.)[18] we
meet with the first use of this word in an ecclesiastical connection, in
one of the earliest (if not _the_ earliest) regulations ever passed to
govern the ritual usage of vestments. This ordains that the deacon shall
wear an _alba_ only '_tempore oblationis tantum vel lectionis_.'
The constant evidence of contemporary pictures indicates that the _alba_
was a long, full, and flowing vesture. In this respect it differed from
the Mosaic tunic, on the one hand, and the mediaeval alb on the other.
Both these vestments fitted closely to the body for reasons of
convenience, for a flowing tunic would obviously hamper the Levitical
priest in the discharge of his sacrificial duties, and would not sit
comfortably under the vestments with which it was overlaid in mediaeval
times.
Nearly two centuries after the fourth council of Carthage we find the
first council of Narbonne (A.D. 589) enacting that 'neither deacon nor
subdeacon, nor yet the lector, shall presume to put off his _alba_ till
after mass is over.'[19] To this canon, which was clearly framed to
check some tendency to irregularity that had become noticeable in the
celebration of mass, we are indebted for two facts: first, that ritual
usage in vestments was now firmly established; and second, that the
_alba_ was the dress of the minor orders of clergy. This latter point is
not clearly brought out in the Toletan canon already quoted.
Of the garments worn in everyday life by the Roman citizen, the
innermost was the _tunica talaris_, or long tunic. This article of dress
was white, usually of wool; it was passed over the head and reached to
the feet, the epithet _talaris_ ('reaching to the ankles') being
employed to distinguish it, as the tunic of ceremony, from the short
tunics worn when freedom was required for active exertion.[20] It fitted
tolerably closely to the body, though it was sufficiently loose to
require a girdle to confine it. The tunics of senators and _equites_
were distinguished by two bands of purple, in the former case broad
(_lati clavi_), in the latter narrow (_angusti clavi_), which passed
from the sides of the aperture for the head down to the lower hem of the
garment.
A comparison of the ecclesiastical _tunica alba_ with the civil _tunica
talaris_ will bring out some remarkable points of resemblance. Both were
worn in the same manner, and both reached to the feet; it is true that
the ecclesiastical dress was slightly fuller than the civil, but this
was necessary, as room was required underneath the _alba_ for the
wearer's everyday dress. Further, we find ecclesiastics represented in
ancient frescoes wearing _albae_ which actually show ornaments disposed
like the _clavi_ of the _tunica talaris_. These _clavi_ were early
employed by the Christians to distinguish, by their relative width, the
representations of Our Lord from those of the Apostles, or to
discriminate between the figures of ecclesiastics of different orders.
It is also important to notice that the _alba_ is invariably furnished
with tight sleeves reaching to the wrist. The tunic was originally a
sleeveless garment; but with the growth of luxury, a new kind provided
with sleeves gradually came into favour. These two forms of tunic were
distinguished by different names: the older or sleeveless tunic was
called _colobium_, a Latinization of the Greek name =kolobion=;[21] and
the latter or sleeved tunic was named _tunica manicata_ or _tunica
dalmatica_, from the name of the province to which its invention was
ascribed.
In the early days of Rome the use of a _tunica dalmatica_ stamped the
wearer with the stigma of effeminacy and utter want of self-respect. The
parents of Cornelius Scipio and of Fabius are said to have openly
disgraced them in their boyhood, as a punishment _ad corrigendos mores_,
by compelling them to appear in public in this attire. The despicable
emperors Commodus and Elagabalus offended all persons of good taste by
coming out before all the people in the same costume: the latter
impudently calling himself another Scipio or Fabius, in reference to the
incident just related.[22] This, however, cannot mean that the scandal
lay in the adoption of the luxurious _tunica dalmatica_ in preference to
the _colobium_ (for Rome in the time of Elagabalus was too deeply
steeped in luxury and vice to feel shocked at an Emperor merely
preferring an under-garment with sleeves to one without those
appendages); it rather consisted in his neglecting to put on his
_pallium_, or outer dress, over it. In fact, the _tunica dalmatica_ must
have quite ousted its severer rival in popular favour by the time of
Elagabalus: for we find that in 258, only thirty-six years after the
death of that emperor, St Cyprian of Carthage wore a _tunica dalmatica_,
over which was a _byrrhus_, or cloak, when led out to martyrdom.[23] It
is absurd to suppose that Cyprian, on such a solemn occasion, would have
assumed a merely luxurious garment, and equally absurd to imagine that
he would have worn ecclesiastical vestments at the time, as some
commentators on the passage have held. There remains only one other
alternative—that the _tunica dalmatica_ was the form of tunic which was
in regular use at the time, and this seems quite the most satisfactory
hypothesis.
