amply provided with beards and whiskers; he would wear neither, though
in other respects he adopted the customs of the country; this gave rise
to the mode of shaving. These people saw with the greatest regret this
dear ornament disappear from their chins: even at this day they cannot
recollect it without emotion; this is what gave rise to this truly
expressive proverb, but which is a little too emphatical: Desde que los
Españoles no llevan bigotes, no tienen C——, that is, (paraphrasing what
might offend the ears of the ladies:) _Since the Spaniards lost their
whiskers they are no better than eunuchs._
Whiskers, in France, have been the object of the most refined luxury. In
Lewis XIII.’s reign, they attained the highest degree of favour, at the
expense of the expiring beards. In those days of gallantry, not yet
empoisoned by wit, they became the favourite occupation of lovers, A
fine black whisker, elegantly turned up, was a very powerful mark of
dignity with the fair-sex. The women of those ancient times, less taken
up with genius than the concerns of the heart, and more learned in
lovers than books, made their glory consist in triumphing over a
warrior, or seeing a haughty, swaggering lover humbly at their feet:
proud of such a conquest, and jealous to preserve it, these ladies had a
sufficient value for their characters to continue faithful. And if a
favour was the reward of love, it was often of merit: in this case, a
woman had respect enough for a man to be sincere, and a man had respect
enough for his mistress to be discreet; but now-a-days ... what men!
The following relation proves how much the French valued their whiskers
in the time of Lewis XIII. Count Bouteville, the most celebrated
duellist of his time, who was condemned to be beheaded, seeing the
executioner, who had already cut off his hair, going to take off his
whiskers, could not conceal the anguish of mind which this dishonour
gave him, and put his hands on these dear ornaments, as if to preserve
them from the outrage with which they were menaced. The bishop of
Mantes, who attended him in these last moments, seeing this new
uneasiness, said to him: _My son, you must give over all worldly
thoughts; what! do you still think of this world?_
Whiskers were still in fashion in the beginning of Lewis XIV.’s reign.
This king and all the great men of his reign took a pride in wearing
them. They were the ornament of Turenne, Condé, Colbert, Corneille,
Moliere, &c. It was then no uncommon thing for a favourite lover to have
his whiskers turned up, combed, and pomatumed by his mistress; and, for
this purpose, a man of fashion took care to be always provided with
every little necessary article, especially whisker-wax. It was highly
flattering to a lady, to have it in her power to praise the beauty of
her lover’s whiskers, which, far from being disgusting, gave his person
an air of vivacity; several even thought it an incitement to love. It
seems the levity of the French made them undergo several changes both in
form and name: there were _Spanish_, _Turkish_, _guard-dagger_, &c.
whiskers; in short, _royal_ ones, which were the last worn: their
smallness proclaimed their approaching fall. Since that period, whiskers
have been worn only at the theatres and by some of our troops; besides,
they are less liked in France than among the other nations, where it is
very common to see all the officers with them.
The man, who should be so bold as to wear whiskers first, would be a
zealous citizen and a friend to true personal beauty. What glory would
not this courageous mortal gain, who, braving the present effeminate
custom, should restore our faces the ancient mark of our valour! He
would bring back to his country that openness and sincerity of character
which distinguished it from other nations, and would merit an honourable
place among the worthies who were formerly the honour of France. “I have
a good opinion of a gentleman curious in having fine whiskers,” said an
author of the last century; “the time which he passes in dressing them
is no time lost; for the more he admires them, the more his mind will be
fed and entertained with manly, courageous ideas.”[47] Whiskers then
have the power of giving energy and valour to the mind. Ah! Frenchmen,
you lost every thing when you lost your whiskers.
Footnote 47:
_Elemens d’education_, printed in 1640.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAP. IX.
