There is no evidence as to the coronation rite in the Scandinavian kingdoms before the reformation, but as these nations only obtained the privilege of a coronation ceremony comparatively late and at a time when the Roman rite had become predominant, it is fairly certain that the rite, when introduced, was Roman, with perhaps a few national peculiarities.
In Denmark a coronation ritual continued to be used until the year 1840, since which date it has been entirely given up. Until then each Danish monarch was crowned on his accession.
We have an account of an early post-reformation rite in the case of Frederick II in 1559. The description is unfortunately written in verse by the Poet Laureate, Hieronymus Hosius[139], and of course no forms are given. The description given by Hosius is as follows. The king goes in procession to church, accompanied by the nobles by whom the regalia are carried. The church is decorated with red hangings for the occasion, and a throne set up in front of the altar. The king enters the church and proceeds to his throne, and the regalia are deposited on the altar. The king having made his private devotions, the officiating minister delivers an admonition to him, and then is sungVeni CreatororVeni Sancte Spiritus[140]. After the hymn, the king and nobles standing before the minister who remains seated, the Lord Chancellor presents the king as lawful inheritor of the throne, and demands that he be crowned, and the minister replies that in response to their demand he will proceed with the coronation. He then once more addresses an admonition to theking on his kingly duties, and the king then takes the oath, in which he swears to preserve the peace of the Church, to defend the realm, and to maintain justice. An anthem is then sung praying for the king’s prosperity. The minister then anoints Frederick between the shoulders and on both wrists, using a form which expresses the signification of the unction. After the anointing during the singing ofTe Deum[141](?) the king is arrayed in his regal vestments. The minister delivers the Sword, with an admonitory form which contains something of the ideas of the old form of the Church, and girds it on the king. He then addresses the people, warning them of the king’s power and authority to punish, and the king draws the Sword and brandishes it towards the four corners of the compass. The king is then crowned, the minister and as many of the nobles as conveniently may setting the Crown on the king’s head together, and the minister delivers the Sceptre into the king’s right hand, charging him to rule well, and the Orb and Cross into his left, with a long address, in which he explains the meaning of the ornament. The singing is then resumed, and the king delivers the regalia to the nobles appointed, and returns to his throne. Homage is done, and the king, according to custom, creates eight knights.
It will be noticed that this order is based on the Roman rite. The presentation of the king by theChancellor has taken the place of the presentation by bishops; the king is anointed as in the Roman rite; the brandishing of the Sword is Roman, and there is no Ring.
There is no mention of the Communion, nor is there any reference to the queen.
The later history of the rite is somewhat obscure, and by the nineteenth century it had been subjected to considerable alterations and omissions. As used (for the last time) at the accession of Christian VIII in 1840[142]it is very similar to the Prussian rite of 1702.
The king and the queen come to the church in separate processions. Three bishops meet the king at the entrance of the church and conduct him to his throne during the singing of the Introit, and then three bishops meet the queen’s procession and conduct her to her throne. The Introit over the Bishop of Sjaelland delivers a first address, and after it the Bishop Olgaard reads a lesson, which is expounded by the Bishop of Sjaelland. A copy of the Statutes and the anointing vessels are then deposited on the altar, and the Bishop of Sjaelland delivers another address with special reference to the Constitution. The three bishops then kneeling before the altar, the Bishop of Sjaelland begins the Lord’s Prayer. The king in the meanwhile lays aside hisroyal ornaments, Crown, Sceptre, and Orb, with which he has entered the church in preparation for the anointing. First is sung in LatinVeni Sancte Spiritus, and ℣.Emitte Spiritum Sanctum Domine, ℟.Et renovabis faciem terrae, etc., followed by the collect of Pentecost,Deus qui corda fidelium. A hymn is then sung, during which the Bishop of Sjaelland goes up to the altar, opens the vessel containing the oil, and consecrates it with a secret prayer. The king during the singing and the prayers has reassumed his ornaments. The Bishop of Sjaelland now summons the king to be anointed, and the king goes up to the altar with his Crown on his head, the Sceptre in his right hand and the Orb in his left. Again the king lays aside the regalia and takes off his right-hand glove, while the Lord Chamberlain unfastens the clothing over his breast. Then as the king kneels before the altar the bishop, dipping the tips of two fingers in the oil, anoints him in the form of a cross on forehead, breast, and right wrist, using a suitable form. The king then resumes his ornaments. General Superintendent Callisen readsPs.xxi. 2-8, and the Bishop of Sjaelland delivers another discourse, after which a hymn is sung. The Bishop of Sjaelland now summons the queen and anoints her on forehead and breast, using a suitable form; a hymn is sung, the bishop delivers a last discourse, and the Hymn of Praise is sung. The king once more lays aside the regalia, and the bishop intonesThe Lord be with you, ℟.,And with thy spirit, and sings the special collect, and thenimmediately gives the blessing. A hymn is sung and, the king resuming his ornaments, the royal procession leaves the church.
The degenerate nature of this rite is very evident. Like the Prussian order it has no investitures at all, only the central feature of the anointing remaining, and that is done apparently without any fixed forms. Indeed the rite is more or less a series of preachings.
The post-reformation Swedish rite seems to have undergone very little variation. It was however discontinued at the accession of the present king of Sweden.
The coronation of Carl XI on August 23, 1675, took place as follows[143]. The king goes in procession to the Domkirche, and passing to his seat in the midst of the choir kneels and makes his private devotions. A hymn is then sung, after which a sermon is preached by Basilius Bishop of Skara. The sermon ended, the king goes up to the altar, and taking off the mantle in which he has come to the church is anointed by the Archbishop of Upsala on breast, shoulders, and hands, the archbishop using a special form during the anointing. The king is then invested in the Royal Mantle. The accustomed oath is then taken by him, after which, sittingon a seat in front of the altar he is invested with the royal ornaments, which are brought down from the altar on which they have been deposited. First he is crowned, the king himself setting the Crown on his head. Next he is invested with the Sceptre, Apple, Key, and Sword, the archbishop using a special form at the delivery of each ornament. After the investitures the king returns the ornaments to the lords, to whose charge they belong, except the Crown and Sceptre, and returns to his seat in the choir. A herald proclaimsCarl has been crowned King of Sweden and no other, a fanfare of trumpets is sounded, and the choir singsVivat Rex Carolus. The Litany is then sung by the bishops and congregation, and after certain prayers and hymns the ceremony comes to an end. The various nobles and officials then swear allegiance and the royal procession takes its departure.