The most important mention of the _tunica dalmatica_ in connection with
ecclesiastical matters is in the decree of Sylvester, Bishop of Rome,
253-257. That prelate ordained 'that deacons should use the _dalmatica_
in the church, and that their left hands should be covered with a cloth
of mingled wool and linen.'[24] Various authors supplement this passage;
thus, the anonymous author of the tract 'De Divinis Officiis,' formerly
attributed to Alcuin, tells us that 'the use of _dalmaticae_ was
instituted by Pope Sylvester, for previously _colobia_ had been
worn.'[25]
Much importance has been attached to this decree. It is regarded as an
additional and incontrovertible proof that ecclesiastical vestments were
in use in the primitive church. But on examination, however, it will be
found no more to bear such a construction than St Paul's request for his
=phailonê=. The ordinance merely shows that Sylvester had a laudable
desire to improve the aesthetics of public worship, and, with this end
in view, decreed that thenceforward ecclesiastics should all wear the
_tunica dalmatica_—which had quite outgrown its early evil reputation,
and must be admitted to have been a better-looking garment than the
scanty and somewhat undignified _colobium_. It is not at all improbable
that many of the clergy wore _dalmaticae_ even before Sylvester's edict:
in this case the edict would have the additional advantage of securing
uniformity.
All attempts to set up the _dalmatica_ as a separate vestment in early
times fail hopelessly. It is unknown to the drafters of the Toletan
canons, and no _early_ representation of an ecclesiastic is extant
having two vestments visible under the _planeta_.[26] This would
certainly be the case if the two were independent vestments. It is true
that St Isidore of Seville wrote, 'Dalmatica vestis primum in Dalmatia
provincia Graecia texta est sacerdotalis, candida cum clavis ex
purpura;'[27] (the _dalmatica_ is a priestly vestment first made in
Dalmatia, a province of Greece, white with purple _clavi_); but the
concluding words show that he was merely thinking of the _alba_ under
its more specific name, _dalmatica_.
A brief recapitulation of this somewhat lengthy argument may not be out
of place. Two forms of tunic may be said to have contended one with
another for the favour of the Roman people—the sleeveless _colobium_ and
the sleeved _dalmatica_. The latter ultimately gained the victory; and
the decree of Pope Sylvester, commanding all ecclesiastics under his
authority to assume it in place of the former, finally established its
use in the church. Now, when we find that, two or three centuries after
Sylvester's time, a vestment was worn by ecclesiastics in Divine service
identical with the _tunica dalmatica_ in almost every respect, even to
the presence of the _clavi_, which (in the secular dress) indicated the
rank of the wearer, it is only natural to regard the one as directly
derived from the other.
There is one other point of importance in the history of this vestment
in the transitional period. It was found that such a flowing garment as
the _alba_ seriously incommoded the priest on some occasions,
particularly in administering baptism by immersion. Accordingly, an
_alba_ fitting closely to the body was invented for use on such
occasions, and is represented in certain MS. illuminations, particularly
a ninth-century pontifical now in the St Minerva Library at Rome. The
special importance of this point is due to the fact that this baptismal
_alba_ was probably the immediate parent of the mediaeval alb; the
closer vestment being found more convenient on other occasions as well
as that of baptism, and having gradually become adopted in all the other
offices of the Church as well.
[Illustration: FIG. 2.—A BISHOP ADMINISTERING BAPTISM.]
II. _The Orarium._—Both this vestment and the name by which it was known
have given much trouble to scholars. The following list of the various
derivations which have been suggested for the word _orarium_ (arranged
in order of probability) is not uninteresting:
1. _Ora_, because used to wipe the face.
2. _Orare_, because used in prayer.
3. =hôra=, because it indicated the _time_ of the different parts
of the service.
4. =hôraizein=, because the deacon was beautified with it.
5. _Ora_ (a coast), because (alleged to have been) originally
the edging of a lost garment.
6. =horaô=, because the _sight_ of it indicated whether a priest
or deacon was ministering (!).
There can be little doubt that the first is the true etymology. The
others are all more or less fanciful; and the _orarium_ was certainly
employed originally as a scarf. Ambrose speaks of the face of the dead
Lazarus being bound with an _orarium_; and Augustine uses the same word
to indicate a bandage employed to tie up a wounded eye.
Numerous effigies of late date are extant which exhibit a kind of scarf,
passing over the left shoulder diagonally downwards to the right side,
and fastened under the right arm. As Albertus Rubenius long ago pointed
out, these scarves must not be confused with the _clavi_ which
ornamented the tunics of senators and _equites_; for they are worn over
the _pallium_, or outer garment, and are disposed in a manner quite
different from that in which the _clavi_ fall.
