Project Gutenberg's Ecclesiastical Vestments, by R. A. S. Macalister

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org.  If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.

Title: Ecclesiastical Vestments
       Their development and history

Author: R. A. S. Macalister

Release Date: February 4, 2018 [EBook #56494]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF-8

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS ***




Produced by deaurider, Chris Pinfield, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)





Transcriber's Note.

Apparent typographical errors have been corrected.

Italics are indicated by _underscores_ and transliterated Greek by
=equal signs=. Small capitals have been replaced by full capitals.
Paragraphs in smaller font have been indented.

Combining characters have been used to add tildes and macrons to some
letters. They may not work properly in some applications. The same
limitation applies to a composite character that represents a pointed
cap.

The Errata that follow the List of Illustrations have not been
incorporated in the text.


[Illustration]


The Camden Library.

 EDITED BY
 G. LAURENCE GOMME, F.S.A.,
 AND
 T. FAIRMAN ORDISH, F.S.A.


[Illustration: BRASS OF SIMON DE WENSLAGH (CIRC. 1360), WENSLEY,
YORKSHIRE (showing the Eucharistic vestments of a priest of the Western
Church).]


 _THE CAMDEN LIBRARY_

 ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS:
 Their Development and History

 BY
 R. A. S. MACALISTER, M.A.
 _Member of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland_


[Illustration]


 LONDON:
 ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW
 1896


[Illustration]




PREFACE


Within comparatively recent years the discovery has been made that it is
possible to treat the Bible, for critical purposes, as though it were an
ordinary item of national literature, while maintaining a fitting
reverence for it as the inspired Word; and that by so doing a flood of
sidelight is cast upon it which illuminates the obscurity of some of its
most difficult passages.

So, to compare lesser things with greater, it is possible and advisable
to discard all feeling of ecclesiasticism (so to term it) when speaking
of ecclesiastical antiquities. The science of ecclesiology is of
comparatively recent growth, and it has hitherto suffered much at the
hands of those who have approached it not so much to learn the plain
lessons it teaches, as to force it to declare the existence or
non-existence in early or mediaeval times of certain rites and
observances. While we should treat ancient churches and their furniture
with respect—a respect which should not be denied to the despised,
though often quaint and interesting, high pews and west galleries—as
being edifices or instruments formed for the use of the worshippers of
God, yet for antiquarian purposes they should be examined and dissected
in exactly the same spirit as that in which we investigate the temples
of ancient Greece, or the stone weapons of prehistoric man. In this
spirit the author of the present book has worked.

Ecclesiology, besides its sentimental connection with ecclesiasticism,
possesses many features which render it the most popular branch of the
great all-embracing science of archaeology. The objects with which it is
concerned appeal strongly to the senses; the finest works of the
architect, the limner, the silversmith, the engraver, the embroiderer,
the illuminator, and the musician, come within its scope; they are
accessible to all who live within reach of an ancient church or a
moderately good museum, and the pleasant excursions and companionships
with which its votaries are favoured invest its pursuit with the
happiest associations. Above all, it lacks that terrible obstacle which
lies at the threshold of almost every other subject of serious
archaeological study—the necessity of attaining perfection in at least
one foreign language. No one can form more than the merest _dilettante_
acquaintance with the antiquities of India, Egypt, Greece, Ireland, or
any other country, without mastering the language in which the records
of the country are written; but the merest smattering of mediaeval
dog-Latin is quite sufficient to open the door to high (not, perhaps,
_the highest_) attainments in ecclesiology.

These manifold attractions have resulted in hampering the study of
ecclesiology with a serious drawback, which is wanting in nearly all the
other branches of archaeology. The investigation of the marvellous
antiquities of the four countries just mentioned—or, indeed, of almost
any other country—can be undertaken by a student with the certainty that
if he applies himself to it sufficiently to master the many difficulties
which will, no doubt, present themselves, he will be in a position to
break ground as yet untouched; his knowledge will enable him to make
original discoveries of his own. But it is far otherwise in
ecclesiology. So easily understood are the facts of the subject (except
in a few obscure points relating to the early Church); so definite are
the statements of the numberless records, when the vagaries of
symbolical theorizers are sifted away from them; so countless has been,
and is, the army of students, that the scope for research-work is
reduced to a minimum; hardly anything is left for the originally-minded
worker but to discover the personal names of the different artists whose
handiworks he sees before him, or else to propound some startling and
revolutionary theory respecting the use of low-side windows or Easter
sepulchres.

In the subdivision of ecclesiology with which this book is concerned,
originality, whether of fact or treatment, is practically impossible.
This work cannot claim to be more than a compilation, but it can claim
to fill a space not exactly occupied by any other book, in that it gives
in a brief and convenient form the principal facts connected with
vestments and their use throughout the chief subdivisions of the
Christian Church; it is not, as are almost all other works on the
subject, confined to one branch only, or at most to the great Churches
of the West and the East, but includes as well the smaller and more
isolated communities, and those branches of the Universal Church which
have undergone reformation.

Exception may possibly be taken to the manner in which the alleged
symbolism of vestments has been treated. But it is impossible to
overlook the facts. If, as is now the opinion of every leading
ecclesiologist, the vestments are the natural result of evolution from
civil Roman costume, it is clearly ludicrous to suppose that when they
were first worn they possessed the symbolical meanings they are alleged
to bear; the symbolism is as much an accretion as are the jewels and the
embroidery of the middle ages. Moreover, the symbolical meanings
attached to them are so obviously the 'private judgments' of the writers
who describe them, and are so irreconcilable and so far-fetched, that to
the unbiased mind they do not appear worthy of serious treatment.

In some recent books on ecclesiological and antiquarian matters Greek
words are transliterated into English characters. This practice has not
been followed in the present work because of the unsatisfactory
appearance of Greek words in Roman dress, and because the Greek alphabet
is familiar to all students. Words of other languages, such as Russian
or Armenian, are, however, expressed in English letters, as their
alphabets are not so well known, and they are not so easily set up in
native type.

I must record my indebtedness to my lamented friend the late Prof.
Middleton for useful hints and assistance; to Dr F. R. Fairbank, of St
Leonard's-on-Sea, for many notes and references which have been of great
value to me, and especially for the loan of several blocks; to Mr W. J.
Kaye for the loan of a rubbing of the Sessay brass; to the Rev. S.
Schechter for kind assistance in questions which arose in the first
chapter; to the Rev. A. D. A. van Scheltema for information regarding
the Church of Holland; and for many helps and suggestions to my father,
to whom, in acknowledgment of the interest he has throughout shown in
the preparation of the book, I wish to dedicate it. A list of the
principal works laid under contribution is given in an Appendix.

R. A. S. M.


[Illustration]

[Illustration]




CONTENTS


                                                                    PAGE
 CHAPTER I.
 THE GENESIS OF ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS                               1

 CHAPTER II.
 THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS
 IN THE WESTERN CHURCH                                                24

 CHAPTER III.
 THE FINAL FORM OF VESTMENTS IN THE WESTERN CHURCH                    60

 CHAPTER IV.
 THE HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROCESSIONAL
 VESTMENTS; THE ORNAMENTATION OF VESTMENTS                           137

 CHAPTER V.
 THE VESTMENTS OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES                               175

 CHAPTER VI.
 THE VESTMENTS OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES                              192

 CHAPTER VII.
 THE RITUAL USES OF VESTMENTS                                        211

 APPENDIX I.
 COSTUMES OF THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS                                    235
 MEDIAEVAL UNIVERSITY COSTUME                                        253

 APPENDIX II.
 AN INDEX OF SYNONYMOUS TERMS                                        257

 APPENDIX III.
 A LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO IN THE
 COMPILATION OF THIS WORK                                            258

 INDEX                                                               262


[Illustration]

[Illustration]




 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
 (_For full titles of sources followed see Appendix III_)


 FIG.                                                               PAGE

     BRASS OF SIMON DE WENSLAGH, WENSLEY, YORKS            _Frontispiece_

  1. VESTMENTS OF THE JEWISH PRIESTHOOD. (_After Bock_)                5

  2. BISHOP ADMINISTERING BAPTISM. (_Marriott_)                       37

  3. ECCLESIASTICS FROM THE MOSAICS IN S VITALE, RAVENNA.
       (_Rock_)                                                       46

  4. EFFIGY OF A ROMAN CITIZEN IN CAERLEON MUSEUM. (_Bloxam_)         49

  5. POPE GREGORY THE GREAT WITH PASTORAL STAFF.
       (_Smith and Cheetham_)                                         57

  6. STOLE-ENDS, SHOWING VARIETIES IN FORM AND ORNAMENT.
       (_Archæological Association Journal_)                          73

  7. ARCHBISHOP STIGAND, FROM THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY. (_Willemin_)       76

  8. DEACON IN EPISCOPAL DALMATIC. (_Building News_)                  78

  9. DEACON IN DIACONAL DALMATIC. (_Rock_)                            78

 10. SIR PETER LEGH, KNIGHT AND PRIEST. (_Haines_)                    84

 11. BISHOP WAYNFLETE'S EPISCOPAL SANDAL. (_Rock_)                    92

 12. S DUNSTAN (FROM A MS. IN THE COTTONIAN LIBRARY).
       (_Marriott_)                                                   97

 13. MONUMENT OF ALBRECHT VON BRANDENBURG, MAYENCE                   101

 14. BISHOP WAYNFLETE'S EPISCOPAL STOCKING. (_Rock_)                 105

 15. FIGURE OF A POPE (_temp._ INNOCENT III). (_Rock_)               108

 16. A BISHOP, SALISBURY CATHEDRAL. (_Bloxam_)                       117

 17. MONUMENT OF DIETHER VON ISENBURG, MAYENCE                       117

 18. PASTORAL STAFF AND MITRA PRETIOSA. (_Bloxam_)                   120

 19. BRASS OF ARCHDEACON MAGNUS, SESSAY, YORKSHIRE                   147

 20.  BRASS OF ROBERT BRASSIE, KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE             150

 21. CHRYSOME CHILD. (_Haines_)                                      172

 22. A COPE-CHEST, YORK MINSTER. (_Archæological
       Association Journal_)                                         173

 23. ARMENIAN PRIEST. (_Fortescue_)                                  177

 24. MALABAR PRIEST. (_Howard_)                                      178

 25-28. ILLUSTRATIONS  OF ECCLESIASTICS OF  THE EASTERN
          CHURCH. (_King_)                                       179-185

 29. A SYNOD MEETING OF THE REFORMED CHURCH
       OF FRANCE. (_Quick_)                                          205

 30. DEACON IN FOLDED CHASUBLE, WELLS CATHEDRAL.
       (_Archæologia_)                                               216


[Illustration]




ERRATA.


Page 47, line 2, _for_ maniple _read_ mappula.

Page 63, line 2, _for_ Walfrid _read_ Walafrid.

Page 74, line 1 of footnote, _for_ Goodrich _read_ Goodrick.

Page 77, line 3 of footnote, _for_ Whittlesford read Milton.

Page 106, last line, _for_ succinctorium _read_ subcingulum (also called
'succinctorium').

Page 110, line 13, _for_ bishops _read_ ecclesiastics.


[Illustration]


_ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS._




CHAPTER I.

THE GENESIS OF ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS.


The study of ecclesiastical history or antiquities can be pursued from
either of two standpoints. We may take into account those essentially
religious or theological elements which distinguish this subject from
all other branches of antiquarian science, and keep them prominently
before us during our investigations; or else, disregarding those
elements more or less completely, we may consider the subject wholly
from the point of view of the antiquary.

As a general rule, those investigators who lay stress on the
_ecclesiastical_ rather than on the _antiquarian_ side of ecclesiology
and its various subdivisions have been attracted to the study not so
much by the intrinsic interest which, in some degree, every branch of
archæology possesses, as by the wish to settle controversial questions
relating to Church doctrine, usage, or discipline. This is especially
true of the important section of ecclesiology with which these pages are
concerned. There are two schools into which the students of Church
vestments may be divided—the ritualistic and the antiquarian. Each
strives to attain full knowledge of the subject, and the means employed
by both schools are the same—the evidence drawn from a patient
comparison of the works of authors and artists of successive periods.
But while those of the purely antiquarian school regard the knowledge
thus gained as in itself the chief end of their researches, those of the
other consider it rather as a stepping-stone, leading to proofs of the
Divine appointment of the use of vestments, and indicating regulations
to govern the usage of vestments in the modern Church.

It is not surprising that the results of the investigations of two
schools, having aims so diverse in view, should be mutually
incompatible. According to the views of some members of the ritualistic
school, the vestments of the Christian Church were modelled directly
upon the vestments of the Jewish priesthood; and as minute instructions
for the shapes and usage of the latter were laid down in the
divinely-revealed laws of Moses, they thus claim an at least indirect
Divine appointment for the Christian vestments. The antiquarian party,
on the other hand, are unanimous in holding that the vestments of the
Christian Church were evolved, by a natural process, from the ordinary
costume of a Roman citizen of the first or second century of our era.

The consideration of these two theories must first occupy our attention.
Neither is absolutely correct; for, although the balance of probability
is enormously in favour of the second view, yet this theory, in the form
in which it is often stated, does not cover certain changes which were
made in the textures, outlines, and number of the vestments while the
Church was yet comparatively young. These changes were all introduced to
assimilate, as far as possible, the Jewish and Christian systems; and
thus it may be said that both views contain an element of truth.

The theory of a Levitical origin is the older of the two; in fact, it
was the first, and for many years the only, solution proposed. We shall
therefore at the outset devote a page or two to considering its merits.
Very few, even among the students of the ritualistic school, now hold it
absolutely. The weight of argument which can be brought to bear against
it is so great that it is almost universally abandoned as untenable.

For comparative purposes, it will be necessary at this stage to
introduce a short descriptive catalogue of the vestments of the
Levitical priesthood, as prescribed in the Book of Exodus (chap.
xxviii). Josephus ('Antiquities,' iii 7) is also a _locus classicus_ on
the subject, and some additional particulars from that source are here
incorporated:

I. _The Drawers or 'Breeches' of Linen._

II. _The Tunic of Linen_ ('coat of fine linen,' Exod. xxviii
39).—Josephus tells us that this tunic was of fine linen or flax
doubled; that it reached to the feet, fitting close to the body, and was
furnished with tight sleeves. It was girded to the breast, a little
above the level of the elbows, by

III. _The Girdle._—This was a strip of linen which, according to
Josephus, was four fingers broad; according to Maimonides,[1] three
fingers broad and thirty-two cubits long. It was wound many times round
the body; the ends were then tied over the breast and hung down to the
feet, except when the priest was engaged in sacrifice or other service,
in which case he threw it over his left shoulder, so that it should not
impede him in his duty. It was elaborately embroidered with flowers,
worked in scarlet, purple, and blue threads.