The most noticeable feature in this order is perhaps the occurrence of the Key among the regalia, an ornament peculiar to the Swedish rite, and evidently an ancient peculiarity. It is possible that in this account the taking of the oath is wrongly described as occurring after the anointing instead of before it, for in subsequent orders it occurs in its proper place, before the anointing. Also the king is stated to have crowned himself, whereas in a contemporary engraving of the coronation of King Carl Gustaf in 1654, the king is represented as being crowned by the archbishop and the Princeps Senatus, Count Drotzel, conjointly, andthis has been the practice down to the last celebration of a coronation ceremony in Sweden.
The coronation of a Swedish king in modern times may be illustrated by the order used when Carl XV and Queen Wilhelmina Frederika were crowned in 1860[144].
The king and queen proceed to the church in separate processions. The king is met by the archbishop in his canonicals and the bishops in their copes, the archbishop greeting him with the wordsBlessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord, and the Bishop of Skara saying a prayer that the king may be endowed with grace to rule his people well. The archbishop and bishops then escort the king to his seat before the altar with the Royal Standard on his right hand and the banner of the Order of the Seraphim on his left. The Bishop of Strengnäs and the other bishops await the coming of the queen, and when she enters the Bishop of Strengnäs greets her with the wordsBlessed be she that cometh in the name of the Lord, and the Bishop of Hernosänd says a prayer almost identical with that said at the king’s entrance. She is conducted to her seat on the left side of the choir, and their Majesties kneel and make their private devotions, while the regalia are deposited on the altar.
The archbishop begins the service singingHoly, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth, with which theSwedish ‘High Mass’ commences; the Bishop of Skara recites the Creed before the altar, and the hymnCome thou Holy Spirit, come, is sung, and the sermon is preached by the Bishop of Götheborg. The Litany is then said and after this, during the singing of an anthem, the king goes to his throne on a dais before the altar, with the Royal Standard borne on his right hand and the banner of the Seraphim on his left, followed by a procession of the regalia. There before the altar his mantle and princely coronet are taken off and deposited on the altar, and kneeling he is invested in the Royal Mantle by a state minister, and the Archbishop of Upsala reads the first chapter of St John. The Minister of Justice then dictates the oath to the king, which he takes, laying three fingers on the Bible. Immediately after the taking of the oath the archbishop anoints the king on forehead, breast, temples, and wrists, saying,The Almighty everlasting God pour out His Holy Spirit into your soul and mind, plans and undertakings, by whose gift may you so rule land and kingdom, as to redound to the honour and glory of God, maintain justice and equity, and be for the good of the land and people. The king then resumes his seat, and the archbishop and Minister of Justice crown him conjointly, the archbishop praying in a set form that his rule may be good and prosperous. The king is next invested with the Sceptre by the archbishop and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Apple is delivered to him by Count Hamilton, the archbishop using a set form in both cases. The Key is then delivered tothe king by Major-General af Nordin, the archbishop saying the following prayer:God the Almighty who of His divine providence hath raised you to this royal dignity, grant you grace to unlock treasures of wisdom and truth for your people, to lock out error, vices, and sloth from your kingdom, and to provide for the industrious prosperity and increase, relief and comfort for the suffering and afflicted. Finally a naked sword is put into the king’s hand, the archbishop saying a prayer that he may use his power well and justly. The archbishop then returns to the altar, and the king having his Crown on his head and holding the Sceptre in his right hand and the Apple in his left, a herald proclaimsNow has Carl XV been crowned king over the lands of Sweden, Gotha, and the underlying provinces. He and no other.A hymn is sung and the archbishop says a prayer and gives the Benediction.
The queen is now led up to her throne before the altar. She is invested in the Royal Mantle, anointed on forehead and wrists, crowned, and invested with Sceptre and Apple, the forms used being those employed for the king and adapted to the queen. She is then proclaimed by a herald, and the choir sings,Prosperity to the Queen, and then part of a hymn, and the archbishop recites the last prayer as over the king. As in all other protestant rites there is no communion, only the first part of the ‘High Mass’ being used in this case. After the coronation of the queen homage is done, and during the singing of the hymnNow thank we all our God, the royal procession leaves the church.
The order used for the coronation of King Oscar II in 1872 is identical with the above. This was the last occasion on which a coronation rite was observed in Sweden.
There is no sign of any ancient rite belonging to the kingdom of Norway, and perhaps none ever existed, for Norway was united with the kingdom of Denmark from the fourteenth century until 1814, and since that date until quite recent times with the kingdom of Sweden. According to the law of 1814, however, a separate coronation of the king as King of Norway took place in the cathedral of Trondhjem where the king was solemnly anointed by the Lutheran Superintendent, and crowned by the Superintendent and the Prime Minister conjointly.
The following is the account of the ceremonial observed at the coronation of King Haakon VII and Queen Maud in 1906[145]. It will be observed that the order used is very close to that used in Sweden, though the forms used are differently worded.
The royal procession goes in due order with the regalia to the Domkirke, at the entrance of which it is met by the Bishops of Trondhjem, Kristiania, and Bergen, and their attendant clergy, and the king and queen are greeted with the wordsThe Lord preserve thy comings in and goings out both now andfor ever. When they have taken their places the service begins, the Bishop of Trondhjem intoning the first line of the Introit hymn, of which the first verse is sung by choir and people. The Bishop of Kristiania then reads the Creed, and the Bishop of Bergen beginsTe Deum, of which the first six verses only are sung. The sermon is preached by the Bishop of Kristiania. After the sermon a verse of a hymn is sung by a priest and choir antiphonally, and this is followed by the first part of the anthem. The king now proceeds to his throne, which is erected on a dais before the altar, the Royal Standard being held on his right hand. He is divested of the mantle which he has been wearing, it being laid on the altar, and he is invested by the Lord Chief Justice and the Bishop of Trondhjem in the Royal Mantle which has been lying on the altar. The Bishop of Trondhjem then anoints him on forehead and wrist with a special form, the king kneeling during the anointing. The king rises and takes his seat on the throne and is crowned by a Minister of State and the bishop conjointly, the bishop using a special form of words. He is then invested with the Sceptre by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the bishop; with the Orb by a Councillor of State and the bishop; and with the Sword by another Councillor of State and the bishop, the bishop using a special form at each investiture. The second part of the anthem is sung and part of a hymn, and the Bishop of Trondhjem says a last prayer for the king and then gives the blessing.