What, then, are these scarves? The answer to this question is supplied
by Flavius Vopiscus in his Life of Aurelian, who, he says, 'was the
first to grant _oraria_ to the Roman people, to be worn as favours.'[28]
Now, the references which we have just made to Ambrose and Augustine—not
to mention others which might equally well be quoted—show that the
_oraria_, whatever may have been the method in which they were worn,
must have been narrow strips of some kind of cloth. These peculiar
scarves, which are to be seen on certain monuments, do not appear on any
effigy dating before the time of Aurelian; the natural inference,
therefore, is that the scarves which we see thus represented are
actually the _oraria_, granted to the Roman people by that emperor and
his successors. If this argument be not valid, then it is impossible to
say either what these scarves really are, or what was the true
appearance of the civil _orarium_.
It is probable that considerable laxity existed in the manner of wearing
the ecclesiastical _orarium_, for the fourth Council of Toledo thought
it necessary to enact a special canon to regulate the method in which
this vestment should be disposed. The fortieth act of this assembly
restricts the number of _oraria_ to one, and enjoins that deacons should
wear the _orarium_ over the left shoulder, leaving the right side free
so as to facilitate the execution of their duties in Divine service.[29]
This act also provides that the diaconal _orarium_ should be plain, not
ornamented with gold or embroidery. It will be noticed that this Toletan
council favoured the derivation of the word _orarium_ from _orare_.
The wearing of the _orarium_ was still further regulated by two of the
councils which met at Braga. The second council of Braga (563 A.D.)
decreed that 'since in some churches of this province the deacons wear
their _oraria_ hidden under the tunic, so that they cannot be
distinguished from the subdeacons, for the future they must be placed
over their shoulders.'[30] The fourth council (675 A.D.) made an
important decree regulating the wearing of the _orarium_ by priests,
which has been since followed universally. The vestment was to be passed
round the neck, over each shoulder, crossed in front, and secured in
this position under the girdle of the _alba_.[31]
The last enactment of importance is that of the council of Mayence (813
A.D.), which ordered that priests should wear their _oraria_ 'without
intermission.'[32]
The _orarium_, then, was a narrow strip of cloth, disposed about the
persons of the clergy in various manners according to their rank. To it
corresponded in name, shape, and method of disposition, a garment common
among the Romans, though admittedly rather an honourable ornament than
an actual article of clothing. Yet when we remember how the _clavi_ were
employed to distinguish rank among the earlier clergy, this latter fact
may be regarded as strengthening the evidence of identity which the
correspondence in all salient features affords. Some other theories of
its origin will be discussed when we have treated of the _pallium_.
III. _The Planeta._—In the earlier and purer days of the Roman people,
the dress which alone was recognised as the proper costume for the
citizen was the _toga_. This was one of the most inconvenient and
cumbrous articles of dress ever invented—a great oblong cloth, fifteen
feet by ten, thrown in a complicated manner over the left shoulder,
folded in front, and hanging loose about the feet. We can hardly feel
surprised at finding that, when the citizens came to regard comfort
before appearances to such an extent as to adopt sleeved tunics, a more
convenient form of this outdoor costume was adopted. There were three
varieties of this new[33] garment, each of which has its own name; these
were the _paenula_, the _casula_, and the _planeta_.
The _paenula_ was a garment which in the early days of the Republic was
allotted to slaves. A slave wearing this dress is introduced into the
'Mostellaria' (IV iii 51) of Plautus. Indeed, according to Julius Pollux
('Onomasticon,' vii 61), the dramatist Rhinthon, who lived in the fourth
century B.C., introduced a mention of this garment into his 'Iphigeneia
in Tauris,' a fact which would seem to indicate that the dress was much
older than his own time, as otherwise his audience would be unfavourably
impressed by the anachronism. Numerous allusions in classical Latin
authors show that it was adopted as a travelling dress because of its
warmth and comparative convenience;[34] but on no account was it worn
within the walls of the city. Gradually, however, the use of the garment
spread, till Alexander Severus (222-235 A.D.), as Lampridius tells us,
permitted elders to wear the _paenula_ within the city in cold weather,
though at the same time he forbade women to do so except when on a
journey.[35]
The _casula_ was a poor and inferior variety of the _paenula_, which,
when the latter was promoted to be the costume of senators and emperors,
succeeded it as the garb of the poorer classes. The original meaning of
the name is 'little house'—a diminutive of _casa_—and there is little
evidence to guide us as to the exact appearance of the garment which it
denoted. The name would lead us to infer that, like the _paenula_, it
enveloped the entire body; but it is probable that it was made of
coarser and cheaper material. The fact that it was early adopted as the
distinctive dress of monks would lead us to this conclusion; beyond this
there is no reason for supposing that it differed in outline from the
_paenula_.