IV. _The Priest's Cap_ ('bonnet,' Exod. xxviii 40).—This was an ordinary
turban, fastened round the head. The description given by Josephus is
clear and detailed. He says: 'Upon his head he wears a cap, not brought
to a conic form nor encircling the whole head, but still covering more
than half of it, which is called _mesnaemphthes_; and its make is such
that it seemeth to be a crown [garland], being made of thick swathes,
but the contexture is of linen, and it is doubled round many times and
sewed together; besides which, a piece of fine linen covers the cap from
the whole upper part, and reaches down to the forehead and hides the
seams of the swathes, which otherwise would appear improperly.'[2]

[Illustration: FIG. 1.—VESTMENTS OF THE JEWISH PRIESTHOOD.]

These four vestments constituted the complete equipment of the ordinary
Jewish priest, as prescribed in the Mosaic law. The high-priest,
however, added four more, which were as follows:

V. _The Tunic of Blue_ ('robe of the ephod,' Exod. xxviii 31).—This was
a long garment which, according to some authorities, reached to the
feet, but according to others to the knees only. It was woven in one
piece, with an aperture through which the head of the wearer was passed;
this aperture was guarded by a binding or braid to prevent it from
tearing. Round the lower hem of this garment were hung golden bells and
models of pomegranates, alternating one with another. The meaning of
this remarkable ornament is not clear, and several explanations have
been advanced to account for it; all, however, fanciful, and not worth
recording here.

VI. _The Ephod_, which was at once the most elaborate and the most
important of the Jewish vestments, is more fully described than any of
the rest. The superiority of this vestment over the others is due to the
part which it, and the breastplate intimately connected with it, played
in the mysterious revelations by which the children of Israel were
guided during the period of the Theocracy. For us, however, it would be
as irrelevant as it would be futile to speculate on the nature of the
revelation, or the instrumentality of the ephod in indicating the Divine
will to the priest. We are here concerned only with the ephod as an
element in the equipment of the high-priest, with its shape, and with
such particulars of its ritual use as we can find directly stated in the
different authorities.

'The ephod,' says Josephus, was 'woven to the depth of a cubit, of
several colours [gold, blue, purple, and scarlet are enumerated in
Exodus]; it was made with sleeves also; nor did it appear to be at all
differently made from a short coat.'[3] The vestment seems to have
consisted of two pieces, a front and a back, which were buttoned
together by two onyx stones, one on each shoulder, set in bezils or
'ouches,' and engraved with the names of the twelve tribes, six on one,
six on the other. Round the waist was passed a girdle, which was an
essential part of the vestment—indeed, Josephus tells us that the girdle
and the ephod were sewn together. This girdle, which was made of
materials similar to those which constituted the ephod, seems to have
been embroidered elaborately with coloured threads.

The ritual uses of the ephod, even apart from its supernatural
associations, are obscure. It is distinctly implied both in Exodus and
by Josephus that the vestment was intended for the use of the
high-priest alone; yet we find allusions scattered through the early
historical books of the Old Testament which clearly indicate that it was
worn by others as well. Thus, we read in 1 Sam. xxii 18 that Doeg,
commanded by Saul to fall on the priests who had assisted David, 'slew
... fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod.' Again,
Samuel, when a child in the service of the priests, 'ministered before
the Lord ... girded with a linen ephod' (1 Sam. ii 18). Further, we read
that King David himself, when he escorted the ark from the house of
Obed-Edom to Jerusalem, was 'girded with a linen ephod.' In these three
passages we read of an ephod being worn by the minor priest, the
acolyte, and the layman, for none of whom it was originally intended.
The most probable explanation seems to be that the ephod, originally
intended as a vestment for the high-priest alone, was gradually assumed,
probably in a less elaborate form, by the minor priests as well—when or
how we cannot say. This explanation assumes that the regulation was
originally laid down as it stands in Exodus; but it is possible that the
more stringent restrictions may not be earlier than the recension of
Ezra.

We learn from the incidents of Gideon (Judg. viii 27) and of Micah
(Judg. xvii 5; xviii 14 _et seq._) that the ephod, or, rather, copies of
it, early became objects of superstitious veneration. In the two latter
passages quoted, as well as in Hos. v 4, the vestment is coupled with
the teraphim or _penates_, to the worship of which the Israelites showed
marked inclination at different periods of their history. It may be
noticed in passing that Ephod, which signifies 'giver of oracles,' is
used as a personal name (Num. xxxiv 23).

VII. _The Breastplate of the Ephod._—This was a rectangular piece of
cloth of the same material as the ephod. That it might the better hold
the precious stones with which it was set, it was doubled, its shape
when so treated being that of a perfect square, with a side of about
nine inches long. The stones were twelve in number, and fixed in
settings of gold, being arranged in four rows of three each. On each
stone was engraved the name of one of the twelve tribes.

This breastplate was secured by two plaited or twisted chains of gold,
fastened at the one end to the bezils of the shoulder-pieces of the
ephod, at the other to rings of gold in the upper corners of the
breastplate, and by two blue cords secured to rings of gold in the lower
corners of the breastplate and in the sides of the ephod above the
embroidered girdle. Josephus asserts that there was an aperture in the
ephod immediately under the breastplate. For this statement there is no
Scriptural authority; but it is possible that it is the record of a
modification in the details of the vestment naturally evolved and
established at some time subsequent to the institution of the vestment
itself.

VIII. _The Mitre._—This did not differ in essence from the head-dress of
the priests except in one important respect—the addition of a gold
plate, set on a lace of blue, and bearing the inscription, 'Holy to
Jehovah.' Josephus does not mention this plate, but describes the mitre
as a kind of triple tiara, surmounted by a flower-shaped cup of gold,
and covering the turban proper.[4] This, however, is quite at variance
with the original laws on the subject.

In one respect these vestments are similar to those which it will be our
duty to describe in the following pages. Although there is no injunction
on the subject in the Law, the Talmud states clearly that 'he who wears
the vestments of the priests outside the temple does a thing forbidden.'

It is admitted by almost all students that the vestments during the
first six or eight centuries of the Christian era were of much greater
simplicity than those of later times. The evidence of contemporary art
is overwhelmingly opposed to any other view. This fact being admitted,
we need not be surprised by finding that until the eighth or ninth
century no attempt was made to trace any connection between the
elaborate vestments which we have just described, and the vestments worn
by those who ministered in the offices of Christian worship.

It is true that until the time we have mentioned Churchmen did not
greatly trouble themselves with investigations into the history of the
religion they professed or the ritual they performed. But it is also
true that several authors before this date enumerate the Jewish
vestments, and enter at length into the figurative meanings which they
were alleged to bear; but not one of these refers to any supposed
genealogical connection—if the expression be permissible—between the two
systems. This would be inexplicable if the Christian vestments were
actually derived from the Jewish; for not only would the resemblance
between the two be obvious, but the tradition of the assumption by
Christian clerics of the vestments originally instituted for the Jewish
priesthood would still be fresh in the minds of the authors. Yet not
only do these writers not point out any resemblance between the two:
they even make use of words and phrases which point to considerable
differences between the outward appearance of Jewish and Christian
vesture.

Apart from these considerations, may we not ask with reason how the
early Christians, a poor and persecuted sect, could possibly assume and
maintain an elaborate and expensive system of vestments such as the
Jewish? And if the assumption had been made after the days of
persecution were past, surely some record of the transaction would have
been preserved till our own day? We possess a tolerably full series of
the acts and transactions of ecclesiastical courts in all parts of the
known world from the earliest times—how is it that all record of such an
important proceeding has perished?

The first hint of the idea of the Mosaic origin of the Christian
vestments is given by Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz, in his
treatise 'De Institutione Clericorum,'[5] written about the year 850. In
the first book of this tract he discusses each Christian vestment in
turn, endeavouring to find parallels to some of them among the vestments
of the Jewish priesthood, but without much success. The seed thus sown,
however, rapidly bore fruit among subsequent writers, who expanded the
theory with great elaboration.

Many of the identifications brought forward by some of the late writers
are very far-fetched, and mutually contradictory. To these but little
weight can be attributed. It is a significant fact that none of the
writers who endeavour to find parallels between the two systems can
discover an equivalent among the Jewish vestments for the chasuble. Now,
if for each of the Christian vestments there existed a corresponding
vestment among those of the Jews, it would be singular that the most
important of the former should be unrepresented among the latter. The
maniple, too, has no equivalent (this, however, is more intelligible,
since that ornament was certainly a later introduction); while the amice
is the only vestment that even the most ingenious can produce to
represent the ephod, though the similarity between the two is of the
slightest.

There is another important point which the advocates of a Mosaic origin
for Christian vestments overlook. The early Christians certainly did
borrow many details of their worship from the Jews who lived around
them, and from whose religion many of them had been converted; but these
details were taken not from the antiquated ritual of the temple worship,
but from the synagogue worship, to which they had been accustomed. Now,
the vestments which we have described above were appointed for the
tabernacle worship and the temple worship, its direct successor, whereas
no vestments were at any time or by any authority appointed for use in
the synagogue worship;[6] and hence the Christian vesture cannot be said
to 'come directly' from the Jewish.

We have discussed the theory of a Levitical origin on purely _a priori_
grounds, making only the slightest allusion to the vestments themselves
as we find them in primitive times. In considering the second view, to
which it is now time to turn, we shall adopt a different course. We
shall first collect the main facts which can be discovered or deduced
respecting vestments in the earliest centuries of Christianity, from the
beginning till the rupture of the East and the West, and then discuss in
detail the vestments as we find them in the succeeding period, which in
all ecclesiastical matters was a period of transition, comparing each in
turn with its hypothetical prototype among the civil costume of the
Romans. The remainder of the present and the whole of the succeeding
chapter will be devoted to this investigation.

The materials available for an inquiry into the vestment usage of the
early Church are twofold: the incidental statements of contemporary
authors, and the more direct information obtained from a study of
contemporary paintings and sculpture. We shall now discuss the results
which follow from an examination of these sources.

The references in the earliest writers—even including those which have a
very indirect bearing on the subject—are extremely few in number; and
all passages which can possibly throw any light on the question have
been eagerly sought out and called into evidence to support one theory
or another. The two best-known passages are the statement of St Jerome:
'Holy worship hath one habit in the ministry, another in general use and
common life';[7] and the yet more famous passage in the liturgy of St
Clement, in which a rubric directs the priest to begin the service
'girded with a shining vesture.'[8] The phrase =lampran esthêta
metendys= has been translated 'being girded with _his_ "splendid"
vestment,' a translation which the Greek cannot possibly bear; and this
passage, coupled with the excerpt from Jerome just quoted, have been
brought forward to testify that gorgeous vestments were in use even at
the early times when those documents from which they have been extracted
were written.

Mr. Marriott has carefully examined and commented on these and the other
passages cited as authorities. He proves that the first passage given
above is used in a context which shows that Jerome, though possibly he
may have had Christian usage in his mind, was thinking primarily of
Jewish usage; the second (which not improbably is an interpolation) does
not specify a 'splendid' vesture, but a 'white' or 'shining' garment.

Mr. Marriott's inference from these and similar passages is 'that white
was the colour appropriated in primitive times [_i.e._, in the first
four centuries] to the dress of the Christian ministry.' Though this
view is preferable to the theory that the primitive vestments were of
the same elaborate description as their mediaeval successors, yet it
does not altogether commend itself as following naturally from the
authorities cited. It will be necessary to review these passages, for,
as we shall endeavour to show, they are quite consistent with the third
alternative: that _no_ distinctive vestments were set apart for the
exclusive use of the Christian minister during the first four centuries
of the Christian era.

The third passage is also from Jerome. In another part of the same
commentary as the last he writes: 'From all these things we learn that
we ought not enter the Holy of Holies clad in our everyday garments and
in whatever clothes we will, defiled as they are by the usage of common
life; but with pure conscience and in pure garments we ought to hold the
sacraments of the Lord.'[9]

The fourth passage is from Jerome's letter against the Pelagians, in
which occur these remarkable words: 'You say, further, that gorgeousness
of apparel or ornament is offensive to God. But, I ask, suppose I should
wear a comelier tunic, wherein would it offend God? or if bishop,
priest, deacon, and the rest of the church officers were to come forward
dressed in white?'[10]

Only one other passage remains. This is the account of the charge
preferred against Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, before the Emperor
Constantius. It is narrated in Theodoret (Eccl. Hist., ii 27), and, not
being worth quoting at length, may be briefly stated thus: Constantine
had sent to Macarius, the then bishop, a sacred robe—=hieran
stolên=—made of threads of gold, to be worn when administering baptism;
Cyril had sold this robe to a stage-dancer, who wore it during a public
exhibition. It was further stated that the stage-dancer had fallen while
dancing and been fatally injured.

As the reader will see, these passages give but few data for deductions
as to the vestment-usage in the early Church. There is no indication,
for instance, in the passage from Theodoret of what sort the sacred robe
in question was: it may just as well have been a splendid garment
originally from some temple or other. The fact that the early Greek
ecclesiastical writers do not use the word =stolê= to denote a sacred
vestment further weakens the force of this anecdote as an argument. Only
Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (early seventh century), supplies
another instance, where he says: =hê stolê tou hiereôs ... kata ton
podêrê Aarôn=; and this latter passage can be explained away, as =stolê=
refers here to Jewish vesture, in which connection it is also employed
by the Septuagint.

On a careful and unbiased reading of these passages, it will be noticed
that nothing is said which can be construed into denoting garments of a
special prescribed shape, and that their colour is only specified by
such indefinite words as =lampros= and _candidus_.

It is also important to notice that although in the first and third of
the passages cited from Jerome a more special mention is made of the
dress of the clergy, yet it is not straining the meaning of either of
them to regard them as applying equally well to the dress of the lay
worshippers. This, of course, would preclude the supposition that they
deal with any special ritual observance. The second of these quotations,
if translated into homely nineteenth-century language, resolves itself
into a simple but strong injunction to all worshippers (not the minister
only) to wear their Sunday clothes. Mr Marriott lays great stress on the
passage in the letter against Pelagius; its testimony is one of the
strongest arguments which he can bring forward to support his thesis,
that it was specially appointed, in the primitive church, that white
vestments (something like the modern surplice) should be worn by the
minister. But Jerome does not say, 'Is God displeased _because_ the
officers of the church dressed _candida veste_?' but '_would_ God be
displeased _if_ they were so vested?' The entire passage is
hypothetical; and nothing is more clear than that Jerome was not
contemplating any hard and fast rules.

We may dismiss the passage from the Clementine Liturgy with very few
words. =Lampros=, which the ritualists translate 'splendid,' in
classical Greek always means 'bright, brilliant, radiant,'[11] and is
applied in Homer to the sun and stars. It is also applied, in the sense
of 'bright,' to white clothes; indeed, we find in Polybius[12] (_flor.
circa_ 150 B.C.) this very phrase, =lampra esthês=, equivalent to the
Roman _toga candida_. Other meanings are 'limpid' (of water), 'sonorous'
(of the voice), 'fresh, vigorous' (of action), 'manifest,'
'illustrious,' 'munificent,' 'joyous,' 'splendid' (generally, in outward
appearance, health, dress, language, etc.); but it never wears the
definite meaning which we should expect were the word intended to be
applied to a definite vesture. The =lampra esthês= of the Clementine
Liturgy is, in short, a bright, clean robe, but no more an article of an
exclusively ecclesiastical nature than is the 'fair white linen cloth'
with which the rubric of the Anglican Communion Service directs the
altar to be covered.