The king now returns to his seat in the choir,with his Crown on his head, the Sceptre in his right hand, and the Orb in his left. The third part of the anthem is sung, during which the queen passes to her throne before the altar. She is arrayed in the Royal Mantle, anointed on forehead and wrist, and duly invested with Crown, Sceptre, and Orb, the forms used in each case being adapted from those employed for the king. The fourth part of the anthem is sung and part of a hymn, and the Bishop of Trondhjem says the last prayer, which is slightly adapted from the corresponding prayer used in the case of the king; he gives the blessing, and the queen returns to her seat in the choir. The President of the Storthing then proclaims the Coronation Act to be duly consummated. Two verses of the hymnGod bless our dear Fatherlandare sung, and during the last part of the anthem the bishops and clergy leave the altar, and, the anthem being finished, the royal procession takes its departure from the church.
The rite of the coronation of a Pope seems to date from the time when the western Patriarchs began to make definite claims to a temporal sovereignty. The rite does not appear till the ninth century, but probably existed in some form for a century before this date. Already in theLiber Pontificalis[146]it is stated that Pope Constantine wore during his visit to Constantinople a head-dress peculiar to the Roman Pope. This is called the Camelaucus, and is evidently the original form of the Tiara. In the ‘Donation of Constantine’ of the pseudo-Isidorian decretals[147], in which the Papal temporal claims were first formulated, Constantine the Great is said to have granted to the Pope the sovereignty of the West and to have bestowed on him and his successors a special royal diadem, which is described as ‘phrigium candido nitore splendidum,’ evidently the camelaucus under a different name, a closed head-dress something of the shape of a Phrygiancap, and probably related to the Crown of the eastern bishop. Although the ‘Donation’ does not mention any ceremony of coronation, perhaps one is implied by this claim that the Papal head-gear is a temporal crown.
In the ninth century the rite existed and is described in Mabillon’s Ordo Romanus IX[148]. The ceremony never became so elaborate as a royal coronation. The Pope elect, who must not be a bishop, enters St Peter’s during the IntroitElegit te Dominus. His consecration as a bishop then takes place. Three special prayers are said for him by three different bishops[149]. The archdeacon then invests him with the Pallium (i.e. the ecclesiastical vestment), and he is enthroned on a specially prepared throne. The new Pope celebrates Mass himself, and after theGloria in excelsisthe Laudes are sung. When Mass is over he is enthroned upon the apostolic throne. Then he proceeds to the steps at the west end of St Peter’s, and after the acclamation thrice repeatedDomnus Leo Papa quem Sanctus Petrus elegit in sua sede multis annis sedere, he is crowned with the Regnum or Tiara, which is described as being white and shaped like a helmet. He then mounts a horseand returns to his palace amid the acclamations of the people.
The rite seems to have changed very little in the process of time. OrdoXII[150], which is of the twelfth century, gives a little more information. On the Sunday after his election the Pope proceeds to St Peter’s, and there before the high altar is consecrated bishop by the Bishop of Ostia and other bishops. The consecration over, the Cardinal Deacon of St Laurence places the Pallium on the high altar, whence the Archdeacon takes it and invests the Pope in it saying:Accipe pallium, plenitudinem scilicet pontificalis officii, ad honorem omnipotentis Dei et gloriosissimae Virginis eius genitricis et beatorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli et sanctas Romanae ecclesiae. The Pope then celebrates Mass. After the Laudes, the Epistle and Gospel are read both in Latin and Greek. Mass being finished, the Pope returns to his palace with the Tiara on his head, but there is no indication of any ceremonial crowning having taken place.
OrdoXIV[151]of the fourteenth century is fuller. The Pope is now generally already a bishop at the time of his election. The newly-elected Pope proceeds to St Peter’s and begins Mass. After theConfiteorhe takes his seat before a faldstool between his throne and the altar, and there prayers are said for him by the Cardinal Bishops of Albano, Porto and Ostia. First the Bishop of Albano says the prayer:Deusqui adesse non dedignaris ubicumque devota mente invocaris, adesto quaesumus invocationibus nostris et huic famulo tuo N. quem ad culmen apostolicum commune iudicium tuae plebis elegit ubertatem supernae benedictionis infunde, ut sentiat se tuo munere ad hunc apicem pervenisse. Next the Bishop of Porto says the second prayer,Supplicationibus, Omnipotens Deus, effectum consuetae pietatis impende, et gratia Spiritus Sancti hunc famulum tuum N. perfunde; ut qui in capite ecclesiarum nostrae servitutis mysterio constituitur, tuae virtutis soliditate roboretur. The Bishop of Ostia says the third prayer,Deus qui Apostolum tuum Petrum inter caeteros coapostolos primatum tenere voluisti, eique universae Christianitatis molem superimposuisti; respice propitius quaesumus hunc famulum tuum N. quem de humili cathedra violenter sublimatum in thronum eiusdem apostolorum principis sublimamus: ut sicut profectibus tantae dignitatis augetur, ita virtutum meritis cumuletur; quatenus ecclesiasticae universitatis onus, te adiuvante, digne ferat, et a te qui es beatitudo tuorum meritam vicem recipiat.
The Pope now receives the reverence of the Cardinals and Prelates present, who kiss his foot and face. He then goes to the altar where the Cardinal Deacon of St Laurence invests him in the Pallium, with the form already given. He then goes up to the altar and censes it, and returns to his seat, where he receives again the reverence of the Cardinals and Prelates. He then beginsGloria in excelsis, and saysPax vobisand the Collect for the day and says secretlyfor himself another prayer[152]. Then he returns to his seat and the Laudes are sung:
Exaudi Christe.
Domino nostro N. a Deo decreto summo Pontifici et universali Papae vita.
Salvator mundi.℟.Tu illum adiuva (ter).
Sancta Maria.℟.Tu illum adiuva (bis).
Sancte Michael.℟.Tu illum adiuva, etc., etc.
After the Laudes have been sung, Mass proceeds, the Epistle and Gospel being read in Greek as well as in Latin. At the conclusion of the Mass the Pope goes in procession to the staging erected on the steps at the west end of the Basilica of St Peter. There the ‘Prior diaconorum cardinalium’ removes his mitre, and sets the Tiara or Regnum, which is by this time adorned with three crowns, on his head, the people cryingKyrie eleison. The Pope then blesses the people and returns on horseback to the Lateran.
This represents the final stage of the rite, except for one picturesque feature added in the fifteenth or sixteenth century. As the Pope leaves the chapel of St Gregory for his consecration, the Ceremoniarius lights a piece of tow on the end of a reed which flares for a moment and then goes out, saying,Pater Sancte, sic transit gloria mundi[153].
