« НазадПродовжити »
modern addition, particular to Liber regalis. Further it might be said that the new forms, whether of James II. or of William and Mary are decidedly better than the old. But of James II.'s form this can hardly be maintained. It has nothing of the picturesqueness of the old, nor of the doctrine of the new, form. All that can be justly claimed for it is that the “gifts and graces of thy holy Spirit” are spoken of, which may possibly have given the idea to the fuller expressions in the new form of William and Mary.
The direct prayer for a blessing on the oil “ Bless this oil” is to be found only in the order of William and Mary. In the next order, that of Anne, it disappears and does not return. But the direction to the Archbishop to lay his hand upon the ampulla remains throughout all the succeeding orders. It has been doubted by ritualists of repute' whether the present form be really intended for a benediction of the oil. What has been just said seems to be a sufficient answer to any questionings on this subject. The form in William and Mary is plainly intended for a blessing of the oil, just as the form in the baptism of infants in the book of common prayer is intended for a blessing of the water in the font, when it is said : “Regard we beseech thee the supplications of thy congregation; sanctify this Water.” In the processus factus of William and Mary the form is headed Benedictio olei : and in the account published by order of the Duke of Norfolk of the coronation of these sovereigns the consecration of the oil is attributed to the recitation of this prayer. Thus there can hardly be any doubt that, at the time of William and Mary's coronation, this prayer was looked upon as the form for the consecration of the oil.
It seems, however, that only in William and Mary is there an unmistakable blessing of the oil. If we look backwards, or if we look forwards, from this point, there is a want of definition in the forms. In Liber regalis there is indeed Sursum corda and its accompanying versicles which are the signal of an approaching consecration from that of the Eucharist down to that of a cross or a reliquary* ; but the form itself contains no distinct prayer for the blessing of the oil, although there is a petition that by “the fatness of this creature thou wouldest vouchsafe to sanctify with thy blessing this thy servant N.” which may indeed be a prayer for a blessing on the King but is hardly a direct invocation for the consecration of the oil. Thus the modern form and the mediæval resemble each other in this point.
This want of definition it may be led the Laudian ceremonialists to introduce a separate blessing of the oil early on the day of coronation before the service began. This blessing is not super
1 W. Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, Oxford 1882. Vol. ii. p. xxiv. note. 2 British Museum, Lansdowne MS. 282. fo. 42. b.
3“ Veni Creator being Sung and the Holy Oyi Consecrated” &c. (An Account of the Ceremonial at the Coronation . . . of King William and Queen Mary, In the Savoy, Edw. Jones, 1689. p. 3.
4 See Pontificale Romanum, edited by Benedict XIV. Romae, 1868. pp. 221. and
5 The forms have been printed by Mr. Chr. Wordsworth, Manner of the Coronation of King Charles I. H.B.S. 1892. pp. xix. and xx. note.
fluous; nor is it necessary. Doubtless the oil of catechumens and the cream formerly used with Liber regalis had been blessed on the Maundy Thursday before the coronation; so that in view of this a blessing in the English recension previous to the blessing in the Electorum fortitudo cannot be said to be superfluous. Nor is the earlier blessing necessary; because the oil is sufficiently blessed by the prayer now said after Veni Creator.
The composition of the anointing oil at the coronation of King Charles I. is well known from the manuscripts in which the receipt is given. Of the composition of the oil used at the coronation of King James II. we have no precise information except that it was prepared by the King's apothecary and was “ exceeding rich and fragrant.” For William and Mary's anointing an order was given to the King's apothecary to prepare the same quantity of anointing oil as was provided for the last coronation. Of its composition I have no information. • In the anointing of James II. there seems to have been no diminution of the number of places which were anointed. They remained the same as in Liber regalis and the Stewart orders. But in William and Mary the number of the places was diminished to three, as in some early mediæval coronations, that is if the text of their order represent what was really done. But the document drawn up by the heralds which purports to give a full account of the ceremonies, reports very precisely that the old number and the old order of places were preserved. In this and some other matters the heralds seem to have spoken of what should have been done, not of what was really done, as they themselves declare that they did not receive full information upon what was intended, by which ancient precedents were not observed.
The statement of the heralds as to the anointing is indeed supported by the Processus factus of William and Mary. According to this document the Bishop of London anoints the King's hands, breast, shoulders, and boughs of the elbows, but it omits the head of the King, while the hands of the Queen only are anointed. The
i It has been printed by Mr. Chr. Wordsworth, op. cit. p. 4.