The _planeta_ first appears in the fifth century A.D. Cassianus (De
Habitu Monachorum, i 7) mentions it as a dress whose price prevents its
use as a monastic habit; and St Isidore, two centuries later, expressly
forbids members of religious orders to wear it. The _planeta_ must
therefore have been more costly than the _casula_, and, as we find it
mentioned in the sixth century as the dress of nobles and of senators,
it was probably the most expensive of the three.
The general shape of the garment, as shown in Roman paintings or
effigies, is that of a cloak enveloping the body, sewn in front, and put
on by being passed over the head, for which a suitable aperture was
provided. And this shape is identical with the outer vestment which we
see in early representations of clerics. The modification which was
early adopted, that of making the vestment oval in form, so as to lessen
the width over the shoulders and so to give more freedom to the arms,
was obviously regulated by convenience.
Thus we have seen that the three principal vestments, as we find them
detailed in the earliest lists and depicted in the earliest monuments,
are identical in shape, disposition, and name with the Roman civil
costume of the second or third century of the Christian era.
Three additional vestments are found enumerated in the letters of St
Gregory the Great and elsewhere which were not worn universally
throughout the church, but were either carefully confined to the clergy
of the city of Rome itself or were in the gift, so to speak, of the
Pope. These are the _pallium_, the _mappula_, and the _dalmatica_.
I. _The Pallium._—In classical Latin this word is used either as the
equivalent of _toga_ or in the general sense of the English 'robe.' It
is also used in the earlier ecclesiastical writers of the _casula_, or
coarse outer garment of monks, as in the passage from Celestine quoted
on p. 26. Yet another use of the word _pallium_ is found in the
expression _pallium linostimum_, which denoted a cloth, the use of which
was ordained to deacons by Pope Sylvester, as we shall presently see
when discussing the maniple.
[Illustration: FIG. 3.—ECCLESIASTICS FROM THE MOSAICS IN S VITALE,
RAVENNA (SIXTH CENTURY).]
The _pallium_, when used by ecclesiastical writers in its proper and
restricted sense, denotes an ornament specially appropriated to
archbishops. Its earliest form is shown in the Ravenna mosaics—that of a
narrow strip of cloth, passed over the left shoulder, looped loosely
round the neck, and then passed over the left shoulder again, so that
the two ends hang free, one in front, the other behind. This method of
disposition seems to indicate an identity of origin with the _orarium_;
indeed, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between these vestments
in early representations. A desire for symmetry, probably, decided the
next step in its evolution; this consisted in bringing the free end to
the middle and knotting it into the lowest point of the loop: this we
find exemplified in monuments of the eighth, ninth, or tenth century.
From this the transition to the form which became universal in later
times was easy, and the two are found contemporaneously. The final
form—which will be more fully described in the third chapter—is that of
an oval loop with a long tail pendent from its ends, so that when the
ornament is in position it presents the appearance of a capital Y on the
front and on the back.
The early history of this vestment is involved in deep obscurity. As
already hinted, it is not improbably a modification of the _orarium_;
but there is no evidence, further than general outward resemblance, that
this is actually the case; nor is there any apparent reason for its
appropriation to archbishops. The question must remain open till further
research either reveals the missing links in the chain of connection, or
elicits some more satisfactory solution of the question.
The idea of Dr Rock, according to which the _pallium_ is viewed as 'the
true and only representation of the Roman toga,' is most unsatisfactory.
He thinks that the toga, which was folded over the left shoulder, under
the right arm, over the right shoulder, and again over the left
shoulder, 'dwindled down to a mere broad band,' folded much the same
way; and that this broad band was the early _pallium_. The evolution
here supposed is, however, most unnatural; there is not time for it to
have taken place between the institution of Christianity and the date of
the Ravenna mosaics—much less between the time when ecclesiastical
vestments and their development began to receive special attention and
the latter date; the toga, as we have already seen, was itself
practically obsolete when Christianity began to make itself felt, and
still further removed from the current fashion of the time at which
archbishops began to require distinguishing insignia; and, lastly, the
connecting links between the blanket at one end and the narrow strip of
cloth at the other, which Dr Rock adduces and figures, are too few in
number to be convincing, and quite explicable on other grounds, such as
the unskilfulness of the ancient artist—a fruitful source of error in
archæological research.
[Illustration: FIG. 4.—EFFIGY OF A ROMAN CITIZEN IN CAERLEON MUSEUM.]