Another passage, somewhat later in date, may be cited as a type of a
large class of passages very apt to mislead too credulous students. It
is the Gaulish description of St Berignus cited by Lipomanus (de Vitis
Sanctor., Ed. Surius, Venice, 1581, vol. vi, p. 4), 'Vidi quendam
hominem peregrinum, capite tonso, cujus habitus differt ab habitu
nostro, vitaque eius nostrae dissimilis est.' The context, however,
makes it plain that secular, not religious, dress is intended.

And when we refer to the few early frescoes and mosaics which have come
down to us from the primitive epoch, we find ecclesiastics, apostles,
and Our Lord Himself, represented as habited in the tunic and toga or
pallium of Roman everyday life.

We gather, therefore, from these scattered shreds of evidence that,
during the first centuries of the Christian church, no vestments were
definitely set apart for the exclusive use of the clergy who officiated
at Divine service: that clergy and people wore the same style of vesture
both in church and out, subject only to the accidental distinctions of
quality and cleanliness.

Fashion in dress or ornament is subject to constant changes which,
though perhaps individually trifling, in time amount to complete
revolutions; but the devotees of any religion, true or false, are by
nature conservative of its doctrines or observances. Combined with the
conclusions at which we have just arrived, these two universally
recognised statements yield us presumptive evidence of the truth of the
theory which views the Roman civil dress as the true progenitor of
mediaeval ecclesiastical costume. We have seen that at first the
worshippers wore the same costume both at worship and at home. Fashion
would slowly change unchecked from year to year, while ecclesiastical
conservatism would retard such changes so far as they concerned the
dress worn at Divine service: small differences would spring into
existence between everyday dress and the dress of the worshipper, and
these differences, at first hardly perceptible, would increase as the
process went on, till the two styles of costume became sharply
distinguished from one another.

Parallel cases are not wanting to show that this is not altogether mere
random theorizing. For example, the ministers of the Reformed Church of
Holland maintained, till comparatively recently, a picturesque fashion
of dress over a century old, which they wore only when conducting Divine
service.[13] Perhaps, however, the objection may be urged against this
view of the case, that if the process were such as we have described, it
should apply as well to the worshippers as to the minister: that they,
as well as he, should wear service-robes. It is possible that this would
actually have been the case had the church services maintained their
most primitive form, as St Paul describes it in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians: 'When ye come together, every one of you hath a
psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an
interpretation';[14] that is, had all the worshippers maintained an
equally prominent position instead of selecting one of their number to
conduct their services. As it was, the outstanding position of the
minister rendered his equipment especially liable to such stereotyping
as we have imagined.

In the following chapter we shall submit the truth of this theory to a
test. If the genesis of ecclesiastical vestments actually took place in
some such manner as this, then the vestments as we find them described
in the earliest writers ought to bear conspicuous points of resemblance
to the civil costume of the Roman people during the first three
Christian centuries. We shall now inquire whether this be so.

 [1] Mishneh Torah, VIII, section _de vasis sanctuar._, viii 19, where
 some other particulars are to be found regarding the textures of which
 the Jewish vestments were made, etc.

 [2] =Hyper de tês kephalês phorei pilon akônon, ou diiknoumenon eis
 pasan autên, all' ep' oligon, hyperbebêkota mesês; kaleitai men
 mesnaemphthês. tê de kataskeuê toioutos estin hos stephanê dokein, ex
 hyphasmatos, lineou tainia pepoiêmenê pacheia, kai gar epiptyssomenon
 rhaptetai pollakis. hepeita sindôn anôthen auton ekperierchetai
 diêkousa mechri metôpou, tên te rhaphên tês tainias kai to ap' autês
 aprepes kalyptousa=—Translation from Whiston.

 [3] =Hyphantheis epi bathos pêchyaion ek te chrômatôn pantoiôn kai
 chrysou sympepoikilmenou, ... cheirisi te êskêmenos, kai tô panti
 schêmati chitôn einai pepoiêmenos.=

 [4] =Hyper auton de synerrhammenos heteros ex hyakinthou pepoikilmenos,
 perierchetai de stephanos chryseos epi tristoichian kechalkeumenos.
 thallei d' ep' autô kalyx, chryseos tê sakcharô botanê par hêmin
 legomenê apomemimêmenos, hyos de kyamon Hellênôn.=

 [5] I, cap. xiv _et seq._ (Migne, 'Patrologia,' vol. cvii, col. 306).

 [6] Such a vestment as the _talith_ is not here considered, for this is
 worn by all the worshippers alike, as well as by the officiating
 minister.

 [7] Hieron. in Ezek., cap. xliv. 'Religio divina alterum habitum habet
 in ministerio alterum in usu vitaque communi.'

 [8] =Euxamenos oun kath' heauton ho archiereus hama tois hiereusin kai
 lampran esthêta metendys kai stas pros tô thysiastêriô to tropaion tou
 staurou kata tou metôpou ton cheiri poiêsamenos eipatô k.t.l.=

 [9] 'Per quae discimus non quotidianis et quibuslibet pro usu vitae
 communis pollutis vestibus nos ingredi debere in sancta sanctorum sed
 munda conscientia et mundis vestibus tenere Domini sacramenta.'—Hieron.
 in Ezek., cap. xliv.

 [10] 'Adjungis gloriam vestium et ornamentorum Deo esse contrariam.
 Quae sunt rogo inimicitiae contra Deum si tunicam habuero mundiorem? si
 episcopus presbyter et diaconus et reliquus ordo ecclesiasticus in
 administratione sacrificiorum candida veste processerint?'—Hieron.,
 Adv. Pelagianos, lib. i, cap. 9.

 [11] See Liddell and Scott, Greek Lexicon, edit, maj., _sub voce_.

 [12] Polyb., 10, 5, 1.

 [13] See Chapter VI.

 [14] 1 Cor. xiv 26.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]




CHAPTER II.

THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS IN THE WESTERN CHURCH.


The last chapter has carried us down to the end of the fourth century
A.D. For some time back the Roman Empire had been showing signs of
disintegration. Already the three sons of Constantine had divided the
imperial power among themselves; but the rule thus severed had again
been united in the person of Constantius. In 395, however, the emperor
Theodosius died, and left the empire of the world to be parted between
his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius.

It would be outside our scope to enter into the details of the
far-reaching consequences of this great event. For our present purpose
it is sufficient to state that, with the empire in which it had been
born and nurtured, the church was divided into two parts, which were
thenceforth to develop independently, now in parallel, now in widely
divergent lines.

It will be convenient to regard the first chapter as dealing with the
period between the institution of Christianity and the partition of the
Roman Empire; and in the present chapter to discuss the interval between
the latter event and the accession of Charles the Great. We thereby
divide the history into two epochs of approximately four centuries each,
with characteristics sufficiently well marked to distinguish one from
the other. Following Marriott, we shall name the first the _primitive_,
the second the _transitional_ period. We have seen that there is no
evidence that vestments of any definite form were prescribed for use
during the former epoch; we shall see in the present chapter how
vestment-usage rapidly developed in the churches of the West till it
culminated in the gorgeous enrichment of mediaeval times.

Although the differences between the vestments of the Western and the
Eastern churches consist largely in matters of detail, they are
sufficiently conspicuous, and their histories are sufficiently
divergent, to render their independent treatment advisable. We shall
therefore postpone the discussion of the latter till we have
investigated the evolution and subsequent elaboration of the former.

The empire to which Honorius succeeded consisted of Italy, Spain, Gaul,
and Britain. Although the evidence which is extant does not permit us to
trace completely the history of vestments throughout this period, yet
from scattered documents we are able to see that for the most part the
development of ecclesiastical costume proceeded on the same lines
throughout this vast area.

Ritual in matters of dress had rapidly been growing. Pope Celestine, who
occupied the Roman See from 423 till 432, found it necessary to write a
sharp letter to the Bishops of Vienne and Narbonne for 'devoting
themselves rather to superstitious observances in dress than to purity
of heart and faith.' Certain monks, it appears, had attained to
episcopal rank, but had retained their ascetic costume. Some of
Celestine's sentences are very striking in this connection; and although
they refer primarily to outdoor costume, we cannot but think that, in a
later age, when the regulations governing the ritual uses of vestments
had been formulated, and the vestments themselves had been elaborated to
their ultimate form, the force of his words would have been somewhat
modified. 'By dressing in a cloak [_pallium_],' he says, 'and by girding
themselves with a girdle, they think to fulfil the truth of Scripture,
not in the spirit, but in the letter. For if these precepts were given
to the end that they should be obeyed in this wise, why do they not
likewise that which follows, and carry burning lights in their hands as
well as their pastoral staves? We should be distinguished from the
common people, or from all others, by our learning, not by our dress; by
our habit of life, not by our clothing; by the purity of our minds, not
by the cut of our garments. For if we begin to introduce novelties, we
shall trample under foot the usage which our fathers have handed down to
us, and give place to vain superstitions.'

The fullest information on the subject of vestments during this period
comes from Spain, in the oft-quoted acts of the fourth council of
Toledo, which sat under the presidency of St Isidore of Seville in the
year 633. Of the canons which were drawn up at this council that which
is of the highest importance in this inquiry is the twenty-eighth,
although it is not directly connected with vestment-usage. It provides
for the case of a cleric who had been unjustly degraded from his order,
and ordains that such a one, if he be found innocent in a subsequent
synod, 'cannot be reinstated in his former position unless he regain his
lost dignities before the altar, at the hands of a bishop. If he be a
bishop, he must receive the _orarium_,[15] ring, and staff; if a priest,
the _orarium_ and _planeta_; if a deacon, the _orarium_ and _alba_; if a
subdeacon, the paten and chalice, and similarly for the other
orders—they must receive, on their restoration, whatever they received
on their ordination.'[16]

On the principle which is all but universal, that the clergy of the
higher orders added the insignia of the lower orders to those of their
own, we are enabled by the help of this act to draw up a table of the
vestments recognised in Spain, which shows at a glance the manner in
which they were distributed among the different orders of clergy:

 _Alba_: worn by all alike.
 _Orarium_: worn by deacons, priests, and bishops.
 _Planeta_: worn by priests and bishops.
 _Ring and staff_: exclusively for bishops.

Some letters of Gregory the Great (Bishop of Rome 590-604) give us
particulars relating to three other vestments not in general use
throughout the church. These are the _dalmatica_, the _mappula_, and the
_pallium_. Lastly, an anonymous MS. of uncertain date[17] enumerates the
_pallium_, _casula_, _manualia_, _vestimentum_, _alba_, and _stola_ as
the vestments worn in the Gallican Church. It is to be regretted that
none of the British authors of the period have preserved any record of
contemporary vestment-usage in this country; we have, however, no reason
to suppose that it differed from that of the Continent.

Let us now take each of the above vestments in order, and collect
whatever information is obtainable upon their appearance and history,
comparing each in turn with its supposed Roman prototype.

I. _The Alba._—This word is the abbreviated form of the full name,
_tunica alba_, by which a flowing tunic of white linen was denoted. It
appears that the first use of this word as a technical term for a
special robe is in a passage of Trebellius Pollio (in Claud., xiv,
xvii), who speaks of an _alba subserica_, mentioned in a letter sent
from Valerian to Zosimio, Procurator of Syria, about 260-270 A.D. In the
41st canon of the fourth council of Carthage (_circa_ 400 A.D.)[18] we
meet with the first use of this word in an ecclesiastical connection, in
one of the earliest (if not _the_ earliest) regulations ever passed to
govern the ritual usage of vestments. This ordains that the deacon shall
wear an _alba_ only '_tempore oblationis tantum vel lectionis_.'

The constant evidence of contemporary pictures indicates that the _alba_
was a long, full, and flowing vesture. In this respect it differed from
the Mosaic tunic, on the one hand, and the mediaeval alb on the other.
Both these vestments fitted closely to the body for reasons of
convenience, for a flowing tunic would obviously hamper the Levitical
priest in the discharge of his sacrificial duties, and would not sit
comfortably under the vestments with which it was overlaid in mediaeval
times.

Nearly two centuries after the fourth council of Carthage we find the
first council of Narbonne (A.D. 589) enacting that 'neither deacon nor
subdeacon, nor yet the lector, shall presume to put off his _alba_ till
after mass is over.'[19] To this canon, which was clearly framed to
check some tendency to irregularity that had become noticeable in the
celebration of mass, we are indebted for two facts: first, that ritual
usage in vestments was now firmly established; and second, that the
_alba_ was the dress of the minor orders of clergy. This latter point is
not clearly brought out in the Toletan canon already quoted.

Of the garments worn in everyday life by the Roman citizen, the
innermost was the _tunica talaris_, or long tunic. This article of dress
was white, usually of wool; it was passed over the head and reached to
the feet, the epithet _talaris_ ('reaching to the ankles') being
employed to distinguish it, as the tunic of ceremony, from the short
tunics worn when freedom was required for active exertion.[20] It fitted
tolerably closely to the body, though it was sufficiently loose to
require a girdle to confine it. The tunics of senators and _equites_
were distinguished by two bands of purple, in the former case broad
(_lati clavi_), in the latter narrow (_angusti clavi_), which passed
from the sides of the aperture for the head down to the lower hem of the
garment.

A comparison of the ecclesiastical _tunica alba_ with the civil _tunica
talaris_ will bring out some remarkable points of resemblance. Both were
worn in the same manner, and both reached to the feet; it is true that
the ecclesiastical dress was slightly fuller than the civil, but this
was necessary, as room was required underneath the _alba_ for the
wearer's everyday dress. Further, we find ecclesiastics represented in
ancient frescoes wearing _albae_ which actually show ornaments disposed
like the _clavi_ of the _tunica talaris_. These _clavi_ were early
employed by the Christians to distinguish, by their relative width, the
representations of Our Lord from those of the Apostles, or to
discriminate between the figures of ecclesiastics of different orders.

It is also important to notice that the _alba_ is invariably furnished
with tight sleeves reaching to the wrist. The tunic was originally a
sleeveless garment; but with the growth of luxury, a new kind provided
with sleeves gradually came into favour. These two forms of tunic were
distinguished by different names: the older or sleeveless tunic was
called _colobium_, a Latinization of the Greek name =kolobion=;[21] and
the latter or sleeved tunic was named _tunica manicata_ or _tunica
dalmatica_, from the name of the province to which its invention was
ascribed.