6 British Museum, Lansdowne MS. 282. Processus factus ad Coronationem Serenissimi Domini Guilielmi, et Serenissima Dnae : Mariæ Regis et Reginæ Angliæ &c.
On the verso of the fly leaf is written : ffr. Negus, 1689.
“Mag : Cainerars: primas regis robas exuit Similiter Comitissa Derby robas reginæ.
Sedent Rex & Reg: in duabus Cathedris rege amicto robis Sti Edvi : palliumque ornatum super Capita regis & reginæ extenditur, Sustentatum p Ducem Norfolciæ Ducemque Graftoniæ.
“Eps: Londin : unguet manus, Pectus, Scapulas, ambasque Compages brachiorum regis, manusque reginæ, cum orationibus aptis &c.
:accuracy of this account may be called in question. For before the ianointing it is said that the parliament robes of the King were taken off, with those of the Queen ; and that the King and Queen, clad in the robes of St. Edward, then sat down in two chairs in order to be .anointed ; while after the anointing it is said that the King was then clothed with the colobium sindonis and his head covered with a coif because of the anointing. The colobium sindonis is the first of the ornaments of St. Edward to be put on. It cannot be put on both before the anointing and after the anointing as well. And if the head of the King were not anointed, why was a coif put on because of the .anointing? Also the Queen's hands only were anointed ; thus indeed making her only a queen consort, and not a reigning sovereign. Thus the account is confused and may be suspected in its details, although this document was the property of Mr. Negus, the Secretary of the Duke of Norfolk, of whom the heralds complain as retaining too much in his hands. We have again an instance of the frequency with which different accounts are given of the same action by eyewitnesses. I am inclined, however, to think that the coronation order gives the most .accurate account of the cerenionies really practised.
After the anointing of the King in Liber regalis, he is invested with certain ornaments, some of which are sacerdotal, and others knightly or royal. The sacerdotal ornaments are of linen or silk, such as the .colobium sindonis, the armill, the tunicle, the buskins and the pallium ; the kriightly are the spurs and the sword ; the more royal are the crown and the sceptres ; while the ring and rich silk gloves are signs of dignity common to the nobler ranks of men. They were delivered to the King in a certain order preserved from Liber regalis down to James II. inclusive; and before the sovereign was invested with these ornaments they were blessed by the archbishop with a prayer beginning Deus rex regum (O God the king of kings). This prayer was altered by Dr. Sancroft after his manner into a prayer for a blessing on the wearer of these ornaments : and setting this point aside, the prayer in this case is certainly improved, though hardly shortened.
O God the King of Kings &c. .by whom Kings do reign, and lawgivers make good laws, Vouchsafe in thy favour to bless this Kingly Ornament; and grant that thy servant Charles our King, who shall wear it, may shine in thy
O God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, by whom Kings reign and Princes decree justice ; vouchsafe with thine especial favour and grace to bless this thy servant James our King, whom in thy name we now clothe with this
“ Post hæc Induitur Rex Sindonis Collobio Capite amictu operto, propter unctionem :
“Pedibus Sandaria coaptantur, Calcaria adfert Mag : Camerars: " &c.
It will be owned that not only in the particulars of the anointing but in many other points this processus faclus is exceedingly confused.
i See below, Appendix VIII. p. 111.
sight with the ornament of good Royal Vestment: that he may life and holy actions, and after shine in thy sight with the ornathis life he may for ever enjoy that ment of good works, and a holy life and glory which hath no end; conversation ; and this life ended, through Jesus Christ our Lord. may for ever enjoy that Life and! Amen.
Glory which hath no end, through
But in William and Mary the order of the delivery of some of the ornaments was changed, inore particularly in the order of the delivery of the crown, sceptres, and ring; and the prayer for the blessing of the vestments, Deus rex regum was wholly omitted. In Liber regalis the crown was put on the King immediately after the pallium or cope. The ring and the two sceptres were then given to him. This was also the order in James II. But in William and Mary it seems to have been thought desirable to lead up to the setting of the crown upon the King's head by delivering all the other ornaments first, as if an anticlimax were to be avoided ; so the ring was first delivered, then the rich gloves and the sceptre and rod, and last of all the crown. Here again there is a return to the order in Egbert's Pontifical which prescribes the delivery of the two sceptres first, and afterwards the galea or crown is put on the head.