It is not inconceivable that the origin of the honourable _pallium_ is
to be sought in the honourable _orarium_, distributed as 'favours' to
the Roman people; in which case we must seek elsewhere for a prototype
to the ecclesiastical _orarium_. We should then fall back on the old
idea, which has by no means been disproved, that in the _clavi_ of the
_tunica alba_ is to be found the true original. We reproduce here a
figure of an effigy of a Roman citizen at Caerleon, near Newport, which
certainly seems to warrant this view; here is to be seen a _tunica_, a
_clavus_, and a _paenula_, all very suggestive of the alb, stole, and
chasuble of later times. Duchesne, in his 'Origines du culte
chrétien,'[36] regards all the _orarium_-like vestments which appear in
contemporary documents as in reality _pallia_; the _orarium_ proper he
does not consider to have been introduced till the tenth century. The
_orarium_ which appears before this date he regards as simply a napkin,
or _sudarium_, designed to protect the _alba_. He further states that in
the fourth century the civil law required all officials to wear some
distinctive badge of office; that the Eastern Church complied with this
law throughout, assigning the =ômophorion, epitrachêlion= and =ôrarion=
respectively to bishop, priest, and deacon, while the Western Church
only complied with it to the extent of assigning a _pallium_ to the
bishops. We confess that this elaborate argument does not appeal to us
any more than the theory which regards the stole as the orphrey of a
degenerated vestment; but while professing our own belief in Marriott's
view, stated above (pp. 38-9), we have given these several theories,
leaving it to the reader to make his own choice.
From the earliest references to the _pallium_ which we can find, it is
clear that it was from the first regarded as a distinctive vestment to
be worn by archbishops only.[37] The archbishops of this early period
had not the right, any more than their mediaeval successors, of assuming
the _pallium_ on their consecration; it was necessary to apply to the
Pope for a grant of the vestment, which was only bestowed on the
permission of the reigning sovereign being obtained. The earliest
document unquestionably relating to the bestowal of the _pallium_ is a
letter of Pope Symmachus, bestowing the pallium on Theodore, Archbishop
of Laureacus, in Pannonia, 514 A.D.[38] Instances of the royal assent
being considered necessary are found in the letters of Pope Vigilius,
who delayed the grant of the _pallium_ to Archbishop Auxanius of Arles
for two years, _pending the consent_ of Childebert I, King of the
Franks;[39] and in the letters of Pope Gregory the Great, who _at the
request_ of Childebert II bestowed the _pallium_ on Virgilius, a later
Archbishop of the same province.[40]
In 866 Pope Nicholas I declared that no archbishop might be enthroned or
might consecrate the Eucharist till he should receive the _pallium_ at
the hands of the Pope.[41]
II. _The Mappula._—We have seen in discussing the _alba_ that Pope
Sylvester, in the middle of the third century, decreed that the deacons
of the city of Rome should substitute _dalmaticae_ for _colobia_; he
further charged them to wear a _pallium linostimum_ on their hands. It
is clear that this cloth, as its proper name, _mappula_ (little napkin),
demonstrates, was designed to serve the utilitarian purpose of a
handkerchief, either to wipe the Communion vessels or the face of the
minister—probably the latter.[42] This cloth, however, must early have
become regarded as a sacred vestment by its wearers, and the exclusive
privilege of the Roman priests to wear it was jealously guarded.
Attempts were made by the deacons of the neighbouring churches of
Ravenna to assume the vestment, and St Gregory found it necessary to
interfere, which he did in several letters to that somewhat recalcitrant
prelate, John, the Bishop of Ravenna. For the sake of peace, Gregory
admitted a compromise whereby the principal deacons of Ravenna were
allowed to wear the coveted ornament; but the glamour of carrying a
vestment, however inconvenient,[43] which was theoretically confined to
the holy city itself, proved too strong a temptation for the deacons of
other places, while the Romans (whose exclusive privilege was gone once
Ravenna was admitted to a share in it) took no further steps to prevent
its assumption. As a natural consequence, the use of the vestment spread
over the whole of the Western Church, and by the time when the period at
present engaging our attention ended, had become universal.
III. _The Dalmatica._—We have already entered at length into the history
of this word and of the vestment to which it was applied. It does not
seem to have differed essentially from the _alba_; but it appears that
two[44] vestments were worn at Rome, an _alba_ and a _dalmatica_, though
it is evident from the Toletan canons and other sources that at this
early period such was not the case elsewhere. In early pictures the two
vestments are rarely represented side by side; it is probable that the
_dalmatica_ was so long as to conceal the _alba_, just as the dalmatic
on mediaeval effigies of Bishops often hides the tunicle. It seems,
however, to have been shown on the ancient picture of Gregory the Great,
described by Joannes Diaconus; and we find that Gregory granted its use
to Bishop Aregius of Gap and to his Archdeacon (Ep. ix 107: Migne,
lxxvii 1033), forwarding the vestments at the same time as the letter.