In the early days of Rome the use of a _tunica dalmatica_ stamped the
wearer with the stigma of effeminacy and utter want of self-respect. The
parents of Cornelius Scipio and of Fabius are said to have openly
disgraced them in their boyhood, as a punishment _ad corrigendos mores_,
by compelling them to appear in public in this attire. The despicable
emperors Commodus and Elagabalus offended all persons of good taste by
coming out before all the people in the same costume: the latter
impudently calling himself another Scipio or Fabius, in reference to the
incident just related.[22] This, however, cannot mean that the scandal
lay in the adoption of the luxurious _tunica dalmatica_ in preference to
the _colobium_ (for Rome in the time of Elagabalus was too deeply
steeped in luxury and vice to feel shocked at an Emperor merely
preferring an under-garment with sleeves to one without those
appendages); it rather consisted in his neglecting to put on his
_pallium_, or outer dress, over it. In fact, the _tunica dalmatica_ must
have quite ousted its severer rival in popular favour by the time of
Elagabalus: for we find that in 258, only thirty-six years after the
death of that emperor, St Cyprian of Carthage wore a _tunica dalmatica_,
over which was a _byrrhus_, or cloak, when led out to martyrdom.[23] It
is absurd to suppose that Cyprian, on such a solemn occasion, would have
assumed a merely luxurious garment, and equally absurd to imagine that
he would have worn ecclesiastical vestments at the time, as some
commentators on the passage have held. There remains only one other
alternative—that the _tunica dalmatica_ was the form of tunic which was
in regular use at the time, and this seems quite the most satisfactory
hypothesis.

The most important mention of the _tunica dalmatica_ in connection with
ecclesiastical matters is in the decree of Sylvester, Bishop of Rome,
253-257. That prelate ordained 'that deacons should use the _dalmatica_
in the church, and that their left hands should be covered with a cloth
of mingled wool and linen.'[24] Various authors supplement this passage;
thus, the anonymous author of the tract 'De Divinis Officiis,' formerly
attributed to Alcuin, tells us that 'the use of _dalmaticae_ was
instituted by Pope Sylvester, for previously _colobia_ had been
worn.'[25]

Much importance has been attached to this decree. It is regarded as an
additional and incontrovertible proof that ecclesiastical vestments were
in use in the primitive church. But on examination, however, it will be
found no more to bear such a construction than St Paul's request for his
=phailonê=. The ordinance merely shows that Sylvester had a laudable
desire to improve the aesthetics of public worship, and, with this end
in view, decreed that thenceforward ecclesiastics should all wear the
_tunica dalmatica_—which had quite outgrown its early evil reputation,
and must be admitted to have been a better-looking garment than the
scanty and somewhat undignified _colobium_. It is not at all improbable
that many of the clergy wore _dalmaticae_ even before Sylvester's edict:
in this case the edict would have the additional advantage of securing
uniformity.

All attempts to set up the _dalmatica_ as a separate vestment in early
times fail hopelessly. It is unknown to the drafters of the Toletan
canons, and no _early_ representation of an ecclesiastic is extant
having two vestments visible under the _planeta_.[26] This would
certainly be the case if the two were independent vestments. It is true
that St Isidore of Seville wrote, 'Dalmatica vestis primum in Dalmatia
provincia Graecia texta est sacerdotalis, candida cum clavis ex
purpura;'[27] (the _dalmatica_ is a priestly vestment first made in
Dalmatia, a province of Greece, white with purple _clavi_); but the
concluding words show that he was merely thinking of the _alba_ under
its more specific name, _dalmatica_.

A brief recapitulation of this somewhat lengthy argument may not be out
of place. Two forms of tunic may be said to have contended one with
another for the favour of the Roman people—the sleeveless _colobium_ and
the sleeved _dalmatica_. The latter ultimately gained the victory; and
the decree of Pope Sylvester, commanding all ecclesiastics under his
authority to assume it in place of the former, finally established its
use in the church. Now, when we find that, two or three centuries after
Sylvester's time, a vestment was worn by ecclesiastics in Divine service
identical with the _tunica dalmatica_ in almost every respect, even to
the presence of the _clavi_, which (in the secular dress) indicated the
rank of the wearer, it is only natural to regard the one as directly
derived from the other.

There is one other point of importance in the history of this vestment
in the transitional period. It was found that such a flowing garment as
the _alba_ seriously incommoded the priest on some occasions,
particularly in administering baptism by immersion. Accordingly, an
_alba_ fitting closely to the body was invented for use on such
occasions, and is represented in certain MS. illuminations, particularly
a ninth-century pontifical now in the St Minerva Library at Rome. The
special importance of this point is due to the fact that this baptismal
_alba_ was probably the immediate parent of the mediaeval alb; the
closer vestment being found more convenient on other occasions as well
as that of baptism, and having gradually become adopted in all the other
offices of the Church as well.

[Illustration: FIG. 2.—A BISHOP ADMINISTERING BAPTISM.]

II. _The Orarium._—Both this vestment and the name by which it was known
have given much trouble to scholars. The following list of the various
derivations which have been suggested for the word _orarium_ (arranged
in order of probability) is not uninteresting:

 1. _Ora_, because used to wipe the face.

 2. _Orare_, because used in prayer.

 3. =hôra=, because it indicated the _time_ of the different parts
 of the service.

 4. =hôraizein=, because the deacon was beautified with it.

 5. _Ora_ (a coast), because (alleged to have been) originally
 the edging of a lost garment.

 6. =horaô=, because the _sight_ of it indicated whether a priest
 or deacon was ministering (!).

There can be little doubt that the first is the true etymology. The
others are all more or less fanciful; and the _orarium_ was certainly
employed originally as a scarf. Ambrose speaks of the face of the dead
Lazarus being bound with an _orarium_; and Augustine uses the same word
to indicate a bandage employed to tie up a wounded eye.

Numerous effigies of late date are extant which exhibit a kind of scarf,
passing over the left shoulder diagonally downwards to the right side,
and fastened under the right arm. As Albertus Rubenius long ago pointed
out, these scarves must not be confused with the _clavi_ which
ornamented the tunics of senators and _equites_; for they are worn over
the _pallium_, or outer garment, and are disposed in a manner quite
different from that in which the _clavi_ fall.

What, then, are these scarves? The answer to this question is supplied
by Flavius Vopiscus in his Life of Aurelian, who, he says, 'was the
first to grant _oraria_ to the Roman people, to be worn as favours.'[28]
Now, the references which we have just made to Ambrose and Augustine—not
to mention others which might equally well be quoted—show that the
_oraria_, whatever may have been the method in which they were worn,
must have been narrow strips of some kind of cloth. These peculiar
scarves, which are to be seen on certain monuments, do not appear on any
effigy dating before the time of Aurelian; the natural inference,
therefore, is that the scarves which we see thus represented are
actually the _oraria_, granted to the Roman people by that emperor and
his successors. If this argument be not valid, then it is impossible to
say either what these scarves really are, or what was the true
appearance of the civil _orarium_.

It is probable that considerable laxity existed in the manner of wearing
the ecclesiastical _orarium_, for the fourth Council of Toledo thought
it necessary to enact a special canon to regulate the method in which
this vestment should be disposed. The fortieth act of this assembly
restricts the number of _oraria_ to one, and enjoins that deacons should
wear the _orarium_ over the left shoulder, leaving the right side free
so as to facilitate the execution of their duties in Divine service.[29]
This act also provides that the diaconal _orarium_ should be plain, not
ornamented with gold or embroidery. It will be noticed that this Toletan
council favoured the derivation of the word _orarium_ from _orare_.

The wearing of the _orarium_ was still further regulated by two of the
councils which met at Braga. The second council of Braga (563 A.D.)
decreed that 'since in some churches of this province the deacons wear
their _oraria_ hidden under the tunic, so that they cannot be
distinguished from the subdeacons, for the future they must be placed
over their shoulders.'[30] The fourth council (675 A.D.) made an
important decree regulating the wearing of the _orarium_ by priests,
which has been since followed universally. The vestment was to be passed
round the neck, over each shoulder, crossed in front, and secured in
this position under the girdle of the _alba_.[31]

The last enactment of importance is that of the council of Mayence (813
A.D.), which ordered that priests should wear their _oraria_ 'without
intermission.'[32]

The _orarium_, then, was a narrow strip of cloth, disposed about the
persons of the clergy in various manners according to their rank. To it
corresponded in name, shape, and method of disposition, a garment common
among the Romans, though admittedly rather an honourable ornament than
an actual article of clothing. Yet when we remember how the _clavi_ were
employed to distinguish rank among the earlier clergy, this latter fact
may be regarded as strengthening the evidence of identity which the
correspondence in all salient features affords. Some other theories of
its origin will be discussed when we have treated of the _pallium_.

III. _The Planeta._—In the earlier and purer days of the Roman people,
the dress which alone was recognised as the proper costume for the
citizen was the _toga_. This was one of the most inconvenient and
cumbrous articles of dress ever invented—a great oblong cloth, fifteen
feet by ten, thrown in a complicated manner over the left shoulder,
folded in front, and hanging loose about the feet. We can hardly feel
surprised at finding that, when the citizens came to regard comfort
before appearances to such an extent as to adopt sleeved tunics, a more
convenient form of this outdoor costume was adopted. There were three
varieties of this new[33] garment, each of which has its own name; these
were the _paenula_, the _casula_, and the _planeta_.

The _paenula_ was a garment which in the early days of the Republic was
allotted to slaves. A slave wearing this dress is introduced into the
'Mostellaria' (IV iii 51) of Plautus. Indeed, according to Julius Pollux
('Onomasticon,' vii 61), the dramatist Rhinthon, who lived in the fourth
century B.C., introduced a mention of this garment into his 'Iphigeneia
in Tauris,' a fact which would seem to indicate that the dress was much
older than his own time, as otherwise his audience would be unfavourably
impressed by the anachronism. Numerous allusions in classical Latin
authors show that it was adopted as a travelling dress because of its
warmth and comparative convenience;[34] but on no account was it worn
within the walls of the city. Gradually, however, the use of the garment
spread, till Alexander Severus (222-235 A.D.), as Lampridius tells us,
permitted elders to wear the _paenula_ within the city in cold weather,
though at the same time he forbade women to do so except when on a
journey.[35]

The _casula_ was a poor and inferior variety of the _paenula_, which,
when the latter was promoted to be the costume of senators and emperors,
succeeded it as the garb of the poorer classes. The original meaning of
the name is 'little house'—a diminutive of _casa_—and there is little
evidence to guide us as to the exact appearance of the garment which it
denoted. The name would lead us to infer that, like the _paenula_, it
enveloped the entire body; but it is probable that it was made of
coarser and cheaper material. The fact that it was early adopted as the
distinctive dress of monks would lead us to this conclusion; beyond this
there is no reason for supposing that it differed in outline from the
_paenula_.

The _planeta_ first appears in the fifth century A.D. Cassianus (De
Habitu Monachorum, i 7) mentions it as a dress whose price prevents its
use as a monastic habit; and St Isidore, two centuries later, expressly
forbids members of religious orders to wear it. The _planeta_ must
therefore have been more costly than the _casula_, and, as we find it
mentioned in the sixth century as the dress of nobles and of senators,
it was probably the most expensive of the three.

The general shape of the garment, as shown in Roman paintings or
effigies, is that of a cloak enveloping the body, sewn in front, and put
on by being passed over the head, for which a suitable aperture was
provided. And this shape is identical with the outer vestment which we
see in early representations of clerics. The modification which was
early adopted, that of making the vestment oval in form, so as to lessen
the width over the shoulders and so to give more freedom to the arms,
was obviously regulated by convenience.

Thus we have seen that the three principal vestments, as we find them
detailed in the earliest lists and depicted in the earliest monuments,
are identical in shape, disposition, and name with the Roman civil
costume of the second or third century of the Christian era.

Three additional vestments are found enumerated in the letters of St
Gregory the Great and elsewhere which were not worn universally
throughout the church, but were either carefully confined to the clergy
of the city of Rome itself or were in the gift, so to speak, of the
Pope. These are the _pallium_, the _mappula_, and the _dalmatica_.

I. _The Pallium._—In classical Latin this word is used either as the
equivalent of _toga_ or in the general sense of the English 'robe.' It
is also used in the earlier ecclesiastical writers of the _casula_, or
coarse outer garment of monks, as in the passage from Celestine quoted
on p. 26. Yet another use of the word _pallium_ is found in the
expression _pallium linostimum_, which denoted a cloth, the use of which
was ordained to deacons by Pope Sylvester, as we shall presently see
when discussing the maniple.

[Illustration: FIG. 3.—ECCLESIASTICS FROM THE MOSAICS IN S VITALE,
RAVENNA (SIXTH CENTURY).]

The _pallium_, when used by ecclesiastical writers in its proper and
restricted sense, denotes an ornament specially appropriated to
archbishops. Its earliest form is shown in the Ravenna mosaics—that of a
narrow strip of cloth, passed over the left shoulder, looped loosely
round the neck, and then passed over the left shoulder again, so that
the two ends hang free, one in front, the other behind. This method of
disposition seems to indicate an identity of origin with the _orarium_;
indeed, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between these vestments
in early representations. A desire for symmetry, probably, decided the
next step in its evolution; this consisted in bringing the free end to
the middle and knotting it into the lowest point of the loop: this we
find exemplified in monuments of the eighth, ninth, or tenth century.
From this the transition to the form which became universal in later
times was easy, and the two are found contemporaneously. The final
form—which will be more fully described in the third chapter—is that of
an oval loop with a long tail pendent from its ends, so that when the
ornament is in position it presents the appearance of a capital Y on the
front and on the back.

The early history of this vestment is involved in deep obscurity. As
already hinted, it is not improbably a modification of the _orarium_;
but there is no evidence, further than general outward resemblance, that
this is actually the case; nor is there any apparent reason for its
appropriation to archbishops. The question must remain open till further
research either reveals the missing links in the chain of connection, or
elicits some more satisfactory solution of the question.

The idea of Dr Rock, according to which the _pallium_ is viewed as 'the
true and only representation of the Roman toga,' is most unsatisfactory.
He thinks that the toga, which was folded over the left shoulder, under
the right arm, over the right shoulder, and again over the left
shoulder, 'dwindled down to a mere broad band,' folded much the same
way; and that this broad band was the early _pallium_. The evolution
here supposed is, however, most unnatural; there is not time for it to
have taken place between the institution of Christianity and the date of
the Ravenna mosaics—much less between the time when ecclesiastical
vestments and their development began to receive special attention and
the latter date; the toga, as we have already seen, was itself
practically obsolete when Christianity began to make itself felt, and
still further removed from the current fashion of the time at which
archbishops began to require distinguishing insignia; and, lastly, the
connecting links between the blanket at one end and the narrow strip of
cloth at the other, which Dr Rock adduces and figures, are too few in
number to be convincing, and quite explicable on other grounds, such as
the unskilfulness of the ancient artist—a fruitful source of error in
archæological research.

[Illustration: FIG. 4.—EFFIGY OF A ROMAN CITIZEN IN CAERLEON MUSEUM.]