It will be seen that the Papal rite is very simple. It is clear that the ceremonies, with the Laudes and other acclamations[154], owe much to the Imperial coronation rite of early times, but have undergone very little change or development since the ninth century.
The coronation rite first appears in Constantinople, and was there a developed and religious form of the old ceremonies with which the accession of a new Emperor had always been observed. In the West a religious ceremony in connection with the accession of a king first appears in the seventh century in the Visigothic kingdom of Spain. Here we are told that the kings on their accession to the throne took an oath to govern justly, and were then solemnly anointed. But there is this noticeable point, that no mention is made of any crowning, and though the royal gear (regius cultus) is mentioned, there is no reference to an investiture of any kind.
Whence did this Spanish rite come? There is no definite evidence which will permit us to say for certain. It may be that the idea of a religious ceremony of inauguration was borrowed from Constantinople. The barbarian peoples, as they became the new nations, imitated so far as possible the institutions of the Empire, and so it is possible that the Visigothsadopted their coronation rite in imitation of the imperial rite of Constantinople. But if this was so, it is no more than the idea of a religious rite of inauguration which they borrowed. We have seen that the central feature of the Eastern rite was the coronation, and there is no evidence of any unction before the latter part of the ninth century, while on the other hand the central feature of the Visigothic rite was the anointing, and there is no reference to any crowning in Visigothic times. It is true, again, that in the later Spanish rites of Aragon and Navarre there appear very special and peculiar features which we may be tempted to refer to a Byzantine origin, but as we have seen, these features will bear quite well another interpretation. Until we have definite evidence of any connection between the two, it is unsafe to derive the Spanish rite from the Eastern. The outstanding fact is that here in Spain we have, so far as the West is concerned, the beginnings of the coronation or consecration rite of kings, and that its central characteristic clearly consists of the anointing.
In the middle of the eighth century we find France also using an inaugurating rite. In 750 Pippin-le-bref was consecrated by St Boniface as king of the Franks, and at the end of the eighth century we find on two occasions, both of which were exceptional, Saxon kings being consecrated.
The question now arises, where did the French rite, and the rite used in England originate? We have no definite evidence and can only surmise.The fact that Boniface the anointer of Pippin was an Englishman, together with the fact that it has generally been taken for granted that the so-called Pontifical of Egbert is really Egbert’s, and therefore belongs to the middle of the eighth century, has led to the tempting theory that the French rite was imported from England by St Boniface on the occasion of Pippin’s consecration as king of the Franks. But there is no evidence in support of this theory, and above all there is no evidence of the existence of an Anglo-Saxon rite of this period for St Boniface to import into France.
The consecration of Pippin is referred to, not as a coronation but as an unction. Of it we are told that ‘Pippin was elected as king according to the custom of the Franks, and was anointed by the hand of Boniface, archbishop of Mayence of holy memory, and was raised by the Franks to the kingdom in the city of Soissons[155].’ Here no formal act of coronation is mentioned. Pippin was elected ‘according to the custom of the Franks,’ and it is possible that this same ‘custom’ covers the unction, and refers the ceremony of inauguration back to pre-Carolingian times, but it is not probable, for everything points to the importation of an inauguration rite to give recognition to the new dynasty of Pippin. Possibly again in the expression ‘was raised to the kingdom’ we may see some reminiscence of an enthronization. But the central feature of the rite is clearly the anointing, and this is the only feature mentionedin the account of the second consecration of Pippin by Pope Stephen, where we are told ‘Pope Stephen confirmed Pippin as king with holy unction, and together with him anointed his two sons, Charles and Carloman, to the royal dignity[156].’
And so we find the same feature, the unction, the central point of the rite both in Spain and France. It is natural to draw the conclusion that the French rite was brought from Spain and was of the same type as the Spanish, just as the other liturgical books of France and Spain are of the same type, commonly called the ‘Gallican.’ The rite, when it was introduced into England, most probably was brought over from France, for there was considerable intercourse between the Saxon and Frankish kingdoms, and some intermarriages between the Frankish and Saxon reigning families.
To a Frankish origin may also probably be assigned the early German rites, such for example as that by which Otto of Saxony was crowned in the tenth century.
In the year 800 Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope at Rome as Roman Emperor. For this purpose it was necessary to have a coronation rite, and hitherto no Roman Emperor had ever been crowned at Rome, though a Pope had travelled into France to consecrate a Frankish king.
But this was the case of a Roman Emperor. We are told little of the details of the rite by contemporary writers. None of the Western contemporary historiansmention any anointing, though they all speak of the crowning. On the other hand a contemporary Greek writer, Theophanes, does definitely speak of the unction, but it has been suggested that he is here confusing the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor with the anointing of his son Charles as king of the Franks, which took place on the same occasion.
The central feature of the coronation rite was his crowning, and this is a feature that seems to have been lacking in the Western rites for the consecration of a king, while on the other hand it is in strict agreement with the Byzantine procedure. Charlemagne always pretended that the whole affair was unexpected by him, and that the Pope alone arranged the coronation and took him by surprise. But there can be little doubt that the whole business, except perhaps as to the details of the rite, was premeditated and arranged beforehand. Charlemagne was crowned as Roman Emperor, and therefore in theory was the colleague and the equal of the Emperor at Constantinople. Hence it would seem natural that the ceremony by which Charlemagne was crowned should follow in essential details the rite used on such an occasion at Constantinople. It may be added that there is no mention of any anointing in the earliest forms for the coronation of an Emperor at Rome. It would seem, then, that the rite by which Charlemagne was crowned, was, so far as the West was concerned, an entirely new rite, following in outline the rite used at Constantinople.
Thus then, in the West, in the ninth century, wefind two groups of rites, quite independent of each other, (1) The Spanish-Frankish rite, (2) The Roman Imperial rite. In later days these two groups speedily reacted on each other, and produced a definite type of Western rite.
The forms of the first group, French and English (no early Spanish forms are extant), probably do not represent their earliest state. There is not only an unction but a coronation, and also a formal delivery of kingly insignia, in the English rite, of Sceptre, Verge, and Crown; in the French rite, of Crown and Sceptre. It will be noticed that if the act of crowning was first observed in the West at the coronation of Charlemagne, it was very speedily introduced into the Western rite for the consecration of a king.