The heralds in their report have preserved the old order of the delivery of the ornaments, as it was in James II. But from what they say themselves at the end of the document it would appear that they were not perfectly informed as to the ceremonies performed in the abbey church, and indeed they show their knowledge of ecclesiastical matters by calling that foundation a “Cathedrall.” 4
The omission of all mention of the Colobium sindonis, supertunica and armilla in the text, together with the disappearance of the prayerDeus rex regum might well lead to the opinion that these ornaments were discontinued at the coronation of William and Mary, if negativeevidence only be considered. But putting aside, for reasons which they themselves allow, the statements made by the heralds that these ornaments were worn, there is in other documents further direct evidence of their use. They are ordered by the Committee of Council and the charges for their making exist in the records of the Lord Chamberlain's accounts, which include even the wrapper in which the vestments were carried to the Abbey Church.
Another of the innovations in James II. continued to William and! Mary and thence onwards, is the delivery of the orb with the cross at the same time as the pallium. The words of delivery by the archbishop.
1 Harl. 5222. fo. 30. See also Christopher Wordsworth, op. cit. p. 35. 2 St. John's College Cambridge MS. L. 14. p. 36. 3 See below, Appendix VIII. p. 103. 4 See below, p. III. 5 They are also spoken of in the Processus factus, British Museum, Lansdowne MS.. 282. fo. 42.6.
6 See below, Appendix VI. p. 78.
have been altered so as to include the orb, which however has to be taken back to the altar again almost immediately as the right hand of the King is required to hold the sceptre with the cross.
It would seem that Dr. Sancroft did not really understand that the sceptre with the cross and the orb with the cross were ornaments that could be exchanged one for the other, if not altogether the same, though differing in size and shape. The orb is of very considerable antiquity amongst the royal ornaments. It is seen in the Bayeux tapestry, and on many early great seals. It is in the hand of the King in the Corpus picture and of Richard II. in the picture in the choir of Westminster, while a verge is in the other. In the miniature of the dead King in the Westminster Missal, he supports with the left hand a verge, with the right an orb on which stands a crucifix. More instances could easily be given of representations of the King bearing in his hand an orb with a long cross on it instead of a sceptre with a cross. Even the modern sceptre shown by Sandford has a round lower end. It would seem that the orb and the sceptre with the cross are interchangeable and that where one is used, the other should not appear. Unfortunately Dr. Sancroft's error has continued down to our own time.
The sacerdotal ornaments cannot be traced much farther back: than Liber regalis, the earliest manuscript of which is of early fourteenth century writing. The sceptre and staff and helmet (galea," it may be a crown) appear in the first recension after the anointing in this order, In the second there appear, also after the anointing, first the ring, then the sword, the crown, the sceptre, the staff; so that they are in much the same order in the second recension as in Liber regalis : but after the staff and in the variety of this recension printed in this volume, the pall. In the third, after the anointing, come the sword, the armilla, the pallium, the crown, the ring, the sceptre and rod. In Liber regalis after the anointing the ornaments come in the following order : the colobium sindonis and coif for the head; the tunicle, buskins, sandals, and spurs; the sword; the armilla ; the pallium ; the crown; the ring; the sceptre with the cross; the rod with the dove.
i See Wyon, Great Seals of England, Lond. 1887. plates. At the coronation of King Richard III. the orb seems to have been actually delivered in the place of the sceptre with the cross. “The Cardinall of Canterbury and other Bishopps them crowned according to the custome of the Realme, giving him the Scepter in the left hand, and the Ball with the Crosse in the right hand.” (Bodleian, Ashmole MS. 863. p. 441.) . ? Missale ... Westm. ii. plate 8.
3 The ingenious may perhaps discover the colobium sindonis, the tunicle, and the pallium in the coronation of Harold in the Bayeux tapestry ; and if any one should be pleased to assert this as a fact, I do not see how it could be disproved.
4 In Captain Halford's manuscript of the life of St. Edmund, illustrated about the time of William the Conqueror, there is a picture of the coronation, made widely known by Mr. W. H. St. John Hope in Dr. S. R. Gardiner's Student's History of England, Lond. 1890. vol. i. p. 99. "There is being placed on the King's head an ornament that might be described as galea and is not unlike some of the helmets depicted in the contemporary Bayeux tapestry. The cope or pallium may be seen in this drawing, but the colobium sindonis or tunicle is by no means clear.