It is not inconceivable that the origin of the honourable _pallium_ is
to be sought in the honourable _orarium_, distributed as 'favours' to
the Roman people; in which case we must seek elsewhere for a prototype
to the ecclesiastical _orarium_. We should then fall back on the old
idea, which has by no means been disproved, that in the _clavi_ of the
_tunica alba_ is to be found the true original. We reproduce here a
figure of an effigy of a Roman citizen at Caerleon, near Newport, which
certainly seems to warrant this view; here is to be seen a _tunica_, a
_clavus_, and a _paenula_, all very suggestive of the alb, stole, and
chasuble of later times. Duchesne, in his 'Origines du culte
chrétien,'[36] regards all the _orarium_-like vestments which appear in
contemporary documents as in reality _pallia_; the _orarium_ proper he
does not consider to have been introduced till the tenth century. The
_orarium_ which appears before this date he regards as simply a napkin,
or _sudarium_, designed to protect the _alba_. He further states that in
the fourth century the civil law required all officials to wear some
distinctive badge of office; that the Eastern Church complied with this
law throughout, assigning the =ômophorion, epitrachêlion= and =ôrarion=
respectively to bishop, priest, and deacon, while the Western Church
only complied with it to the extent of assigning a _pallium_ to the
bishops. We confess that this elaborate argument does not appeal to us
any more than the theory which regards the stole as the orphrey of a
degenerated vestment; but while professing our own belief in Marriott's
view, stated above (pp. 38-9), we have given these several theories,
leaving it to the reader to make his own choice.

From the earliest references to the _pallium_ which we can find, it is
clear that it was from the first regarded as a distinctive vestment to
be worn by archbishops only.[37] The archbishops of this early period
had not the right, any more than their mediaeval successors, of assuming
the _pallium_ on their consecration; it was necessary to apply to the
Pope for a grant of the vestment, which was only bestowed on the
permission of the reigning sovereign being obtained. The earliest
document unquestionably relating to the bestowal of the _pallium_ is a
letter of Pope Symmachus, bestowing the pallium on Theodore, Archbishop
of Laureacus, in Pannonia, 514 A.D.[38] Instances of the royal assent
being considered necessary are found in the letters of Pope Vigilius,
who delayed the grant of the _pallium_ to Archbishop Auxanius of Arles
for two years, _pending the consent_ of Childebert I, King of the
Franks;[39] and in the letters of Pope Gregory the Great, who _at the
request_ of Childebert II bestowed the _pallium_ on Virgilius, a later
Archbishop of the same province.[40]

In 866 Pope Nicholas I declared that no archbishop might be enthroned or
might consecrate the Eucharist till he should receive the _pallium_ at
the hands of the Pope.[41]

II. _The Mappula._—We have seen in discussing the _alba_ that Pope
Sylvester, in the middle of the third century, decreed that the deacons
of the city of Rome should substitute _dalmaticae_ for _colobia_; he
further charged them to wear a _pallium linostimum_ on their hands. It
is clear that this cloth, as its proper name, _mappula_ (little napkin),
demonstrates, was designed to serve the utilitarian purpose of a
handkerchief, either to wipe the Communion vessels or the face of the
minister—probably the latter.[42] This cloth, however, must early have
become regarded as a sacred vestment by its wearers, and the exclusive
privilege of the Roman priests to wear it was jealously guarded.
Attempts were made by the deacons of the neighbouring churches of
Ravenna to assume the vestment, and St Gregory found it necessary to
interfere, which he did in several letters to that somewhat recalcitrant
prelate, John, the Bishop of Ravenna. For the sake of peace, Gregory
admitted a compromise whereby the principal deacons of Ravenna were
allowed to wear the coveted ornament; but the glamour of carrying a
vestment, however inconvenient,[43] which was theoretically confined to
the holy city itself, proved too strong a temptation for the deacons of
other places, while the Romans (whose exclusive privilege was gone once
Ravenna was admitted to a share in it) took no further steps to prevent
its assumption. As a natural consequence, the use of the vestment spread
over the whole of the Western Church, and by the time when the period at
present engaging our attention ended, had become universal.

III. _The Dalmatica._—We have already entered at length into the history
of this word and of the vestment to which it was applied. It does not
seem to have differed essentially from the _alba_; but it appears that
two[44] vestments were worn at Rome, an _alba_ and a _dalmatica_, though
it is evident from the Toletan canons and other sources that at this
early period such was not the case elsewhere. In early pictures the two
vestments are rarely represented side by side; it is probable that the
_dalmatica_ was so long as to conceal the _alba_, just as the dalmatic
on mediaeval effigies of Bishops often hides the tunicle. It seems,
however, to have been shown on the ancient picture of Gregory the Great,
described by Joannes Diaconus; and we find that Gregory granted its use
to Bishop Aregius of Gap and to his Archdeacon (Ep. ix 107: Migne,
lxxvii 1033), forwarding the vestments at the same time as the letter.
Clearly the Pope does not denote the _alba_ by the word _dalmatica_, as
we have seen St Isidore of Seville do, for Aregius would naturally wear
an _alba_ without papal interference. The vestment in question must,
therefore, have been another, resembling the alb in outline, but only
worn either at Rome or by those on whom the Pope saw fit to confer it.

The history of the spread of the _dalmatica_ must have been similar to
that of the _mappula_. By the time the third period begins we find it
established as an independent vestment, differing from its parent, the
_alba_, in one important respect, which will be detailed in the
following chapter.

Although not _vestments_ in the strictest sense of the word, we must not
conclude this chapter without a brief notice of the two exclusively
episcopal insignia noticed in the canons of the fourth council of
Toledo, namely, the ring and staff. Rings have been found in the tombs
of bishops of the third century. This, however, proves nothing, as their
use was universal among both Christians and heathen. Nor can anything
definitely ecclesiastical be tortured out of the many descriptive
notices which have come down to us of the rings in the possession of
individual bishops of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries. Isidore of
Seville (_circa_ 600) lands us on firmer ground; he distinctly says: 'To
the bishop at his consecration is given a staff ... a ring likewise is
given him to signify pontifical honour, or as a seal for secret
things.'[45] We need not, perhaps, discuss the esoteric meaning of the
gift as here set forth; but the fact clearly remains that by Isidore's
time the gift of a ring and a staff had become an essential part of the
ceremony of episcopal ordination. The Toletan canon tells us the same
thing. Before that time there is no clear indication of the gift; it is
not mentioned in ordination services of earlier date than the sixth
century, one of the oldest references to it being in the sacramentary of
Gregory the Great (_circa_ 590 A.D.); and even this passage is rejected
as an interpolation by Migne.[46]

_The Pastoral Staff._—Isidore says, in the passage already quoted, that
the staff is given 'that he may rule or correct those set under him, or
support the weakness of the weak.'[47]

It is strange that even the pastoral staff has a prototype among the
insignia of the heathen priesthood. One of the emblems of the Roman
augurs was a _lituus_, or crook, resembling almost exactly the earliest
pastoral staves as we find them shown in the monuments of early
Christian art. It was used _inter alia_ for dividing the sky into
regions for astrological purposes. The pastoral staff, as represented in
early monuments, was much shorter than the mediaeval crozier; and it
seems not at all improbable that the pastoral staff was originally a
'Christianization' of this pagan implement.

Other writers have argued in favour of the pastoral staff being simply
an adaptation of the common walking-sticks, which were certainly used in
churches as a support before the introduction of seats. It has been
pointed out, however, that the pastoral staff had become a special
member of the insignia of a bishop before the general abolition of these
crutches; and this, it must be confessed, is an argument of considerable
force against such a hypothesis.

The letter of Celestine to the Bishops of Narbonne and Vienne, part of
which we quoted on pp. 26-7, is probably about the earliest available
reference to the use of the pastoral staff by members of the episcopal
order. This brings the history of pastoral staves back to the early part
of the fifth century, and shows that this special ornament was one of
the earliest of the external symbols which the church has prescribed for
its officers.

[Illustration: FIG. 5.—POPE GREGORY THE GREAT WITH PASTORAL STAFF.]

The staff was a rod of wood with a head either crutched or crooked,
usually of one of the precious metals. The name suggests that the
symbolism of the shepherd had entered largely into the ideas connected
with it. It was carried by abbots and abbesses, by bishops, and, till
about the tenth century, by the Pope; but with the rapid growth of the
temporal sovereignty of the Papacy, the emblem purely associated with
the special idea of spiritual pastorate was abandoned. In the old
pre-scientific days it used to be stated that the Pope at no time
carried a pastoral staff, though he did bear a _ferula_, or straight
sceptre—the symbol of rule;[48] but this is at variance with the
evidence of contemporary art.

We must not leave the subject of the earliest form of ecclesiastical
vestments without briefly noticing the ornamentation with which they
were decorated. In the oldest representations of ecclesiastics which we
possess, their vestments were represented pure white, ornamented with
the _clavi_; these were generally black, though St Isidore refers to
purple _clavi_. But other colours appear in very early frescoes and
mosaics. These, however, are apparently arbitrary, the result of the
notions of the painter on the subject of the artistic combination of
colours. Nothing analogous to the 'liturgical colours' of late times is
traceable in the early or transitional period of the history of
vestments.

Some ornamentation other than the _clavi_ is found in vestments of late
date in the present period. Leo III, the date of whose Papal rule lies
just on the border-line between the transitional and the mediaeval
epoch, presented to the Church of St Susanna a vestment with four
_gammadia_—that is, ornaments shaped like crosses formed by four gammas
placed back to back, thus: ╬; we also hear of _calliculae_, metal or
embroidered ornaments, for the _alba_. A singular method of
ornamentation is exemplified by numerous frescoes and mosaics, and has
been a fruitful source of perplexity to ecclesiologists. This consists
in the use of letters (sometimes of monograms or letter-like arbitrary
signs) on the outer hem of the garment. No connection can be traced
between these letters and any circumstances known concerning the persons
whose vestments they decorate; and wide differences between the times
and places of individual examples of the same character preclude their
explanation as the faithful copies of weavers' marks. We can only say
that their use is inexplicable on such practical or esoteric grounds,
and that, therefore, some simple explanation, such as the arbitrary
selection of a letter as an elementary ornament, is the only
satisfactory means of accounting for their presence. Even now we daily
employ rows of O-shaped circles, S-shaped curves, etc., as ornaments,
without the slightest reference to the sounds which those symbols
denote. The tendency to exalt simple little contrivances into hidden
mysteries is ever with us, especially in ecclesiology, and it should on
all occasions be repressed.

 [15] Throughout this chapter I have retained the Latin words _orarium_,
 _planeta_ and _alba_ in preference to the English translations 'stole,'
 'chasuble,' and 'alb,' when treating of the vestments of the early
 church. The two are not identical, and it is convenient to have a short
 method of distinguishing one from the other.

 [16] 'Episcopus presbyter aut diaconus si a gradu suo iniuste deiectus
 in secunda synodo innocens reperiatur non potest esse quod fuerat nisi
 gradus amissos recipiat coram altario de manu episcopi; (si episcopus)
 orarium annulum et baculum; si presbyter orarium et planetam; si
 diaconus orarium et albam; si subdiaconus patenam et calicem; sic et
 reliqui gradus ea in reparationem sui recipiant quae cum ordinarentur
 perceperunt.' [The bracketed words have dropped out from the MS., but
 their restoration is certain and necessary.]

 [17] This MS. is edited in Martene's Thesaurus Anecdotorum, vol. v, p.
 86 _et seq._, and extracts are made from it in Marriott's work, p. 204.
 The MS. was found in the monastery of St Martin at Autun, and is
 assigned by Martene to the sixth century, though on doubtful grounds.
 Marriott is probably correct in referring it to the tenth. As the
 vestments which it describes rather resemble those of the final period
 than of the transitional, we reserve its discussion till the following
 chapter.

 [18] Labbe, Sacrosancta Concilia (1671), vol. ii, col. 1203.

 [19] 'Nec diaconus aut subdiaconus certe vel lector antequam missa
 consummetur alba se præsumat exuere.'—Concil. Narb., i, Labbe, vol. v,
 col. 1030 (misprinted 1020).

 [20] It was also possible and usual to gird up the _tunica talaris_ for
 this purpose.

 [21] Derived from the adjective =kolobos=, _docked_, _curtailed_, in
 reference to the shortened sleeves of the garment.

 [22] Lampridius in Commodo, cap. viii; in Elagab., cap. xxvi.

 [23] Acta S Cyp., _prop. fin._ (Migne, Patrologia, vol. iii, col. 1504).

 [24] 'Ut diaconi Dalmatica uterentur in ecclesia et pallio linostimo
 laeva eorum tegeretur.'—Anastasius Bibliothecarius de Vit. Pontif., §
 35 (S Sylv.); Migne, Patrol., vol. cxxvii, 1514.

 [25] 'Usus autem Dalmaticarum a B. Sylvestro Papa institutus est: nam
 antea colobiis utebantur.'—Pseudo-Alcuin de Div. Off., cap. xxxix;
 Migne, vol. ci, 1243.

 [26] This does not apply to the city of Rome. See p. 54.

 [27] Etymologiae, lib. xix, cap. xxii (Migne, lxxxii 635).

 [28] 'Sciendum ... illum ... primum donasse oraria populo Romano quibus
 uteretur populus ad favorem.'—Flav. Vop. in Aur., 48.

 [29] 'Orariis duobus nec episcopo quidem licet nec presbytero uti;
 quanto magis diacono qui minister eorum est. Unum igitur orarium
 oportet Levitam gestare in sinistro humero propter quod orat, id est,
 praedicat; dextram autem partem oportet habere liberam ut expeditus ad
 ministerium sacerdotale discurrat. Caveat igitur amodo gemino uti
 orario sed uno tantum et puro nec ullis coloribus aut auro
 ornato.'—Acta Concil. Tolet. IV, cap. xl.

 This rule does not seem to have been always obeyed. In the Pontifical
 of Landulfus (ninth century) there is a representation of an
 ecclesiastic wearing two _oraria_, one over each shoulder. This,
 however, must be regarded as exceptional.

 [30] 'Item placuit ut quia in aliquantis huius provinciae ecclesiis
 diacones (_sic_) absconsis infra tunicam utuntur orariis ita ut nihil
 differre a subdiacono videantur de cetero superposito scapulae (sicut
 decet) utantur orario.'—Acta Concil. Bracar. II, cap. ix: Labbe, vol.
 v, col. 841. The eleventh canon ordained 'ut lectores in ecclesia in
 habitu saeculari ornati non psallant.'