There is no Roman coronation rite for a king at this date, but there is a Milanese rite of the ninth century, and with some such rite probably Berengar Margrave of Friuli was crowned at Milan in 887. It is noticeable that this Milanese rite for the coronation of a king is more or less identical with the imperial rite of the same date. It is very simple, the king being crowned and invested with a sword. This Milanese rite may perhaps be taken as representing the Roman rite of the coronation of a king in its earliest form.
It is at the second stage of the rite where the interaction of the two groups of rites is most clear and evident. In the tenth century the second recensions of the English and French rite not only shew considerable developements and a much morefixed and definite form, but they are almost identical, and the French order bears certain marks of English influence. Whence did this elaboration come? In the first place the English and French rites can be taken together from this time forward. Recension by recension they have been subjected to much the same influences and are very close to each other. This was only natural considering the closeness of the communications between England and France. Between the Saxon royal families and the Court of Rome there was considerable intercommunication, and on several occasions we hear of Saxon princes going to Rome. Of Alfred we are told that he was invested by the Pope at Rome with the insignia of a Roman consul, an investiture which the Saxons seem to have mistaken for a coronation rite; and we are also told that the insignia were preserved henceforth among the royal ornaments. Of the Roman rite at this time we have no forms, in fact nothing between the simple forms of the first imperial recension and of the Milanese order and the elaborate order of Hittorp of the tenth or eleventh centuries. Yet whereas in the former of these there were investitures of Sword and Crown only, in the latter the king is invested with Sword, Ring, Verge, and Crown, and the unction is elaborate, being made on head, breast, shoulders, bends of arms, and hands. It is clear that influences have been at work in the intervening period. We know that France had great influence on the Liturgical books of Rome in the ninth and tenth centuries, and it would seem that here is yet another instance of thisinfluence, and that the elaborations in the Roman rite were at some time adopted from France and at Rome reduced into order and fixity. Doubtless at Rome even the rite underwent some developement, but it is noticeable that after the time of the rite of Hittorp’s order the rite at Rome returned to something of its earlier simplicity and drops out many of the elaborations which we find in Hittorp’s order. Thus we may perhaps presuppose an intermediate order at Rome similar to Hittorp’s order.
In the case of Edgar of England, the English writers made much of his coronation in the year 973. It was an occasion which called for special pomp and circumstance, and much stress is laid on the magnificence of the whole ceremony. It is likely that this is the occasion for which the second recension was composed, and the natural source of this developement and revision would seem to be a Roman order similar in character to that of Hittorp. This rite of the second English recension was adopted almost word for word in France in the order of Ratold.
In England and France the third recension of each country is clearly influenced from Rome, to the extent even of replacing with Roman forms some of the forms of the old national rites. In the fourth recension in both lands there is a return to the older national forms by the simple means of conflating the second and third recensions, and this fourth recension marks the final form of the rite, except in so far as in England in its English form it has since been modified as circumstances have required.
The earliest German rite, that of Otto of Saxony in the tenth century, is unfixed in character, and approximates perhaps to the earliest Frankish rites. There are investitures with Sword and Belt, Armills and Chlamys under a unique form, Sceptre and Verge, again with a unique form, and then after the anointing, with the Crown. The use of the wordChlamysis very striking and bears witness to at least a knowledge of Eastern imperial vestments. By the thirteenth century the German rite had been subjected to considerable Roman influence, as would naturally be expected from the close connection existing between Germany and Italy. The unctions are on head, breast, and shoulders, and the investitures are with Sword, Ring, Sceptre and Orb, and Crown. The German rite changed very little after this date.
The Spanish rite, as we have seen, contains much that is very ancient and also has been subjected by the fourteenth century to Roman influence, none the less preserving much of its ancient peculiar characteristics. Unfortunately we have only few forms of this rite, and it was early discontinued altogether.
The Roman imperial rite in its first state is short and simple. There are investitures with Sceptre and Crown only. No mention is made of the unction, and this fact, inconclusive in itself, accords with the absence of any mention of unction in the contemporary Western accounts of Charlemagne’s coronation. The imperial rite served as a model for the order for crowning a king when need arose, as is evident from the fact that the early ninth-century Milanese orderfor the crowning of a king is almost identical with it. In the process of its developement the order for crowning an Emperor was influenced to some extent by the order for the crowning of a king, which had been subjected early to considerable outside influences. Then in the twelfth century we find in the imperial rite investitures with Sword, Sceptre, and Crown; a little later with Ring, Crown, and Sceptre. The Ring is quite non-Roman and has been introduced from the rite for the crowning of a king, into which it has come from outside sources. The Ring however soon disappears once more from both Roman rites. In the fourteenth century the investitures are with Crown, Sceptre and Orb (without a form), and Sword. In the sixteenth century, after which date the order has varied very little, the investitures are with Sword, Sceptre and Orb (under one form), and Crown.
We have seen that in the ninth century the Milanese rite was very simple and almost identical with the Roman imperial rite. Here at Milan the Roman Emperor was nominally crowned as king of Italy, before his coronation at Rome as Emperor. In the eleventh century this rite has become very elaborate, containing the whole of the matter of ‘Egbert’s’ order, and also much that is Roman. There are investitures, of Crown, Sword, Verge, and Ring, an unusual order, which are made with Roman forms. In the fourteenth century we find the unctions restricted to the shoulders only, and the investitures are of Ring, Sword, Crown, Sceptre, and Verge. In the last Milanese recension, that of the fifteenth century,the unction is made on the head, and the investitures are of Sword, Ring, Crown, and (under one form) Sceptre and Orb. Thus the Milanese rite was subjected to the same early influences as the Roman, but never regained so much of its earlier simplicity as did the Roman rite.
The coronation rite was introduced into other lands only at a time when the Roman rite had gained a position of special prestige, and therefore these rites seem to have been more or less Roman, and yet contained some national characteristics. Of these we have only the Hungarian rite extant. Of the Scandinavian countries, and of Scotland no rite of pre-reformation date survives, but the post-reformation rites, which are based to some extent on the older rites, perhaps contain some of the older features, for example, the retention in Sweden of a key of knowledge among the Regalia.
The general conclusions as to the inter-relation of the rites would seem to be as follows. There are in the West two original groups, both independent compositions:
(1) The Spanish-French-English, derived from Spain.
(2) The Roman Imperial, which was called into existence on the occasion of the coronation of Charlemagne as Roman Emperor. From this latter is derived the Roman rite for the coronation of a king.
There seems to have been from an early date until the fourteenth century a continuous interactionof these groups upon each other, and beyond that date outside influences ceased to be exerted, and whatever developement may have taken place in any particular rite was due to natural and internal developement.