_Of the BEARDS of PRIESTS._
AMONG the dignities that ought, by an imposing appearance, to gain the
confidence and veneration of the people, the priesthood holds the first
rank. The minister of divinity, too often obliged to speak before a
crowd of ignorant people, has need particularly that all the delusion of
pompous raiment shall accompany him to the foot of the altar; but this
sacred magnificence, whilst it forsakes frivolousness and vulgar luxury,
should approach nearer to nature, and be more like that respectable
image of antiquity. Is there an ornament to be found that more perfectly
unites all these advantages? is there one that is less far-fetched, that
brings us nearer the first ages, that gives a man a more stern, more
grave, or more venerable look, and, consequently, is there one that more
becomes the priesthood, than the majesty of a long beard? Were I to join
to these clear reasons a faithful history of facts, supported by
authentic precepts, sacred laws, the opinions and examples of a number
of divine men, and, in short, come to demonstrate the absolute
obligation under which our priests are, of wearing beards, I should
unfold a truth not less interesting than unexpected. I might call to my
aid the example of the priests of foreign religions, and point out, in
the books of their dogmas, evidences of the honours paid to this mark of
virility; I could cite a number of historical monuments, which attest,
that all the nations of the world agree in looking on the beard as the
ornament most seemly for an interpreter of the will of heaven; but I
have no occasion for these foreign aids: it is our own religion that
shall furnish me with arms against the effeminate abuse which degrades
its ministers.
If I open at hazard the old testament, I every where find proofs of this
truth. It is there written how God threatened, his chosen people several
times, by the mouths of his prophets, that he would have their chins
ignominiously shaved; which was then a disgrace inseparable from
slavery.[48] _David_ saw nothing more respectable in a man’s outward
appearance than his beard: this is what made this psalmist king speak so
honourably of that of the high priest Aaron,[49] and think that nothing
less than streams of blood could wash away the insult which had been
offered the beards of some of his subjects.
Footnote 48:
See Isaiah, chap. vii. v. 20; _ibid._ chap. xv. v. 2: Jeremiah, chap.
xlviii. v. 37: Revelations xiv: Sam. xix. &c.
Footnote 49:
See the cxxxii Psalm. _Sicut unguentum in capite quod descendit in
barbam, barbam Aaron._ Tertullian, in his book _de Pallio_, has
explained the expressions of this Psalm very favourably for the beard.
See likewise Saint Ambrose, _lib. de initiand. cap._ 6. At the council
of Basil, held in 1433, Henry Kalteisen made a long commentary on this
subject. Sauveur, archbishop of ——, made a speech at the council of
Trent, which ran almost wholly on Aaron’s beard.
We read in the _Paralipomenon_, that this prince sent ambassadors to
Hanon, king of the Ammonites, to console him for the death of his father
Naas; that this king, having been persuaded that these ambassadors were
spies, had them all secured, and sent them back, after having had half
their garments and half their beards cut off. On these news, David was
greatly enraged; and in order that his envoys might avoid the
disagreement of appearing at court in this disgraceful situation, he
sent them word to stop at Jericho ’till their beards were grown out to
their ordinary length; after which he marched against the Annmonites,
and, in two bloody battles, destroyed seven thousand of their chariots,
killed Sophach, their general, and forty thousand foot, and thus avenged
the insult offered his ambassadors.[50]
Footnote 50:
See the Vatable Bible, _liber Paralipomenon_, cap. xix.
This massacre, though it had no other object than the cutting off of a
part of some beards will appear neither unjust nor cruel, if we consider
how much this ornament of virility was honoured among the Jews, and
especially when it is known that there is a law in Leviticus, which
expressly forbids to cut off any part of it.
God himself, before all his chosen people assembled, was pleased, by the
means of Moses, to explain his intentions with regard to this decoration
of the face of man. This law does not solely forbid shaving the chin, as
the vulgar translation of the bible says, which would insinuate that the
Hebrews had already made use of this effeminate custom; but, according
to all the best versions of this holy book, we read: _Don’t marr the
corners of your_ _beards_, that is, let them grow naturally.[51]
Footnote 51:
See the same Vatable Bible, Leviticus chap. xix. verse 27. _Non
attondebitis in circuitum comam capitis vestri, neque dissipabitis
extremitatem barbæ tuæ._
No precept nor other law whatsoever has since altered this. The divine
legislator of our religion, far from changing it, respected it so much,
that he submitted to it himself; the Apostles, and all the most holy and
respectable followers of the Christian worship, have warmly supported
the necessity of wearing a beard; but the purity of precepts, the
simplicity of manners, and humble poverty, have disappeared with the
times. We have rich pluralists, short mantled Chrysostoms, and
prig-parsons; but, divines with venerable beards, fathers of the
primitive church, where are you?