 [31] 'Cum antiqua ecclesiastica noverimus institutione praefixum ut
 omnis sacerdos cum ordinatur orario utroque humero ambiatur; scilicet
 ut qui imperturbatus praecipitur consistere inter prospera et adversa,
 virtutum semper ornamento utrobique circumseptus appareat: qua ratione
 tempore sacrificii non assumat, quod se in sacramento accepisse non
 dubitatur? Proinde modis omnibus convenit ut quod quisque percepit in
 consecratione, hoc et retentet in oblatione, vel perceptione sude
 salutis; scilicet ut cum sacerdos ad sollennia missarum accedit aut pro
 se Deo sacrificium oblaturus, aut sacramentum corporis et sanguinis
 Domini Nostri Jesu Christi sumpturus, non aliter accedat, quam orario
 utroque humero circumseptus, sicut et tempore ordinationis suae
 dignoscitur consecraturus: ita ut de uno eodemque orario cervicem
 pariter et utrumque humerum premens, signum in suo pectore praeferat
 crucis. Si quis autem aliter egerit excommunicationi debitae
 subiacebit.'—Concil. Bracar. IV, cap. iv: Labbe, vol. vi, coll. 564,
 565.

 [32] 'Presbyteri sine intermissione utuntur orariis propter
 differentiam sacerdotis dignitatis.'—Concil. Mogunt. cap. xxviii:
 Labbe, vol. vii, col. 1249.

 [33] Or, to speak more accurately, new adaptation of an old garment.
 The _paenula_, for instance, had long been worn by the lower classes,
 being cheap and warm.

 [34] Though it was by no means adapted to active exertion. See Cicero,
 pro Milone, capp. x, xx.

 [35] 'Paenulis intra urbem frigoris causa ut senes uterentur permisit,
 quum id vestimenti genus semper itineranum fuisset aut pluviae.
 Matrones tamen intra urbem paenulis uti vetuit, in itinere
 permisit.'—Lamprid. in Alex. Sev., cap. xxvii.

 [36] Quoted by the Rev O. J. Reichel in his 'English Liturgical
 Vestments in the Thirteenth Century' (London, Hodges, 1895).

 [37] Some exceptions to this rule will be noticed in the next chapter.

 [38] Symmachi Ep. xii in 'Patrologia,' lxii 72.

 [39] Vigilii Epp. vi, vii in 'Patrologia,' lxix 26, 27.

 [40] Gregorii Ep. v 53; 'Patrologia,' lxvii 783.

 [41] '... sane interim in throno non sedentem et praeter corpus Christi
 non consecrantem priusquam pallium a sede Romana percipiat, sicuti
 Galliarum omnes et Germaniae et aliarum regionum Archiepiscopi agere
 comprobantur.'—Nich. Papae I, Responsa ad consulta Bulgar., cap.
 lxxiii, _ad fin._: Labbe, vol. viii, col. 542.

 [42] The notion prevalent nowadays, that the _mappula_ was exclusively
 intended to cleanse the sacred vessels, is thus bluntly negatived by St
 Ivo of Chartres: 'Unde in sinistra manu ponitur quaedam mappula quae
 saepe fluentem oculorum pituitam tergat et oculorum lippitridinem
 removeat.' And Amalarius of Metz testifies to the same effect:
 'Sudarium ad hoc portamus ut eo detergamus sudorem qui fit ex labore
 proprii corporis.'

 [43] The modifications which the discomfort of this little vestment
 necessitated will be described in the next chapter.

 [44] Civil dress presented parallel cases: the Emperor Augustus wore
 four tunics in cold weather.

 [45] Huic dum consecratur datur baculus ... datur et annulus propter
 signum pontificalis honoris vel signaculum secretorum.—Isidorus de Off.
 Eccl., lib. ii, cap. v.

 [46] _Ad annulum digito imponendam_: Accipe annulum fidei, scilicet
 signaculum quatenus sponsam Dei, videlicet sanctam ecclesiam,
 intemerata fide ornatus illibate custodias.

 [47] Ut subditam plebem vel regat vel corrigat vel infirmitatem
 infirmorum sustineat.

 [48] Romanus autem Pontifex Pastorali virga non utitur—Innoc. III Papa,
 De Sacr. Altar. Myst. i 62 (Migne ccxvii, 795). Ideoque summum
 Pontificem eiusmodi; incurvatam virgam non gerere quia eius potestas
 nullis locorum limitibus circumscribitur at ubique patet.—De Saussay,
 Panoplia Clericorum (Paris 1646), p. 102.

[Illustration]




CHAPTER III.

THE FINAL FORM OF VESTMENTS IN THE WESTERN CHURCH.


Hitherto, to a great extent, we have been groping in the dark, guided
only by the dim light yielded by obscure passages in early writers or by
half-defaced frescoes and shattered sculptures. Much is conjectural,
much uncertain; and often the shreds of information obtained from
different sources appear contradictory, requiring patient thought and
investigation to unravel the entanglement and reconcile the
inconsistencies.

The progress of Christian literature and art had been retarded first by
persecution, then by war and tumult. This partly accounts for the
comparative scantiness of the material extant for a history of the
Christian antiquities of the first eight centuries. But with the ninth
century a new era began, which lasted unchecked all through the Middle
Ages. The military genius of Charles the Great effected a general peace
in the year 812; and under his enthusiastic patronage a true renaissance
took place in learning and in art. Architecture and manuscript
illumination were carried to a high degree of perfection, and for the
first time active and systematic researches were made into the details
of the doctrine and ritual of the church in the preceding centuries.

As a natural consequence of the inquiring spirit which thus made itself
felt, the number of books and tracts on ecclesiastical matters
multiplied enormously. Among the many branches of study which were and
are open to the inquiry of the ecclesiologist, few occupied the
attention of these ninth-century writers more than the vestments worn by
the priests when ministering in Divine service.

It has been reserved for the antiquaries of our own day to formulate the
true principles of scientific archaeology. We smile at the childish
fancies which are gravely put forward in works not more than fifty years
old; small wonder is it, then, that we find these early treatises on
vestments disappointing. All are firmly impressed with the Levitical
origin of the usage and shape of Christian vesture; and the majority are
occupied with vague speculations concerning the symbolic meaning of the
individual items in an ecclesiastical outfit.

Mr. Marriott assigns a reason for the then universal belief in the
Levitical origin of ecclesiastical vestments which is highly ingenious,
and probably correct. I cannot do better than cite his words on the
subject:

'Churchmen who had travelled widely, as then some did, in East as well
as West, could hardly fail to notice the remarkable fact, that at
Constantinople as at Rome, at Canterbury as at Arles, Vienna or Lyons,
one general type of ministering dress was maintained, varying only in
some minor details; and that this dress everywhere presented a most
marked contrast to what was _in their time_ the prevailing dress of the
laity. And as all knowledge of classical antiquity had for three
centuries or more been well-nigh extinct in the church, it was not less
natural that they should have sought a solution of the phenomenon thus
presented to them in a theory of Levitical origin, which from that time
forward was generally accepted.'[49]

Rabanus Maurus, as we have already stated (_supra_, p. 12), was the
first who endeavoured to draw the parallel between the Christian and the
Jewish vestments. The older writers saw the difficulties in the way of
establishing a complete correspondence. Thus Walfrid Strabo (_circa_
840), in chapter xxiv of his 'De Rebus Ecclesiasticis,' merely says:
'_Numero_ autem suo antiquis respondent' (In their _number_ they
correspond to the ancient vestments); and he further admits that mass
was formerly celebrated by a priest robed in everyday dress.[50] But, as
the desire to prove the correspondence grew more widespread, changes and
additions were rapidly made in the vestments themselves, with a view to
assimilating the two systems. In the interval between the ninth and
eleventh centuries the number of recognised vestments was doubled by the
accretions thus made to the original set.

As the simplest and most intelligible method of exhibiting the extent of
these changes, I have drawn up the subjoined table, in which are given
the lists of vestments known to writers on ecclesiastical matters during
this interval of time. These lists are placed in parallel columns, and a
uniform system of nomenclature has been adopted, so that the reader can
see at a glance the date of the various additions:

 +------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
 |  Rabanus   |Pseudo-Alcuin,|   Ivo      |Honorius of  |Innocent III,|
 |  Maurus,   |              |of Chartres,|   Autun,    |_circa_ 1200.|
 |_circa_ 820.|  _saec._ x.  |_ob._ 1115. |_circa_ 1130.|             |
 +------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
 | Alb        | Alb          | Alb        | Alb         | Alb         |
 | Girdle     | Girdle       | Girdle     | Girdle      | Girdle      |
 | Amice      | Amice        | Amice      | Amice       | Amice       |
 | Stole      | Stole        | Stole      | Stole       | Stole       |
 | Maniple    | Maniple      | Maniple    | Maniple     | Maniple     |
 | Dalmatic   | Dalmatic     | Dalmatic   | Dalmatic    | Dalmatic    |
 | Chasuble   | Chasuble     | Chasuble   | Chasuble    | Chasuble    |
 | Sandals    | Sandals      | Sandals    | Sandals     | Sandals     |
 | Pall       | Pall         |    --      | Pall        | Pall        |
 |    --      |    --        | Stockings  |    --       | Stockings   |
 |    --      |    --        |    --      | Subcingulum | Subcingulum |
 |    --      |    --        |    --      | Rational    |     --      |
 |    --      |    --        |    --      | Mitre       | Mitre       |
 |    --      |    --        |    --      | Gloves      | Gloves      |
 |    --      |    --        |    --      | Ring        | Ring        |
 |    --      |    --        |    --      | Staff       | Staff       |
 |    --      |    --        |    --      |    --       | Tunicle     |
 |    --      |    --        |    --      |    --       | Orale       |
 +------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-------------+

From this table it will be seen that the number of vestments was
increased, not so much by the invention of entirely new ornaments, as in
the exaltation to the rank of separate 'vestments' of what had
previously been subordinate. The ring and staff, for instance, were
known to the councillors at Toledo, but they do not appear in these
lists till the twelfth century.

We must now discuss each of these vestments, noting their shape and the
peculiarities which they presented at different times. It will be
convenient to follow the order of the above table.

I. _The Alb._—We have traced the history of this vestment from its use
as a purely secular garment till the ninth century, and have seen how
its proportions, at first ample, were contracted till the vestment
fitted with comparative tightness to the body, on account of the greater
convenience which the less flowing form of the vestment offered for
active administration in Divine service.

The material of which the alb was made was usually linen, of more or
less fine quality; but we often meet with entries in old inventories of
church goods which enumerate albs of other material. Silk and cloth of
gold are very commonly mentioned, and velvet is not unknown. Thus we have

 'Albe sunt viginti de serico principales.'—Inv. Westminster Abbey, 1388.

 '30 albes of old cloth of Baudkyn.'—Inv. Peterborough, 1539.

 'One olde aulbe of whyte velvyt.'—Inv. St Martin Dover, 1536.

The proper colour of the alb was white; but in England coloured albs
were sometimes worn, and we meet with such vestments in inventories
_passim_. The following is a selection:

 'Red albes for Passion week, 27.

 '40 Blue albes of divers sorts.

 '7 Albes called Ferial black.'—Inv. Peterborough, 1539.

 'Alba de rubea sindone brudata.'—Inv. Canterbury.

The ornamentation of the alb, in the earlier years of the third period,
sometimes consisted of round gold plates, just above the lower hem of
the vestment, one on either side. Occasionally there were rows of small
gold plates arranged round the lower edge. Albs of the first kind were
called _albae sigillatae_, from the seal-like appearance of the gold
plates. Albs of the second kind were named _albae bullatae_. Dr Rock
quotes the following:

 'Camisias albas sigillatas holosericas.'—Record of gift of King
 Æthelwulf to St Peter's, Rome, in Liber Pontific. in Vita Benedicti
 III, t. iii, p. 168, ed. Vignolio.

 'Alba bona et bullata.'—Peterborough, A.D. 1189.

The more usual ornamentation, however, and that which became universal
in later years, consisted in ornamental patches of embroidery,
technically called _apparels_, sewn on to various parts of the vestment.
There were two such rectangular patches just above the lower hem,[51]
one in front, one behind; two similar patches, one on the back, the
other on the breast; two small patches, one on each cuff; a narrow strip
encircling the aperture for the head, more for use (as a binding to
prevent tearing) than for ornament; and, in earlier examples, two narrow
strips running down in front and two behind, like the _clavi_ of the
Roman tunic.

In the earliest representations of albs, as seen on sculptured
monuments, the vestment is left plain; one of the earliest apparelled
albs being on an effigy to the memory of Bishop Giffard, at Worcester,
1301. This, however, does not imply more than that the apparels were
originally painted on, and that the paint has worn off.

Another difference is observable between the cuff-apparels of early
effigies and of those of later date. In the early albs the cuff-apparel
invariably encircles the whole wrist; but in later specimens we find
that it has shrunk to a small square patch, sewn on the part of the
sleeve which is toward the back of the hand.

Dr Rock has shown some reason for believing that the apparels were
occasionally hung loose over their proper place; the lower hem apparels
being suspended from the girdle, and those on the breast and back being
fastened together by two cords, between which the head was passed, and
which consequently, when in position, ran across the shoulders. This was
obviously suggested by convenience; for the entry in the accounts of St
Peter's, Sandwich—

 'for washing of an awbe and an amyce parteȳing to the vestments of the
 garters and flour de lice and for sewing on of the parelles of the
 same, vᵈ'

—tells us what we should have expected, that the apparels had to be
removed from the vestment when it was washed, and sewn on again
afterwards. It was only natural that some such plan as the loose
suspension of the apparels should be followed; for the constant ripping
off and sewing on of the embroidery must have been not only laborious,
but ultimately detrimental to the vestment.

This entry gives us an instance of another fact, that vestments and
suits of vestments were named after the pattern which was embroidered
upon their apparels. A singular collection occurs in the Peterborough
inventory, including

 '6 albes with Peter keys.
 '6 albes called the Kydds.
 '7 albes called Meltons.
 '6 albes called Doggs.'

Albs were sometimes worn plain, _i.e._, without apparel. The Salisbury
Missal, for example, forbids the apparelled alb to be worn on Good
Friday; and it is not at all impossible that some of the plain albs, as
represented on early monuments, are really intended for unadorned
vestments.

Some difference of opinion seems to exist among the authorities about
the mystical signification of this vestment. Rabanus Maurus holds it to
inculcate purity of life. Amalarius of Metz, contrasting Jerome's
description of the tight-fitting Jewish tunic with the flowing alb of
his own day, considers that it denotes the liberty of the New Testament
dispensation as contrasted with the servitude of the Old. Pseudo-Alcuin
thinks that it means perseverance in good deeds, and that therefore
Joseph is described as wearing a _tunica talaris_ among his brethren.
'For a tunic which reaches all the way to the ankles is a good work
carried out to the end, for the ankle is the end of the body.' Ivo of
Chartres asserts that it signifies the mortification and chastisement of
the members. Honorius of Autun agrees more or less with Rabanus Maurus;
but Innocent III regards it as symbolical of newness of life, 'because
it is as unlike as possible to the garments of skins which are made from
dead animals, and with which Adam was clothed after his fall.'