Clearly the Pope does not denote the _alba_ by the word _dalmatica_, as
we have seen St Isidore of Seville do, for Aregius would naturally wear
an _alba_ without papal interference. The vestment in question must,
therefore, have been another, resembling the alb in outline, but only
worn either at Rome or by those on whom the Pope saw fit to confer it.
The history of the spread of the _dalmatica_ must have been similar to
that of the _mappula_. By the time the third period begins we find it
established as an independent vestment, differing from its parent, the
_alba_, in one important respect, which will be detailed in the
following chapter.
Although not _vestments_ in the strictest sense of the word, we must not
conclude this chapter without a brief notice of the two exclusively
episcopal insignia noticed in the canons of the fourth council of
Toledo, namely, the ring and staff. Rings have been found in the tombs
of bishops of the third century. This, however, proves nothing, as their
use was universal among both Christians and heathen. Nor can anything
definitely ecclesiastical be tortured out of the many descriptive
notices which have come down to us of the rings in the possession of
individual bishops of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries. Isidore of
Seville (_circa_ 600) lands us on firmer ground; he distinctly says: 'To
the bishop at his consecration is given a staff ... a ring likewise is
given him to signify pontifical honour, or as a seal for secret
things.'[45] We need not, perhaps, discuss the esoteric meaning of the
gift as here set forth; but the fact clearly remains that by Isidore's
time the gift of a ring and a staff had become an essential part of the
ceremony of episcopal ordination. The Toletan canon tells us the same
thing. Before that time there is no clear indication of the gift; it is
not mentioned in ordination services of earlier date than the sixth
century, one of the oldest references to it being in the sacramentary of
Gregory the Great (_circa_ 590 A.D.); and even this passage is rejected
as an interpolation by Migne.[46]
_The Pastoral Staff._—Isidore says, in the passage already quoted, that
the staff is given 'that he may rule or correct those set under him, or
support the weakness of the weak.'[47]
It is strange that even the pastoral staff has a prototype among the
insignia of the heathen priesthood. One of the emblems of the Roman
augurs was a _lituus_, or crook, resembling almost exactly the earliest
pastoral staves as we find them shown in the monuments of early
Christian art. It was used _inter alia_ for dividing the sky into
regions for astrological purposes. The pastoral staff, as represented in
early monuments, was much shorter than the mediaeval crozier; and it
seems not at all improbable that the pastoral staff was originally a
'Christianization' of this pagan implement.
Other writers have argued in favour of the pastoral staff being simply
an adaptation of the common walking-sticks, which were certainly used in
churches as a support before the introduction of seats. It has been
pointed out, however, that the pastoral staff had become a special
member of the insignia of a bishop before the general abolition of these
crutches; and this, it must be confessed, is an argument of considerable
force against such a hypothesis.
The letter of Celestine to the Bishops of Narbonne and Vienne, part of
which we quoted on pp. 26-7, is probably about the earliest available
reference to the use of the pastoral staff by members of the episcopal
order. This brings the history of pastoral staves back to the early part
of the fifth century, and shows that this special ornament was one of
the earliest of the external symbols which the church has prescribed for
its officers.
[Illustration: FIG. 5.—POPE GREGORY THE GREAT WITH PASTORAL STAFF.]
The staff was a rod of wood with a head either crutched or crooked,
usually of one of the precious metals. The name suggests that the
symbolism of the shepherd had entered largely into the ideas connected
with it. It was carried by abbots and abbesses, by bishops, and, till
about the tenth century, by the Pope; but with the rapid growth of the
temporal sovereignty of the Papacy, the emblem purely associated with
the special idea of spiritual pastorate was abandoned. In the old
pre-scientific days it used to be stated that the Pope at no time
carried a pastoral staff, though he did bear a _ferula_, or straight
sceptre—the symbol of rule;[48] but this is at variance with the
evidence of contemporary art.
We must not leave the subject of the earliest form of ecclesiastical
vestments without briefly noticing the ornamentation with which they
were decorated. In the oldest representations of ecclesiastics which we
possess, their vestments were represented pure white, ornamented with
the _clavi_; these were generally black, though St Isidore refers to
purple _clavi_. But other colours appear in very early frescoes and
mosaics. These, however, are apparently arbitrary, the result of the
notions of the painter on the subject of the artistic combination of
colours. Nothing analogous to the 'liturgical colours' of late times is
traceable in the early or transitional period of the history of
vestments.