At this day in the West the rite is retained in England and Austria, that used in Austria being the order of the Roman Pontifical.
The only other country, except Russia, in which a coronation rite survives is Norway.
The date at which an unction was introduced into the Eastern rite is a matter of uncertainty. There is no definite statement to be found that the Eastern Emperors were anointed before the time of the intruding Latin Emperor Baldwin I who was crowned in 1214, and the rite by which Baldwin was crowned was a Western rite. There is no mention of any anointing even in the rubrics of the twelfth century Euchologion. The first definite reference to the anointing of the Eastern Emperor is found in the account of the rite given by Codinus, in which we are told that he was anointed on the head in the form of a cross.
Mr Brightman thinks that there was no anointing in the Greek rite before the twelfth century, but it is difficult to believe that this was the case[157].
In the earliest accounts of the Eastern Coronations there is nothing at all said that can be in anyway construed as implying any anointing. In the year 602 Theodosius the son of the Emperor Maurice, fleeing for refuge to the Persian monarch Chosroes, ‘was received with great honour by the king, and he (Chosroes) commanded the Catholicos to bring him to the Church, and that the crown of the Empire should be set upon the altar, and then set upon his head, according to the custom of the Romans[158].’ Since the detail of the crown being deposited on the altar is given in this passage, it is most improbable that all reference to an anointing would have been passed over, had such anointing been at this date ‘the custom of the Romans.’
On the other hand St Gregory the Great, commenting on the anointing of Saul, speaks of the anointing of kings in his own day; ‘“Then Samuel took a vial of oil and poured it upon his head.” This, surely, is signified by this unction, which is even now actually seen (materialiter exhibetur) in holy Church; for he who is set at the head of affairs (qui in culmine ponitur) receives the sacraments of unction.... Let the head of the king, then, be anointed, because the mind is to be filled with spiritual grace. Let him have oil in his anointing, let him have abundant mercy, and let it be preferred by him before other virtues[159].’
Here the expression ‘materialiter exhibetur’ is hardly compatible with figurative language. But if St Gregory is thinking of unction in a coronationrite, what is the rite which he has in his mind? Is he thinking of the rite as used in the Spanish Visigothic kingdom[160], in which in all probability unction already found a place? Or is he thinking of the imperial rite of Constantinople? It seems hardly likely that he should speak in such general terms with only the Spanish practice in his mind; but on the other hand there is not a vestige of any other evidence in favour of any Constantinopolitan use of unction. It is true that the ‘Prayer over the Chlamys’ would quite cover the use of an anointing, including as it does such an expression as χρίσαι καταξίωσον τῷ ἐλαίῳ ἀγαλλιάσεως, but it is equally true that these words might quite naturally bear a merely metaphorical significance.
It is not until the ninth century that we seem to get upon more solid ground, when Photius, in a letter written during his exile to the Emperor Basil the Macedonian (867-886), speaks of the χρίσμα καὶ χειροθεσίαν βασιλείας[161]. These words, taken in connection with a sentence at the end of the same letter in which he speaks of himself as ‘he at whose hands both he (Basil) and the Empress were anointed with the Chrism of the Empire (αὐτός τε καὶ ἡ βασιλὶς τὸ χρίσμα τῆς βασιλείας ἐχρίσθη),’ make it very difficultto believe that Photius is here using simply figurative language[162]. It is much more natural to take his words literally and to conclude from them that in the ninth century unction was already included in the rite of Constantinople.
The references of Eastern writers to the unction of Charlemagne have already been mentioned. But since they all lay stress on the manner of that anointing no conclusion can safely be drawn from their language that unction was unknown at that time in the Eastern rite.
There remains the consideration of the Abyssinian use. Abyssinia was cut off by the Arab conquest of Egypt in the seventh century from all communication with Constantinople, and there is no evidence of the use of unction in coronations at Constantinople at that time. It is on the whole, as has been suggested in a preceding chapter, more probable that the Abyssinian unction was an independent Abyssinian developement, more especially as at one time there were strong Jewish influences at work in that country, the effect of which remains to this day clearly stamped on the face of Abyssinian Christianity.
As regards the West, we know that Unction was used at the sacring of the Visigothic kings in the eighth century and that it was used at the coronation of Pippin by Archbishop Boniface in the middle of the eighth century. In fact from the time of theoriginal introduction of the coronation rite into the West, an unction seems to have been one of its features, and it is quite possible that it may have been an independent developement in the West. But is it so easy to think of the unction in the Eastern coronation rite as a feature borrowed from the West?
So we must leave it at this, that while an unction was used in Spain in the seventh century, and is found in all Western coronation rites, on the other hand with regard to the East we can only say that it appears probably in the ninth century in the case of Basil the Macedonian, whatever may be the probabilities or possibilities of any earlier use of it.
All the Western coronation vestments are ultimately derived from the Byzantine use. The imperial Byzantine vestments[163]seem to be elaborations of the older official Roman dress. They appear to have become more or less fixed by the ninth century, and comprised the following:
1. The purple Buskins or Leggings.
2. The scarlet Shoes, originally a senatorial badge.
3. The Tunic or χιτών, probably white.
4. The Dibetesion or Sakkos, a gorgeous tunic very much like a dalmatic.
5. The Loros or Diadema, which was originally a foldedtoga picta, but became a long embroidered scarf folded about the neck and body with one end pendent in front and the other over the left arm.
6. The Chlamys, or imperial purple, by the thirteenth century a great cloak powdered with eagles and fastened on the right shoulder. In the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus the Loros and Chlamys were not worn together, perhaps for the sake of convenience, but they were so worn together in the thirteenth century, though by the fourteenth century the Chlamys was again abandoned and the Sakkos sufficed for the imperial purple.
There can be no doubt that the Western regal and imperial vestments are derived from the Eastern robes, for there is a close similarity between the two, though in process of time some of the least convenient have been gradually abandoned.
The English vestments are as follows[164]:
1. Buskins and Hose, now no longer used.
2. Gloves.
3. The Colobium sindonis, a linen vestment of the shape of an alb, the Eastern χιτών. This vestment, which had sleeves up to the time of James II, is now sleeveless, and is also now divided at the side so that it can be put on the monarch, without being put over his head, and fastened on the shoulder.
4. The Tunicle or Dalmatic, which is the vestment worn by sub-deacon, deacon and bishop at mass. This again has in modern times been divided down the middle for convenience in putting on. This vestment is the Eastern Sakkos.