The following dimensions are among those given by Mrs Dolby as the
correct measurements of an alb for a figure of medium height and
ordinary proportions:

                                           ft.  in.
 Length behind when made                    4    9
 Length before                              4    5
 Depth of shoulder-band                     0    8½
 Width of same                              0    1¼
 Length of sleeve, outside of arm           2    1½
 Width of sleeve at wrist folded in two     0    6½
 Width of sleeve half-way up                0    9½
 Length of neck-band                        2    2½
 Width of same                              0    1¼
 Opening down front                         1    1½

II. _The Girdle_, with which the alb is secured, is a narrow band,
usually of silk, the ends of which terminate in a tassel.

The colour of the girdle is properly white, though occasionally it
varied with the colour of the day. Though (as stated) properly of silk,
it is sometimes made of cotton.

Occasionally the girdle was embroidered in colours. In the Westminster
inventory of 1388 we have:

 'Zone serice sunt septem diversi operis et diversorum colorum.'

The following is a selection of the esoteric meanings ascribed to this
vestment: _custodia mentis_; _discretio omnium virtutum_; _virtus
continentiae_; _perfecta Christi caritas_.

The length of the girdle is stated at about four yards. The length of
the alb, it should be noticed, was so considerable that it was necessary
to draw it through the girdle and let it hang over above it. It is
therefore extremely rare (if not unknown) for the girdle to be visible
on mediaeval monuments, for even in those exceptional effigies in which
the whole length of the alb is visible, the latter vestment entirely
conceals the girdle by falling over it.

III. _The Amice._—This vestment was quite unknown in the earlier period:
it was a mediaeval invention.

The amice was clearly originally intended to serve as a hood; and a
survival of this use remains in the ritual of vesting, in which the
priest first places the vestment on his head, with the prayer 'Impone
Domine capiti meo galeam salutis ad expugnandum diabolicos incursus,'
before adjusting it round his neck.

In several dioceses of France the amice was worn as a hood upon the head
from All Saints' Day till Easter, and something of the same kind may
have been the practice elsewhere; thus, we find an effigy of a priest in
Towyn, Merionethshire, and another in Beverley Minster, in which the
amice is drawn over the head hoodwise.

In shape the amice was a rectangle (the dimensions are given as
thirty-six inches by twenty-five inches). At each end strings were sewn,
which were of sufficient length to cross over the breast and encircle
the body. An apparel of embroidered work ran along one of the long
sides; so that when the vestment was in position it was turned down,
like a collar, over the other vestments round the neck, and so far open
as to leave the throat of the wearer exposed. A small cross was marked
in the centre of the upper edge of the vestment.

So much of this vestment was concealed that there appears to have been
little or no scope for variety of treatment, either in form or material.
The latter seems always to have been linen. The _orphreys_ (embroidered
edges), of course, are subject to the same unlimited variation of design
as the corresponding ornaments on other vestments; but the shape is
constant.

The same uniformity is not, however, observable in the symbolism of this
vestment. The variety of meanings is even greater than is the case with
the alb and its girdle. We are told that it signifies (_inter alia_) the
Holy Incarnation; the purity of good works; the subjugation of the
tongue; the earthy origin and heavenly goal of the human body; the
necessity of justice and mercy in addition to temperance and abstention
from evil; and the endurance of present hardships.

IV. _The Stole._—The early history of the stole has been discussed in
the preceding chapter, in considering the _orarium_.

Why, or when, the proper name of the vestment became 'stole,'
or _stola_, does not appear. It is named _stola_ in the later
ecclesiastical canons of our second period; but it is not clear how
_stola_, which in its original significance denoted a flowing tunic,
like the under-garment of the Roman or the _alba_ of the priests of the
second period, came to signify a narrow strip of orphrey-work. It is
quite certain that it cannot be explained (as some writers have
attempted to do) as the _orphrey_ of a lost vestment which has survived
while the bulk of it has disappeared; for the continuity of the stole
and the _orarium_ is a matter of historic certainty, and we have already
shown reason for assigning an entirely different origin to the latter
vestment. Such an evolution, too, as that of a narrow strip from a large
vestment is not natural, and is contrary to our observation in the
history of other vestments; and it assumes the existence of embroidered
'orphreys' at a time far too remote for such ornamentation to be found.
This hypothesis has suggested one of the less probable etymologies which
have been proposed for the word _orarium_.

[Illustration: FIG. 6.—STOLE-ENDS, SHOWING VARIETIES IN FORM AND
ORNAMENT.]

The stole is a narrow strip of embroidered work, nine or ten feet long
and two or three inches wide. In its original form it was of the same
width throughout; but about the thirteenth or fourteenth century we find
its ends terminating in a rectangular compartment, giving each the
appearance of a tau cross. This was in order to secure extra room for
the cross with which every stole was supposed to be marked at the end.
For the same purpose the modern stole expands gradually from the middle
point, where also a cross is embroidered.

Priests wear the stole between the alb and chasuble, crossed over the
breast, and secured in that position by the girdle of the alb—nowadays
only when officiating at mass, formerly on all occasions on which the
stole was worn. Deacons generally secure it over the left shoulder and
under the right arm, thereby approximating the disposition of the
vestment to that of the ancient Roman ornament from which the vestment
takes its origin. Bishops wear the stole between the alb and tunicle[52]
pendent perpendicularly on either side of the breast; the pectoral cross
which they wear is supposed to supply the place of the crossed stole.

The embroidery and material of the stole were supposed to tally with
that of the alb, with which it was worn. The same rule applies to the
maniple, and we commonly find in inventories that the three vestments
are catalogued together. But if we can trust the evidence of brasses and
other monuments, the vestments of different suits were worn together in
a very haphazard manner, and it does not seem possible to extract any
definite rule as to the collocation of different vestments embroidered
with different patterns of orphreys.

The ends of the stole—below the embroidered cross when such
existed—terminated in a fringe; and it was not uncommon in earlier years
for little bells to be included in this fringe. Thus we have:

 'Una stola cum frixio Anglicano cum perlis albis et endicis et
 campanellis.'—Inv. Vest. Papae Bonif. VIII, _cit. ap._ Rock, 'Church of
 our Fathers.'

The stole is said to signify 'the easy yoke of Christ.' Authorities
earlier than the twelfth century are agreed on this point, though they
differ on some minor details in the subordinate symbolism of its length,
disposition, etc. But Honorius of Autun asserts that it signifies
'innocence,' and makes some vague and, to the present writer,
unintelligible allusions to Esau's sale of his birthright; while
Innocent III, with a faint reminiscence of the earlier exegesis,
declares it to signify the servitude which Christ underwent for the
salvation of mankind—referring to Phil. ii 5-8.

V. _The Maniple._—The history of the development of the maniple follows
closely on that of the stole. With a very few exceptions, the maniple,
as represented on mediaeval monuments, differs from the stole, with
which it is associated, in size alone.[53]

[Illustration: FIG. 7.—ARCHBISHOP STIGAND. (From the Bayeux tapestry,
showing maniple carried over fingers.)]

The maniple was originally worn over the fingers of the left hand. This
arrangement was most inconvenient, as it was constantly liable to slip
off, and the fingers had to be held in a constrained attitude throughout
the service. It was early found more comfortable and convenient to place
the vestment over the left wrist; but no definite rule seems to have
been formulated, and, indeed, in some parts of France the earlier custom
seems to have survived till the middle of the eighteenth century. When
placed on the wrist it was either buttoned or sewn so as to form a
permanent loop, so that it should not slip off the arm.

In a few effigies the maniple is represented on the right wrist. For
this there is no liturgical authority, and it can only be attributed to
the blundering of the engraver or sculptor.[54]

In reference to its original utilitarian purpose, Amalarius assigns to
the maniple the significance of the 'purification of the mind.'
Pseudo-Alcuin holds it to denote this present life (in qua superfluos
humores patimur). It is also said to denote penitence, caution, and the
prize in the racecourse.

The width of the maniple is the same as that of the stole—the length is
given at from three feet to three feet eight inches.

VI. _The Dalmatic._—I am unable to find any representation of this
vestment older than the ninth century, showing the special features
which distinguished it from the other vestments of the mediaeval period.
Before that date the dalmatic seems to have been identical with the
_alba_, possibly distinguished from it by being a little shorter when,
as at Rome, the two vestments were worn together.

[Illustration: FIG. 8.—DEACON IN EPISCOPAL DALMATIC. (From Randworth
Church.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 9.—DEACON IN DIACONAL DALMATIC.]

In the mediaeval period, however, this vestment (and its modification,
the tunicle) is marked out from all others by being slit up a short
distance on either side. These side-slits were decorated with fringes;
but here an important theoretical distinction must be observed between
the dalmatic of a bishop and that of a deacon. This was often neglected
in mediaeval times, and is consequently frequently overlooked by
ecclesiologists of the present day. In the dalmatic, as worn by a
bishop, the side-slits, the lower hems, and the ends of the sleeves were
fringed; in the dalmatic of a deacon there were also fringes, _but only
on the left sleeve and along the left slit_.

The true reason for this distinction is probably to be sought in the
same direction as that which prompted the peculiar diaconal method of
wearing the _orarium_—convenience. The deacon, who was practically the
servitor at the altar, required to have his right side free and
unhampered as much as possible; the heavy fringes, which might have
impeded him, were therefore dispensed with upon that side. But such an
explanation would by no means satisfy the early mediaeval writers on
vestments, and we are accordingly informed that as the left side
typifies this present life and the right that which is to come, so the
fringes on the left indicate those cares through which we must pass in
this world, while their absence on the right symbolizes our freedom from
care in the world to come. Why the bishop was not regarded as exempt
from care in the future world does not appear.

Another singular piece of blundering meets us at St David's Cathedral.
Here we have two effigies representing clerics, who, though they wear
the dalmatic, yet show the stole disposed symmetrically, in the manner
of priests.[55] Either the presence of the dalmatic or the presbyteral
stole must be incorrect; but in our ignorance of the identity of the
persons whom these effigies commemorate we cannot decide which. Bloxam's
idea, that these figures represent archdeacons, though ingenious, is
untenable; for there is no authority for assigning the dalmatic to an
archdeacon of priestly grade; and we have other figures of priests known
to have been archdeacons in various parts of England, none of which show
the dalmatic.

The ornamentation of the dalmatic before the twelfth century consisted
either of vertical bands (like the _clavi_) or else of horizontal bands,
of orphrey-work. After that date the plain white vestment was superseded
by one covered all over with elaborate embroidery. This is especially
the case with the episcopal dalmatic, which is only what we should have
expected.

We have already stated one symbolical meaning attaching to the dalmatic
and its appurtenances. A few more may be of interest: the Passion of
Christ; the 'pure religion and undefiled,' as described by St James; the
Old and New Testaments; the crucifixion of the world in the wearer; the
wide mercy of Christ, etc.

All of the early writers are misled by the decree of Pope Sylvester into
imagining that Sylvester first instituted this garment as a purely
ecclesiastical vestment; some even go the length of assigning a mystical
meaning to the _colobium_, which it superseded. Even Walafrid Strabo,
who in many respects is the least mystical of the early mediaeval
writers on ecclesiastical vestments, is deceived, though he wisely
contents himself with stating the fact that Sylvester had so commanded,
without attempting to assign any reason for his so doing.

VII. _The Chasuble._—The variety of materials of which the chasuble was
made may be gathered from the following extracts from the Lincoln
Inventory of 1536:

 'Imprimis a Chesable of rede cloth of gold wᵗ orfreys before and behind
 sett wᵗ perles blew white and rede wᵗ plaits of gold enamelled.'

 'Item a Chesuble of Rede velvett wᵗ kateryn wheils of gold.'

 'Item a chesuble of Rede sylk browdered wᵗ falcons & leopardes of gold.'

 'Item a chesable of whyte damaske browdered wᵗ flowres of gold.'

 'Item a chesable of whyte tartaron̄ browdered wᵗ treyfoyles of gold.'

 'Item a chesable of purpur satten lynyd wᵗ blew bukerham havyng dyverse
 scripturs.'

 'Item a chesable of cloth of tyshew wᵗ orfreys of nedyll wark.'

 'Item a chesable of sundon browdered wᵗ mones & sterres lyned wᵗ blew
 bukerham.'

Of the materials here mentioned the commonest were velvet, silk, or
cloth of gold.

In the latest days of the transitional and the earliest days of the
mediaeval period, there were two kinds of chasubles in use, the
eucharistic and the processional. The distinction between them was
utilitarian rather than ritualistic; it consisted in a hood sewn to the
back of the latter, and designed as a covering for the head during
outdoor processions in inclement weather. But the processional chasuble
early gave place to the cope; and a hooded chasuble does not appear to
be extant in representations of date later than the tenth century.

The manner in which the early chasubles were made seems to have been as
follows: A semicircular piece of the cloth of which the vestment was to
consist was taken, and a notch cut at the centre, so that the shape of
the cloth resembled that of the figure in the annexed diagram; the two
straight edges corresponding to the lines AB and CD were then brought
together and sewn; the result was a vestment somewhat of extinguisher
shape, with a hole in the middle for the neck, and enveloping the body
all round to an equal depth each way. The result was that when the
priest had to raise his hands the vestment was gathered inconveniently
on either shoulder, and probably injured by being crushed, certainly
hampering the wearer by its weight. This difficulty was surmounted by a
very simple expedient. The cloth, instead of being shaped as before, was
cut into an oval form, and an opening was made at the centre for the
wearer's head, the consequence being that when in position the vestment
hung down over the front and back to some distance, and covered the
upper part of the arms, though not sufficiently so to interfere with
their free action. The latter shape is that which meets us all through
the mediaeval period throughout the Western Church.

[Illustration]

[Illustration: FIG. 10.—SIR PETER LEGH, KNIGHT AND PRIEST. (From his
brass at Winwick. Vested in chasuble only.)]

The modern Roman Church has made yet another innovation which, although
it has its disadvantages, certainly reduces the inconvenience of the
vestment to a minimum. Two fairly large semicircular pieces are cut from
each side of the front of the vestment, thereby permitting the hands to
be brought together when necessary without crushing the vestment between
the forearms, which was inevitable in the old form. But the wasp-waisted
appearance of this chasuble is ugly, and attempts are being made to
abolish it and to return to the mediaeval pattern.

Yet another small distinction is to be found in the shape of individual
examples of the mediaeval period. We find many of these vestments to be
made circular or elliptical, so that the lower border is rounded off;
while many others are found to be made in the shape known as the _vesica
piscis_, so that the lower extremities terminate in a point more or less
sharp. Writers who cannot be content with simple or commonplace
explanations of such phenomena as this have laboured in vain to invent
some esoteric signification which will account for it. Perhaps the most
common-sense guess is that made by Dr Rock, who thinks that the rounded
chasuble was used during the period of rounded architecture—the Saxon
and Norman—and the pointed chasuble during the pointed periods of
architecture: a suggestion which we should have no difficulty in
accepting at once, were it not for the fact that scores of brasses and
other monuments of the Curvilinear and Rectilinear periods in
architecture exist showing _rounded_ chasubles; while (among others) the
effigy of Bishop John de Tour, at Bathampton near Bath, A.D. 1123, shows
a _pointed_ vestment. We have no space to enter into particulars of the
other suggestions—the symbolism of the _vesica piscis_, the perfection
of the circle, etc.