In the constitution of the Apostles, this precept is again repeated:
_The smallest hair of the beard must on no account be clipped_, it is
said therein: _Oportet preterea non barbæ pilum corrumpere_.[52] If I
trace things on, from the time of the Apostles to the entire
establishment of Christianity, I find, that all the fathers, doctors,
and saints of the rising church, strongly recommended the custom of
wearing the beard, and regarded a bald chin as the mark of infamy and
debauchery. Saint Clement the Roman, who lived likewise in the time of
the Apostles, after mentioning the Levitican law, which we have already
quoted, says, that _God, who created us after his own likeness, will
load those with his hatred who violate his law by shaving their
chins_.[53]
Footnote 52:
Lib. i. cap. 3.
Footnote 53:
This Saint, who was the disciple of St. Peter, succeeded pope Anaclet,
A. D. 91. See in his book _Constitutionum Sanctorum Apostolorum_, the
chap. entitled _Catholica Doctrina de Laicis_.
Saint Clement of Alexandria, in several parts of his learned works,
complains highly of this abuse so disgraceful for mankind; he speaks
with great warmth against the rakes of his time, who were not ashamed to
appear in public close shaved. This saint, who was still a better
philosopher than a theologian, does not think it beneath him, in another
part of his work, to write the elogy of the beard: _It contributes_,
says he, _to the beauty of man, as a fine head of hair does to that of a
woman_.[54] Tertullian, especially, says a great deal about beards, and,
with his usual eloquence, forcibly attacks the corrupt manners of his
age, which had introduced the shameful custom of shaving; he supports
his arguments by St. Jerome and St. Clement of Alexandria, and even goes
beyond these two holy fathers.[55]
Footnote 54:
Saint Clement of Alexandria, who is looked upon as the most learned of
all the fathers of the Church, lived at the end of the second and
beginning of the third century. See his book on theatrical
exhibitions, and his Pedagogue, book iii. a work which abbot Fleuri,
in his Ecclesiastical history, calls, _an abridgement of the whole
Christian moral_.
Footnote 55:
Tertullian, in his book _de Cultu feminarum_, and in that _de Pallio_,
speaks very advantageously of beards. This learned man, whom St.
Cyprian called his master, was the first who wrote on the alteration
of a canon of the council of Carthage, which forbade priests to shave
their beards.
Saint Cyprian has likewise expressed how much he thought a shaved chin
contrary to the Christian institution. In deploring the state of this
religion, he exclaims: _There is no longer this religious devotion and
entire confidence in the ministers of God to be found in the priests; no
more works of mercy, no more order among the lower classes: the men cut
off their beards, and the women paint their faces._ And in another part:
_And notwithstanding it is written, You shall not cut off your beards,
they depilate their chins and colour their cheeks. Thus, to please the
world, they are not afraid to displease God._[56]
Footnote 56:
_Divi Cypriani, liber de Lapsis._
It would be too long to cite the number of respectable authorities who
have either written in praise of beards or censured shaved faces, who
have not only looked upon it as an ornament conformable to Christian
gravity, but maintained that it could not be cut away without a sin.[57]
Footnote 57:
All the first fathers of the Church have strongly recommended the
custom of beards, or have spoken of them advantageously: such are St.
Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, St. Theodoret,
St. Sidoin Apollinarius, &c.
This opinion of the first fathers of the Church is supported by two
councils: the first is the fourth council of Carthage, the 44th canon of
which runs thus: _Clericus nec comam nutriat, nec barbam radat. A
clergyman must neither keep up his hair nor shave away his beard._ Tho’
this canon has been entirely altered by the suppression of the word
_radat_, as Tertullian remarks, and, after him, a number of
commentators, it is certain it ought to be thus, which we will prove by
what we are going to say. The second is a council held at Barcelona in
540, in the third canon of which we read: _Ut nullus Clericorum comam
nutriat, aut barbam radat. Let no clergyman either keep up his hair, or
shave away his beard._
After such sacred laws, and the opinion and example of the apostles, and
of all the fathers of the primitive church; after the decisions of two
authentic councils, one should not think there had existed men
sufficiently deceitful or ignorant to maintain, not only that it is
indifferent to shave or not, but likewise that the beard is contrary to
the institution of the Church. Lighted by the torch of truth, and guided
by the most scrupulous impartiality, we will follow up the chain of the
different events which have so often changed the sentiments and beards
of one part of Europe.