5. The Armill, or Armills. This is very like a stole, and is put round the neck and fastened at the elbows. It is the Eastern Loros[165]. There is however some confusion in the name of this ornament, for it is sometimes used in the plural, and perhaps in that case of the royal Bracelets, which have been long discarded.
6. The imperial Mantle or Pall is more like a cope than anything else. It is the Eastern Chlamys.
The German imperial vesture was much the same. The Emperor Charles V was arrayed at his coronation as follows[166]:
1. The Tunica talaris, a close undergarment of red.
2. The Alba camisia, a rochet or alb-like vestment with sleeves.
3. The Dalmatic.
4. The Armill, like but broader than a stole.
5. The purple Pallium.
6. Red Gloves.
7. Scarlet Buskins.
It may be mentioned that the Greek wordChlamysis actually used for the imperial mantle in the account of the coronation of Otto of Saxony in the tenth century.
The French vestments as used at the coronation of Charles V of France are described in the order used on the occasion[167].
1. A Tunica serica, which is apparently part of his ordinary habit and is the tunica talaris.
2. Tunica, in modum tunicalis quo utuntur subdiaconi.
3. Sokkos, ‘fere in modum cappe.’
4. Buskins.
5. Gloves.
The ornaments of the kings of Aragon were[168]:
1. An ample Camisa like a ‘Roman rochet,’ evidently an undergarment.
2. An Amice of linen.
3. A long Camisa of white linen.
4. A Girdle.
5. A Maniple on the left wrist.
6. A Stole over the left shoulder hanging before and behind, i.e., an Armill.
7. A Tunicle.
8. A Dalmatic.
The Regalia in the East seem to have consisted of the Crown and the Shield and Spear. Symeon of Thessalonica (c. 1400) also speaks of a Rod of light wood, and also of the Akakia among the imperialornaments. The Akakia was a purple bag containing earth which was put into the hand of the Emperor as a reminder of corruptibility, of which the Western Orb is perhaps the descendant[169]. The Crown was shaped like a helmet and partially closed in at the top.
The Western Regalia comprise:
1. The Crown, called still among the Anglo-Saxons Stemma or Galeus, sufficiently shewing the provenance of this ornament. The Roman imperial Crown seems to have been much after the shape of the Eastern Stemma. The English Crown is a fairly narrow band surmounted by a cross.
2. The Sceptre.
3. The Verge or Staff. In France the Staff was a rod of ivory surmounted by an open hand and called the Main de justice.
4. The Orb, which is generally held to be another form of the Sceptre, but is more probably an elaborated form of the Greek Akakia. The Orb was given at first without any form, but in the English use a form has been introduced comparatively lately.
5. The Ring, which was placed on the ‘medicinal,’ or marriage finger.
6. The Sword and Spurs, which perhaps originally belonged to the order for the making of a knight which was early incorporated into the coronationrite. It may be noticed that in the conservative rite of Aragon the Shield and Spear, the arms of the Eastern emperors, still appear among the regal weapons as well as the sword.
The question arises as to how far the vestments mentioned in the above lists are to be regarded as ecclesiastical. Many have seen in them an ecclesiastical vesture stamping the monarch after his anointing as at least a quasi-ecclesiastical person. The vestments are undoubtedly very similar to the mass vestments, and this similarity was noticed and remarked upon even in the middle ages. Both in England and France the appearance of the king vested in the royal vestments has been compared to a bishop vested for mass, and to the ordinary beholder this comparison would most naturally occur. But as a matter of fact, if one vesture is to be regarded as descended from another, it is the episcopal which is descended from the imperial, and not vice versa. The true fact however seems to be that both are descended from a common ancestor. The ecclesiastical vestments represent a conservative retention on the part of the Church of a vesture which the clergy and laity once used in common. The Church has retained the old lay vestments, and has elaborated them in the process of time. The imperial vestments are derived from the official dress of the Roman republic, again elaborated. The official dress of the Roman republic was itself an elaboration of the ordinary dress of the Roman citizen. Of ecclesiastical vestments the chasuble and cope seem to havebeen derived from the ordinary lay vesture, while on the other hand the dalmatic and pallium and perhaps the stole are derived from the official dress, and have always appeared in a gorgeous form among the vestments of the Eastern Emperor. The dalmatic, familiar in the West as the dress of the deacon, and originally granted as a privilege to the deacons of the Roman Church only, is in the East the distinctive vestment of the bishop. The pallium or loros, once the badge of the Roman Consul, and later of the Emperor, granted at first by imperial permission to the most eminent prelates of the Church, still appears as the royal Armill on the one hand, and as a distinguishing badge of a bishop in the East, while in the West it has long been granted by the Pope chiefly to metropolitans as a mark of honour and a symbol of jurisdiction.
Thus really the episcopal and the imperial vestments are cousins: and just as the rites, outwardly similar, of the consecration of a bishop and the consecration of a king, tended to be assimilated, so the vestures, in their very origin derived ultimately from the same source, shewed a natural tendency to influence each other: and it is doubtless this similarity of rite and vesture that is the chief reason for the theory that has been held by some, that the anointed monarch is a quasi-ecclesiastical personage, or to use technical language, a Mixta Persona.
There remains to be considered the meaning of the rite of the consecration or coronation of a king. We have seen that an exalted idea of kingship was more or less universal before the times of Christianity. In pre-Christian times the king was regarded as far above ordinary men by virtue of his office, which embraced priestly functions, and was looked upon as being the vice-gerent of God. In the Roman Empire from the time of Julius and Augustus the Emperor was also Pontifex Maximus, the spiritual as well as the civil head of the Empire; his effigy was sacred; temples were erected to him or to his Genius; during his lifetime he received semi-divine honours, and on his death he was solemnly enrolled among the company of the gods. The autocrat of the world was the representative of God on earth. The Roman Empire itself was mysterious, sacred, and eternal. The Christians also accepted this theory and followed St Paul’s teaching that ‘the powers that be are ordained by God,’ equally with their non-Christian fellow-citizens regarding Caesar in some sense at leastas the representative of divine law and order in the natural world, and as being therefore the vice-gerent of God[170]. When the Emperors became Christian the Church naturally found herself able to accept this doctrine with enthusiasm and without restriction, and the Emperor was acknowledged as spiritual as well as civil ruler. Thus we find that the Council of Nicea had no hesitation in admitting the right of the Emperor to control the Church, and Constantine claiming to be a sort ofEpiscopus episcoporumappointed by God[171]. This conception of the Emperor has never been lost by the Eastern Church.