Some ornamentation other than the _clavi_ is found in vestments of late
date in the present period. Leo III, the date of whose Papal rule lies
just on the border-line between the transitional and the mediaeval
epoch, presented to the Church of St Susanna a vestment with four
_gammadia_—that is, ornaments shaped like crosses formed by four gammas
placed back to back, thus: ╬; we also hear of _calliculae_, metal or
embroidered ornaments, for the _alba_. A singular method of
ornamentation is exemplified by numerous frescoes and mosaics, and has
been a fruitful source of perplexity to ecclesiologists. This consists
in the use of letters (sometimes of monograms or letter-like arbitrary
signs) on the outer hem of the garment. No connection can be traced
between these letters and any circumstances known concerning the persons
whose vestments they decorate; and wide differences between the times
and places of individual examples of the same character preclude their
explanation as the faithful copies of weavers' marks. We can only say
that their use is inexplicable on such practical or esoteric grounds,
and that, therefore, some simple explanation, such as the arbitrary
selection of a letter as an elementary ornament, is the only
satisfactory means of accounting for their presence. Even now we daily
employ rows of O-shaped circles, S-shaped curves, etc., as ornaments,
without the slightest reference to the sounds which those symbols
denote. The tendency to exalt simple little contrivances into hidden
mysteries is ever with us, especially in ecclesiology, and it should on
all occasions be repressed.
[15] Throughout this chapter I have retained the Latin words _orarium_,
_planeta_ and _alba_ in preference to the English translations 'stole,'
'chasuble,' and 'alb,' when treating of the vestments of the early
church. The two are not identical, and it is convenient to have a short
method of distinguishing one from the other.
[16] 'Episcopus presbyter aut diaconus si a gradu suo iniuste deiectus
in secunda synodo innocens reperiatur non potest esse quod fuerat nisi
gradus amissos recipiat coram altario de manu episcopi; (si episcopus)
orarium annulum et baculum; si presbyter orarium et planetam; si
diaconus orarium et albam; si subdiaconus patenam et calicem; sic et
reliqui gradus ea in reparationem sui recipiant quae cum ordinarentur
perceperunt.' [The bracketed words have dropped out from the MS., but
their restoration is certain and necessary.]
[17] This MS. is edited in Martene's Thesaurus Anecdotorum, vol. v, p.
86 _et seq._, and extracts are made from it in Marriott's work, p. 204.
The MS. was found in the monastery of St Martin at Autun, and is
assigned by Martene to the sixth century, though on doubtful grounds.
Marriott is probably correct in referring it to the tenth. As the
vestments which it describes rather resemble those of the final period
than of the transitional, we reserve its discussion till the following
chapter.
[18] Labbe, Sacrosancta Concilia (1671), vol. ii, col. 1203.
[19] 'Nec diaconus aut subdiaconus certe vel lector antequam missa
consummetur alba se præsumat exuere.'—Concil. Narb., i, Labbe, vol. v,
col. 1030 (misprinted 1020).
[20] It was also possible and usual to gird up the _tunica talaris_ for
this purpose.
[21] Derived from the adjective =kolobos=, _docked_, _curtailed_, in
reference to the shortened sleeves of the garment.
[22] Lampridius in Commodo, cap. viii; in Elagab., cap. xxvi.
[23] Acta S Cyp., _prop. fin._ (Migne, Patrologia, vol. iii, col. 1504).
[24] 'Ut diaconi Dalmatica uterentur in ecclesia et pallio linostimo
laeva eorum tegeretur.'—Anastasius Bibliothecarius de Vit. Pontif., §
35 (S Sylv.); Migne, Patrol., vol. cxxvii, 1514.
[25] 'Usus autem Dalmaticarum a B. Sylvestro Papa institutus est: nam
antea colobiis utebantur.'—Pseudo-Alcuin de Div. Off., cap. xxxix;
Migne, vol. ci, 1243.
[26] This does not apply to the city of Rome. See p. 54.
[27] Etymologiae, lib. xix, cap. xxii (Migne, lxxxii 635).
[28] 'Sciendum ... illum ... primum donasse oraria populo Romano quibus
uteretur populus ad favorem.'—Flav. Vop. in Aur., 48.
[29] 'Orariis duobus nec episcopo quidem licet nec presbytero uti;
quanto magis diacono qui minister eorum est. Unum igitur orarium
oportet Levitam gestare in sinistro humero propter quod orat, id est,
praedicat; dextram autem partem oportet habere liberam ut expeditus ad
ministerium sacerdotale discurrat. Caveat igitur amodo gemino uti
orario sed uno tantum et puro nec ullis coloribus aut auro
ornato.'—Acta Concil. Tolet. IV, cap. xl.
This rule does not seem to have been always obeyed. In the Pontifical
of Landulfus (ninth century) there is a representation of an
ecclesiastic wearing two _oraria_, one over each shoulder. This,
however, must be regarded as exceptional.