I find all the popes of the earliest times of Christianity wore long
beards, ’till the first division into two Churches, Greek and Latin.
Their rivality had already broken out in the excommunication of the
iconoclasts. When Charlemain became emperor of the West, the popes then
threw off the yoke of the Grecian authority, and seized that occasion to
distinguish themselves from their enemies by something particular. It
was at this very epoch, according to fathers Henschenius and
Papebrock,[58] that Leo III. gave the Latin church, for the first time,
the example of a pope shaved. The disputes soon redoubled. Photius, the
Greek patriarch, renewed the pretensions of the clergy of the East to
precendency over those of the West: he excommunicated, in his turn, pope
Nicholas I. who had already excommunicated him. Never had the chins of
the Greeks been so bearded, nor those of the Latins so closely shaved.
Photius, having taken the title of œcumenical patriarch, declared the
Western bishops heretics. Among other things, he reproached them with
cutting off their beards. _A strange reason for setting the Western and
Eastern empires at variance_, says a great writer of our age. To think
this reason so strange, is making very light of beards.[59]
Footnote 58:
See the _Propileum_ of fathers Henschenius and Papebrock for the month
of May, p. 209, vol. i. of the acts of the saints.
Footnote 59:
Let it be always recollected that we have nothing to do here but with
discipline. Some indispensable invectives against the divers opinion
of the popes, ought not to startle tender consciences. The dogma,
which we highly respect, has no part in this discussion.
Nicholas I. does not offer any thing in his own defence against this
serious accusation. In his letter to Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, and
the other bishops of France, A. D. 867, he only says, speaking of the
Greeks: “Moreover, they endeavour to throw blame on us, because the
clergy who are under our authority don’t refuse to be shaved.”[60] This
phrase, which shews that all the clergy at that time were constrained to
appear shaved, presents nothing in excuse for this violent conduct. If
the pope could have offered some reasons to palliate this looseness of
discipline, he would not have failed to make use of them on this
occasion; but he does not give one. Rivalship was the sole cause of
these puerile dissensions. What a number of disputes, and troubles has
not this ridiculous infatuation of the Latin priests occasioned! Had
they but let their beards grow out, they would have avoided all these
mischiefs.
Footnote 60:
_Quin & reprehendere satagunt, quia penes os clerici barbas radere
suas non abnuunt, &c._ Acta Conciliorum.
The death of the patriarch, without destroying the schism, calmed
people’s minds for some times, and the ignorance of the times (according
to some) contributed greatly to extinguish the flames of this violent
quarrel. John XII. forgetting, or perhaps not knowing the animosity that
had reigned between the two churches, soon appeared again with a long
beard according to fathers Henschenius and Papebrock.[61]
Footnote 61:
See _Propileum_, already quoted, page 20.
This irregular and inconsequent conduct of the popes, and indifference
for the true discipline of the Church, seems to be justified in a
council held at Limoges in 1031. By the determinations of that assembly
it is of little moment whether a priest be shaved or not. The reasons of
the Greeks and Latins are there weighed, and the latter are said to
support their arguments by the example of St. Peter. (This assertion is
contrary to all truth, as all the monuments which have preserved us the
image of that Saint prove.) They add, in favour of those priests that go
shaved, that they ought to be distinguished from the laity by their
outward appearance. This reason, were it just, would be good only at a
time when it should be the fashion for laymen to wear long beards, and
it ought to be an additional incitement to priests to let theirs grow
out, among a nation who do not wear this mark of manhood.
“The others,” says the same council, speaking of the Greeks, “have
chosen the custom of not shaving; they ground their choice upon the
example of the Apostles Paul, and James the brother of the Lord, saying
with reason, for nothing should be concealed, that the clergy, as the
laity, ought to preserve on their faces this ornament of virility, as a
dignity of the human condition, a dignity created by God himself, and
with which he has been pleased to honour man alone. As to the clergy,
they should be distinguished solely by the tonsure of the head. The
Greeks add likewise, that our Lord of Nazareth always wore his beard.”