We have seen that there was a ceremonial in pre-Christian times on the accession of an Emperor. The Church very naturally transformed this inauguration ceremony into a Christian rite in much the same way as the civil marriage ceremony was made religious by the addition to it of the benediction of the Church. The accession of an Emperor was by the will of God. The Church gave him her solemn benediction at the outset of his career. It is the idea of a benediction rather than a consecration that the earliest Eastern rites, and even the earlier Western rites, seem to contemplate. At the same time the Church by her benediction proclaimed the new Emperor as the chosen of God, thereby affording a certain stability to his throne and in some degree offering some assurance of peace to Empire and Church. The idea of a consecration gradually evolved itself, and rapidly developed whenthe use of an unction was introduced. We have seen that there is some uncertainty as to the date of this introduction. St Gregory the Great not only speaks of the anointing of rulers as a well-known fact, but certainly regards it as being in some sort sacramental, just as St Augustine had long before asserted that the Jewish unction conferred grace on its recipients[172]. Photius evidently regarded the Emperor as being in some way set apart and solemnly consecrated by the inauguration rite. But there still remained the practical idea of obtaining general recognition as Emperor by the performance of the ceremony, for the Emperors were crowned immediately on their accession. This idea is just as manifest in the West as in the East. There we see that Pippin in his anxiety to obtain a definite recognition and acceptance of his dynasty when the Merovingianfainéantswere set aside, was anointed or consecrated on two different occasions, by St Boniface, and secondly by the Pope himself, who came across the Alps for the purpose. In the same way we find Richard I of England being crowned a second time on his return from his captivity, this second coronation being apparently regarded as necessary in view of the fact that his brother John had acted at least as kingde facto. Henry II was crowned no less than three times. Henry III was crowned twice. All these cases of repeated coronations were intended to procurethe firm establishment of the king upon his throne rather than for any other reason. Or again a king might be held to have forfeited his throne by some grievous crime, as in the case of Lothair II of Lotharingia, but on amendment might be confirmed upon his throne by a reconsecration, as was Lothair by Archbishop Hincmar.
But in process of time in the two oldest monarchical states, England and France, a theory came to be held that the consecration of a king was a consecration proper, and was to be ranked with the Sacrament of Order as conferring character, and that after his consecration the king was no longer a layman but at least aMixta Persona. This view, popular though it was in England and France, was never accepted by authority, and Lyndwood mentions it as being taught only ‘secundum quosdam’; while St Thomas lays down that only the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Order confer character, thus excluding the consecration of a king. On the other hand, in the rite of Navarre the unction is spoken of as ‘the Sacrament of unction.’
We find an excellent example of the popular belief in the effect of the consecration in the French and English rite of the Healing. In France the power of the king to heal by his touch was certainly generally attributed to the fact that he had been anointed. Though this theory was also largely held in England, there was also the counter and perhaps more general view held, that the power of healing was possessed in virtue of rightful succession fromthe Confessor; on the other hand the kings of England blessed cramp rings by rubbing them in their anointed hands, with a prayer for their consecration.
Three facts may be regarded as contributing towards this common belief in England and France that the consecration of a king was a sort of ordination; the fact that he was anointed ‘as prophets, priests and kings were anointed,’ according to the language of the form in most of the orders; the fact that the regal vestments were very like those of a bishop; and the fact that there is considerable similarity between the rite of the consecration of a king and that of the consecration of a bishop. The king was anointed ‘as prophets, priests and kings were anointed.’ Unction was used in the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Order, all of which conferred character. It was difficult to explain what was the meaning of the unction of a king. Grosseteste[173]held that it bestowed grace, the sevenfold gift of the Holy Spirit. So far as there was any official doctrine on the subject, it seems that it was that the unction of a king was a Sacramental, a means by which grace might be obtained. The Roman Church seems to have always discouraged the theory that it was in any way an ordination. The fact that in the East the Emperor took part in the procession as a Deputatus proves very little, and the fact that the Western Emperors sometimes read the Epistle at their coronation if anything goes against the theory of ordination,for if the Emperor was to be regarded as in any way ‘in Orders,’ surely his Orders would have ranked above the sub-diaconate.
We have already seen that the royal and sacerdotal vestments are closely related in their origin, and many of them more or less identical both in form and name, and therefore it is not surprising that men should have thought that this must mean that the king was in some way a minister of the Church. For example, a French order describes the Tunic, Dalmatic, and Pallium (Royal Mantle) of a king as ‘celuy qui représente le soubsdiacre, celuy qui représente le diacre, et le manteau royal représentant la chasuble.’ Again an English king is described by a lay witness as being arrayed at the time of his coronation like a bishop vested for Mass.
There is certainly a general similarity between the rite of the consecration of a bishop, and the rite of the consecration of a king. It was undoubtedly this similarity that was the chief ground for the doctrine that an anointed king was a ‘mixta persona,’ a view that is still maintained by some. The closeness of the structure of the two rites is seen at a glance.
It will be seen that the similarity in the structure of the rites is striking, and the closeness in the forms of the two rites is equally noticeable.
The bishop, after the consecration prayer, is anointed on the head with chrism. The king, after the consecration prayer, is anointed on head, breast, etc., with chrism according to the English and French rites, with oil according to the Roman use. The Roman form used at the anointing of a bishop isUngatur et consecretur caput tuum caelesti benedictione, ordine pontificali, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti; a Roman form at the anointing of a king runsUngo te in regem de oleo sanctificato in nomine, etc. The hands of a bishop are anointed with the formUngantur manus istae de oleo sanctificato et chrismate sanctificationis sicut unxit Samuel David Regem et Prophetam, ita ungantur et consecrentur; in the case of a king the general form runsUngantur manus istae de oleo sanctificato unde uncti fuerunt reges et prophetae et sicut unxit David in regem, etc. The Ring is delivered to a bishop with the wordsAccipe anulum discretionis et honoris fidei signum, etc.; to a king with the wordsAccipe regiae dignitatis anulum et per hunc in te catholicae fideicognosce signaculum, etc. The Pastoral staff is delivered to a bishop with the wordsAccipe baculum regiminis signum, ut imbecilles consolides, titubantes confirmes, pravos corrigas, rectos dirigas, etc.; compare with this the form with which the Verge or Rod is delivered to the king,Accipe virgam virtutis atque aequitatis, qua intelligas mulcere pios et terrere reprobos, etc. Finally the bishop is seated ‘in capite sedium episcoporum’ and the king is enthroned.