[30] 'Item placuit ut quia in aliquantis huius provinciae ecclesiis
diacones (_sic_) absconsis infra tunicam utuntur orariis ita ut nihil
differre a subdiacono videantur de cetero superposito scapulae (sicut
decet) utantur orario.'—Acta Concil. Bracar. II, cap. ix: Labbe, vol.
v, col. 841. The eleventh canon ordained 'ut lectores in ecclesia in
habitu saeculari ornati non psallant.'
[31] 'Cum antiqua ecclesiastica noverimus institutione praefixum ut
omnis sacerdos cum ordinatur orario utroque humero ambiatur; scilicet
ut qui imperturbatus praecipitur consistere inter prospera et adversa,
virtutum semper ornamento utrobique circumseptus appareat: qua ratione
tempore sacrificii non assumat, quod se in sacramento accepisse non
dubitatur? Proinde modis omnibus convenit ut quod quisque percepit in
consecratione, hoc et retentet in oblatione, vel perceptione sude
salutis; scilicet ut cum sacerdos ad sollennia missarum accedit aut pro
se Deo sacrificium oblaturus, aut sacramentum corporis et sanguinis
Domini Nostri Jesu Christi sumpturus, non aliter accedat, quam orario
utroque humero circumseptus, sicut et tempore ordinationis suae
dignoscitur consecraturus: ita ut de uno eodemque orario cervicem
pariter et utrumque humerum premens, signum in suo pectore praeferat
crucis. Si quis autem aliter egerit excommunicationi debitae
subiacebit.'—Concil. Bracar. IV, cap. iv: Labbe, vol. vi, coll. 564,
565.
[32] 'Presbyteri sine intermissione utuntur orariis propter
differentiam sacerdotis dignitatis.'—Concil. Mogunt. cap. xxviii:
Labbe, vol. vii, col. 1249.
[33] Or, to speak more accurately, new adaptation of an old garment.
The _paenula_, for instance, had long been worn by the lower classes,
being cheap and warm.
[34] Though it was by no means adapted to active exertion. See Cicero,
pro Milone, capp. x, xx.
[35] 'Paenulis intra urbem frigoris causa ut senes uterentur permisit,
quum id vestimenti genus semper itineranum fuisset aut pluviae.
Matrones tamen intra urbem paenulis uti vetuit, in itinere
permisit.'—Lamprid. in Alex. Sev., cap. xxvii.
[36] Quoted by the Rev O. J. Reichel in his 'English Liturgical
Vestments in the Thirteenth Century' (London, Hodges, 1895).
[37] Some exceptions to this rule will be noticed in the next chapter.
[38] Symmachi Ep. xii in 'Patrologia,' lxii 72.
[39] Vigilii Epp. vi, vii in 'Patrologia,' lxix 26, 27.
[40] Gregorii Ep. v 53; 'Patrologia,' lxvii 783.
[41] '... sane interim in throno non sedentem et praeter corpus Christi
non consecrantem priusquam pallium a sede Romana percipiat, sicuti
Galliarum omnes et Germaniae et aliarum regionum Archiepiscopi agere
comprobantur.'—Nich. Papae I, Responsa ad consulta Bulgar., cap.
lxxiii, _ad fin._: Labbe, vol. viii, col. 542.
[42] The notion prevalent nowadays, that the _mappula_ was exclusively
intended to cleanse the sacred vessels, is thus bluntly negatived by St
Ivo of Chartres: 'Unde in sinistra manu ponitur quaedam mappula quae
saepe fluentem oculorum pituitam tergat et oculorum lippitridinem
removeat.' And Amalarius of Metz testifies to the same effect:
'Sudarium ad hoc portamus ut eo detergamus sudorem qui fit ex labore
proprii corporis.'
[43] The modifications which the discomfort of this little vestment
necessitated will be described in the next chapter.
[44] Civil dress presented parallel cases: the Emperor Augustus wore
four tunics in cold weather.
[45] Huic dum consecratur datur baculus ... datur et annulus propter
signum pontificalis honoris vel signaculum secretorum.—Isidorus de Off.
Eccl., lib. ii, cap. v.
[46] _Ad annulum digito imponendam_: Accipe annulum fidei, scilicet
signaculum quatenus sponsam Dei, videlicet sanctam ecclesiam,
intemerata fide ornatus illibate custodias.
[47] Ut subditam plebem vel regat vel corrigat vel infirmitatem
infirmorum sustineat.
[48] Romanus autem Pontifex Pastorali virga non utitur—Innoc. III Papa,
De Sacr. Altar. Myst. i 62 (Migne ccxvii, 795). Ideoque summum
Pontificem eiusmodi; incurvatam virgam non gerere quia eius potestas
nullis locorum limitibus circumscribitur at ubique patet.—De Saussay,
Panoplia Clericorum (Paris 1646), p. 102.
[Illustration]