(Vol. vii., p. 269.)
The mention of the distinction between the broad and narrow scarf,
alluded to by me (Vol. vii., p. 215.), was made above thirty years ago,
and in Ireland. I have a distinct recollection of the statement as to
what _had_ been the practice, then going out of use. I am sorry that I
cannot, in answer to C.'s inquiry, recollect who the person was who made
it. Nor am I able to specify instances of the partial observance of the
distinction, as I had not till long after learned the wisdom of "making
a note:" but I had occasion to remark that dignitaries, &c. frequently
wore wider scarfs than other clergymen (not however that the narrower
one was ever that slender strip so improperly and servilely adopted of
late from the corrupt custom of Rome, which has curtailed all
ecclesiastical vestments); so that when the discussion upon this subject
was revived by others some years ago, it was one to which my mind had
been long familiar, independently of any ritual authority.
I hope C. will understand my real object in interfering in this subject.
It is solely that I may do a little (what others, I hope, can do more
effectually) towards correcting the very injurious, and, I repeat,
inadequate statement of the _Quart. Review_ for June, 1851, p. 222.
However trifling the matter may be in itself, it is no trifling matter
to involve a considerable portion of the clergy, and among them many who
are most desirous to uphold both the letter and the spirit of the Church
of England, and to resist all real innovation, in a charge of
lawlessness. Before the episcopal authority, there so confidently
invoked, be interposed, let it be _proved_ that this is not a badge of
the clerical order, common to all the churches of Christendom, and
actually recognised by the rules, in every respect so truly Catholic, of
our own Church. The matter does not, I apprehend, admit of demonstration
one way or the other, at least till we have fresh evidence. But to me,
as to many others, analogies seem all in favour of the scarf being such
a badge; and not only this, but the very regulation of our royal
ecclesiastical authorities. The injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, in 1564,
seem to mark the tippet as a distinction between clergymen and laymen,
who otherwise, in colleges and choirs at least, would have none. I also
am strongly of opinion that the tippets mentioned in the 58th and 74th
English canons are the two scarfs referred to: the silken tippet (or
broad scarf) being for such priests or deacons as hold certain offices,
or are M.A., LL.B., or of superior degree; the plain tippet (or narrow
scarf) being for all ministers who are non-graduates (Bachelors of Arts
were not anciently considered as graduates, but rather as candidates for
a degree, as they are still styled in many places abroad); so that _all_
in orders may have tippets. This notion is confirmed by the fact, that
the scarf was frequently called a _tippet_ in Ireland within memory. And
in a letter, discussing this very subject, in the _Gentleman's Mag._
(for 1818, part ii. p. 218.[7]), the testimony of one is given who had
for upwards of fifty years considered the two words as identical, and
had heard them in his youth used indiscriminately by aged clergymen. It
is notorious that in Ireland, time out of mind, _tippets_ have been more
generally worn than _hoods_ in parish churches there. I am not sure
(though I lay no stress on the conjecture) whether this may not have
been in {337} consequence of the option apparently given by the Canons
of wearing _either_ hood or tippet.
It is not correct to restrict the _customary_ use of the scarf to
doctors, prebendaries, and chaplains. In some cathedrals the immemorial
custom has been to assign it to minor canons and clerical vicars also.
At Canterbury, indeed, the minor canons, except otherwise qualified, do
not wear it. (But is not this an exception? Was it always so? And, by
the way, can any cathedral member of old standing testify as to the
customary distinction in his church between the two scarfs, either as to
size or materials?) The very general use of it in towns cannot be
denied.
I may add, that Bishop Jebb used to disapprove of its disuse by country
clergymen. In his Charge he requests that "all beneficed clergymen" of
his diocese "who are _Masters of Arts_, or of any superior degree, and
who by chaplaincies or otherwise are entitled to the distinction, may
with their surplices wear scarfs or _tippets_." This apparently was his
construction of the Canons.