By this session of the council of Limoges, no mention is made of the two
councils which expressly forbid priests to cut off their beards, nor of
the authority of the fathers and the Levitican law; this was to suit the
circumstances: and the council concludes on this matter, _that if the
Greeks have nothing to reproach us with, we have nothing to reproach
them with_.[62] After this declaration, though it is quite contrary to
the fundamental discipline of the Church, the reader will be greatly
surprised to learn, that the very same year, 1031, by a canon of the
council of Bourges, all the clergy were ordered to get themselves
shaved;[63] nor will he be less so to find pope Gregory VII. (formerly
friar Hildebrand, a shaved monk, a turbulent, ambitious man, and the
declared enemy of emperors and kings,) firmly maintain, that a priest,
who wore a long beard, was guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour
against Christianity. This pope Gregory was a confounded shearer of
beards: he called a council at Gironne in 1073, where the clergy were
expressly forbidden to wear this mark of manhood.[64] A few years after,
this tyrant of the beards having learned that the archbishop of Cagliary
preserved his in all its length, he immediately ordered him to get
himself shaved, and at the same time wrote (in 1080) to Orzoc, the
podestate of the town, these orders ... “We therefore order your bishop,
our brother, to have his beard shaved, _like all the Western clergy, who
have preserved this custom ever since the commencement of the Christian
faith_:[65] in consequence, we command you likewise to oblige all the
clergy that are under your authority, to be shaved, and to confiscate
the property of those who shall refuse to obey, to the profit of the
Church of Cagliary: make use of severity, for fear lest this abuse
should increase.”
Footnote 62:
_Et hac in re neque illi nos, neque nos possumus reprehendere illos,
&c._ Concil. Lemovicense, anno 1031, sessio II, acta Concil. tom. vi.
Footnote 63:
Council of Bourges, canon 7.
Footnote 64:
_Synodus Gerundensis, can. vii. Thæsorus anecdotorum._
Footnote 65:
_Scilicet ut quemadmodum totius occidentalis Ecclesiæ Clerus, ab ipsis
fidei christianæ primordiis, barbam radendi morem tenuit, &c._ Greg.
Papæ vii. Epist. lib. viii. ad Orzoc, judicem Calaritanum.
This letter, wholly founded upon illusion, and which so justly
characterises its author, proclaims the approaching destruction of the
little beard yet left on the chins of the Latin priests. It was at this
time no doubt that those ordinances _de radendis barbis_, which we still
read in several communities, were made; and in a little time the laymen
were the only ones that could, without a crime, wear long beard; but it
did not continue so long.
The German priests soon followed this example, which is proved by a
fragment of a letter preserved in the new history of the Benedictines of
Black Forest, where Sigefroy of Goetz complains grievously to Papon, the
reformer, that the Germans were beginning to imitate the French in
several effeminate customs, among others, that of cutting off their
beards. In time, the priests saw with pain, that they were separated
from other men by a mortifying distinction: what should they do to
relieve their offended self-love? Let their beards grow out? The
difficulty of ordering it, even sometime after it had been forbidden,
did not hinder them; but the quarrel with the Greeks was yet too recent
for the Latins to think of looking like those haughty, clearsighted
enemies. In order that all might be upon a par, it was decided, that the
laity should be shaved: this mean had a very plausible appearance, and
it was decided to begin with the princes.
That of Henry I. king of England, was the premier victim of the
conjuration. Serlon of Abond, bishop of Seez, undertook the conquest of
this royal fleece. Easter-day, 1105, he preached before this prince and
all his court: his sermon ran entirely on heads of hair and beards; he
exclaimed particularly against the length of the latter, which, he
maintained, was contrary to the spirit of the Christian religion: his
vehement tone and persuasive eloquence moved all the audience. The king,
penetrated with compunction, resolved to be the first to give the
example of a sacrifice as holy and new as courageous: then the preacher,
approaching Henry, drew out of his sleeve a pair of scissars, and
piously sheared the prince’s chin. All the assembly, carried away by
this act of religion, would fain imitate him, and the holy bishop became
the shearer of the whole congregation. This strange farce, which was not
the only one, would appear a fable, if father Mabillon did not very
seriously relate the particulars of it in his Annals of the
Benedictines.[66]
Footnote 66:
_Moxque Episcopus, extractis è manicâ forficibus, primo Regem, post
cæteros Optimates attondisse, &c._ Annal. Benedict.