The simple explanation seems to be that the difference depended merely
on the taste and fancy of the seamstress or of the engraver of the
monument. It would be perfectly possible to draw up a list of monuments
in which the point of the chasuble shows every stage from extreme
sharpness to extreme bluntness, and so, by one step further, into a
continuous curve. This demonstrates that no rule was necessarily
followed in choosing the shape of the chasuble, beyond that of making a
fairly symmetrical vestment which should hang down in front and behind,
and should have a hole in the middle through which the priest's head
should be passed. Nor can we even say that fashion affected the shape of
the vestment; for were such a list as I have mentioned to be printed
here, it would be seen to consist of the most haphazard and random
series of dates and names of places thrown together without the
slightest regard to chronological sequence or geographical position.

The dimensions of a pointed chasuble (_circa_ fourteenth century) at
Aix-la-Chapelle, which has been accepted as a standard for modern
imitation, are given as follows:

                                        ft. in.
 Depth of shoulder, measuring from neck  2   9
 Length of side, from shoulder to point  4  11
 Depth from neck to point in front       4   6
   "          "       "      behind      4  10

The chasuble of St Thomas of Canterbury, at Sens Cathedral, which is of
the old extinguisher shape, is three feet ten inches in depth. In the
oldest chasubles the length of the vestment behind was greater—often
much greater—than in front. There is a more even balance between back
and front in later mediaeval times.

Passing now from the manner of making the chasuble to the manner of
ornamenting it, we find just the same divergence, with apparently just
as little rule. It is probable that, as the decoration was the most
costly part of the manufacture of a chasuble, the amount of it was
regulated by the resources available to pay for it.

We propose to consider at the end of the next chapter the classes of
patterns with which vestments generally were decorated in the middle
ages; at present, therefore, we shall confine ourselves to noticing
briefly the positions in which these decorations were placed on the
chasuble.

The groundwork of the vestment was either plain (invariably so in the
older examples) or else embroidered or woven with a pattern, according
to taste and means; the ornamentation proper consisted of strips of
embroidered or 'orphrey' work, as it is technically called, sewn on to
the vestment. These strips were sewn either on the edge or crosswise on
the front and back of the chasuble.

The edge orphrey is the more frequently met with in the brasses of
parish priests, and it is rarely so elaborately decorated as are the
central orphreys. It usually consisted of some simple pattern of flowers
or geometrical figures recurring at regular intervals round the edge.

Greater variety is seen in the shape of the central orphrey, which,
being the more elaborate and expensive, is almost invariably found
represented in the monuments of bishops, abbots, and other dignitaries,
and in the effigies of priests of the richer churches. It sometimes,
though rarely, consisted of a simple 'pillar' on the front and on the
back of the vestment; usually this ornamentation was extended by the
addition of branches of orphrey work given off on either side, which
passed over the shoulder and joined the corresponding branches of the
other pillar, the result being that the orphrey on front and back had
the appearance of the Greek Ψ, or of a Latin cross with oblique arms.
When the bands were so disposed, the pillar on the front was called the
_pectoral_, the pillar on the back the _dorsal_, and the auxiliary
bands, which passed over the shoulders, the _humeral_ orphreys. Very
frequently this design was varied by omitting the part of the pectoral
and dorsal bands above their intersection with the humeral; this
resulted in the 'Y cross,' which we find in so many effigies in our
cathedrals and churches. In a few examples the Y or Ψ is inverted, and
in some it gives off auxiliary branches, so as to resemble (_e.g._) the
figure ✶. It would, however, be waste of time and space to enter further
into a discussion of what was not regulated by any definite rule, but
depended on caprice, or, at most, on pecuniary considerations. More
often than not the central orphrey, of whatever form, is combined with
the edge orphrey, and is usually of a different pattern from it.

In many early chasubles the front and back are charged with an
embroidered Latin cross. This is also the case with the back of the
modern Roman or slit vestment.

When the Y orphrey was placed on the chasuble, the space between it and
the neck on the back was usually filled with an elaborate floral design
embroidered in gold or crimson. Sometimes (not always) this extended
round the neck, and was repeated in front. To this ornament the special
name of 'flower' has been attached.

The chasuble surmounts and safeguards all the other vestments; hence the
chasuble signifies love, which surmounts all the other virtues, and
safeguards and illumines their beauty with its protection; so says
Rabanus Maurus, prettily enough. Amalarius disagrees; he holds that as
the chasuble is common to all clerics, so it ought to set forth the
works which are common to all: fasting, thirsting, watching, poverty,
reading, singing, praying, and the rest. The pseudo-Alcuin and Ivo of
Chartres agree with Rabanus, though for different reasons. Innocent III,
however, holds it to signify the virtue of apostolical succession: 'For
this is the vestment of Aaron, to the skirt of which the oil ran down;
but it ran down from his head to his beard and from his beard to the
skirt. Forasmuch as we all receive of His spirit, first the Apostles,
afterwards the rest.' Further, he goes on to say that because the
stretching out of the hands divides the chasuble into two complete and
similar parts, so that vestment typifies the old and new church before
and after the time of Christ.

VIII. _The Sandals._—The sandals of the Roman citizens are well
known—mere soles, secured across the instep by one or more thongs of
leather, and clearly designed to protect the wearer from stony roads
without unnecessarily cramping or confining his feet—an important
consideration in a hot climate.

Such a sandal must have been worn by the early clergy as Roman citizens,
and probably long continued in use among the lower orders of clerics. It
was, and still is, the only foot-covering of certain monastic orders,
and in some cases was retained even by monks who had attained to
episcopal rank. In St Canice's Cathedral, Kilkenny, which contains a
unique collection of mediaeval effigies and incised slabs, superior in
merit to many better-known specimens of mediaeval art, there exists a
most interesting effigy of a former bishop, de Ledrede, who died _circa_
1350. He is represented fully vested in Eucharistic dress; but in place
of the episcopal sandals, which an ordinary bishop would have worn, he
wears the simpler monastic sandal, which covers only the sole and
instep; and shows the cord of St Francis hanging below his alb.

The extension of the Church into more northern and colder regions, and
the importation of foreign customs into the southern metropolis itself,
probably suggested the transformation of the somewhat scanty sandal into
a more appropriate and more comfortable shoe. The traditions of the old
custom were, however, long maintained in a curious way: the upper
leathers of the shoe were fenestrated or cut into open-work patterns,
the result being that the bare surface of the foot showed through and
displayed the decoration in light flesh-tint against the dark leather of
the shoe. When the episcopal stocking was added to the equipment of the
bishop, the colour became bright scarlet, though the effect remained
much the same.

The fenestrated sandals were abandoned about the fourteenth century in
favour of shoes, in shape very much resembling the modern ankle-shoe. It
would have been inconsistent, however, with the spirit of the fourteenth
century to have abandoned the decorative effect produced by the
open-work, and neglected to find some substitute. This substitute was
found in lavish embroidery and in ornamentation with jewels and spangles
of gold. The sandals, in fact, became as elaborate as did the rest of
the ecclesiastical vestments.

The sandals, as above described, were worn by bishops only, at the
Eucharistic service. Deacons and priests appear to have worn simple
everyday shoes, without ornamentation of any kind. The fenestrated shoes
(which were popular among the dandies of the day as well as consecrated
to the bishops) were expressly forbidden to them, as also were coloured
shoes, or shoes of the preposterous shapes occasionally in vogue among
the laity of the middle ages.

[Illustration: FIG. 11.—BISHOP WAYNFLETE'S EPISCOPAL SANDAL.]

'As the sandals partly cover the feet and leave them partly bare,' says
Rabanus, 'so the teachers of the Gospel should reveal part of the Gospel
and should hide the rest, that the faithful and pious may have enough
knowledge thereof, and the infidel and despiser may find no matter for
blasphemy. And this kind of shoe warns us likewise that we should have a
care to our flesh and our bodies in matters of necessity, not in matters
of lust.'

Amalarius of Metz enters into further details, incidentally touching on
some points of difference which obtained between the sandal of the
bishop and that of the priest in his day—the first half of the ninth
century. The following is a translation of his words:

'The difference in the sandal sets forth a difference in the minister.
The offices of the priest and of the bishop are almost identical; but
because there is a distinction in their titles and honours there is a
distinction in their sandals, that we may not fall into error upon
beholding them, which we might well do, owing to the similarity of their
offices. The bishop has a band (_ligatura_) in his sandals, which the
presbyter has not. It is the duty of the bishop to travel throughout the
length and breadth of his diocese (_parochia_) to govern the
inhabitants; and lest they should fall from his feet, his sandals are
bound. The moral of this is, that he who mingles with the vulgar crowd
must secure fast the courses of his mind (_gressus mentis_). The priest,
who remains in one spot and offers the sacrifice there, walks more
securely. The deacon, because his office is different from that of the
bishop, needs not different sandals; he therefore wears them bound,
because it is his to go on attendance. The subdeacon, because he assists
the deacon, and has almost the same office, must have different sandals,
that he be not thought a deacon. The inner meaning is this: Because the
sandals set forth the way of the preacher, the sole, which is
underneath, warns the preacher not to mingle with earthly matters. The
tongue of white leather, which is under the "tread"[56] of the foot,
shows that there ought to be the same separation, guiltless and
guileless; that it may be said of him, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in
whom there is no guile;" let him not be such as were the false apostles,
who preached in malice and disputation. The tongue, which rises thence,
and is separated from the leather of the sandals, sets forth the tongue
of those who ought to bear good testimony to the preacher, of whom Paul
said, "He must have a good report of them that are without." These are
in the lower rank, and to some extent are separated from spiritual
intercourse. The upper tongue is the tongue of the spirits
(_spiritalium_), who lead the preacher into the work of preaching. These
search into the past life of the preacher. But the sandals are bound
round within with white leather; so must the desire of the preacher be
pure before God, out of a clean conscience; and without appears the
black, since the life of the preacher seems despised by them that are
worldly on account of the myriad afflictions of this present life. The
upper part of the sandal, through which the foot enters, is sewn
together with many threads, that the two leather bands be not separated;
for at first the preacher should apply himself to the many virtues and
sayings of the Scriptures, that his outward acts may not be at variance
with those which are secret and known to God only. The tongue of the
sandals, which is over the foot, sets forth the tongue of the preacher.
The line made by the craft of the shoemaker, stretching from the tongue
of the sandal to its end, sets forth the perfection of the Gospel; the
lines proceeding from either side, the law and the prophets, which are
repeated in the Gospels; they are repeated at the middle line, which
stretches to the end. The bands denote the mystery of Christ's
Incarnation....'

We have given this strange mixture of mysticism and observation at
length for several reasons. First, it emphasizes a curious distinction
between the shoes of different orders of clergy which is not often
brought into notice. Secondly, it gives a very full, though somewhat
obscure, description of the sandal in the author's time. And thirdly, it
exemplifies the absurd lengths to which an author can go who endeavours
to extract hidden meanings from simple and easily explicable facts. Here
Amalarius endeavours to extract solemn truths even from the seams which
the maker found necessary in joining two pieces of leather together. If
some modern writers on archaeological subjects took timely warning from
such a melancholy example, we should have fewer wild theories and more
facts.

It is sad that most of Amalarius' successors quietly put aside his
elaborately argued piece of symbolism. Pseudo-Alcuin is content with the
old idea of Rabanus, that the Gospel should be kept from what is earthy
as the feet are kept from the ground, but not otherwise covered. Ivo
practically quotes Rabanus word for word; and even Innocent III, who is
usually original, has little further to offer beside the quotation: 'How
beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace!'

IX. _The Pall._—The pall is a symbol of jurisdiction, which is worn by
the Pope, and by him bestowed upon all archbishops.

The material of which the pall is made is white wool. Both the shape of
the vestment and its ornamentation have undergone modifications since it
was invented, even during the mediaeval period itself. Its earliest
appearance, and all that is known of its origin, is described in the
preceding chapter. The folding of the _pallium_ must have given a little
trouble whenever it was put on; and this must before long have suggested
the shape which meets us in the mediaeval pall: that of a loop of cloth
with two tails projecting from opposite points in its circumference. A
slight difference is observable between palls represented early and
those represented late in the mediaeval period. In the former the
branches are almost horizontal, passing round the arms between the
shoulder and elbow; in the latter they pass over the shoulder. In the
former case the pall resembles a T, in the latter a Y, whether seen from
before or behind the wearer.

[Illustration: FIG. 12.—ST DUNSTAN. (From a manuscript in the Cottonian
Library; showing early forms of pall and mitre.)]

In whichever form it appears, however, the pall was secured in its place
by pins. At first, when the vestments were of simple description, these
pins could be run through pall and chasuble without doing much damage;
afterwards, however, when enrichments were heaped upon the chasuble,
these pins were not run into that vestment at all, but through loops
provided for the purpose. It was discovered, however, that the pall in
its latest development would stay in its place quite as well without
pins as with them, and the loops were therefore abandoned. As the pins
were generally made of gold, with heads of precious stones, some
reluctance was felt at abandoning them altogether, and accordingly they
sank into the position which the maniple and other vestments
assumed—that of being ornaments.

The length of the pendent tails shows considerable variety at different
times. They are extremely long—often extravagantly so—in monuments
dating between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries. After that date
they were curtailed, and at present are not more than a foot long. There
is a little button of lead sewn into the ends of the tails to make them
hang properly.

The pall never displayed that tendency to elaborate adornment which
distinguished the other vestments of the mediaeval age. Doubtless the
fact that all palls were made at Rome, and but few were made at a time,
prevented any great change in fashion. Some differences are,
notwithstanding, noticeable. In the earliest representations of tailed
palls there is to be seen a single cross at the end of each tail; the
same cross is to be seen worked on early _oraria_ and _mappulae_. But in
mediaeval and modern times there is a difference. At present the pall
has six crosses, one on each tail and four on the oval, worked in black.
In the middle ages we find sometimes four, sometimes as many as eight,
worked in purple.

The history of each individual pall is curious. On the morning of St
Agnes's Day (January 21) in each year, two lambs are sent into Rome each
in a basket, the baskets being slung over a horse's back. These lambs
are chosen with special reference to whiteness and goodness. The horse
is driven to the palace of the Pope, who comes to a window and makes the
sign of the cross over the lambs, which are then conducted to the church
of St Agnes without the walls. Here, gaily adorned with flowers and
ribbons, they are brought up to the altar, and kept there till mass is
sung. After mass (formerly at the _Agnus Dei_) the celebrant blesses the
lambs, which are then handed over to the charge of the canons of St John
Lateran, by whom they are sent back to the Pope. The Pope hands them on
to the dean of his subdeacons, who delivers them up to a nunnery, where
they are kept and fed. When they are shorn, the wool is woven by the
nuns into palls. On the eve of the day of St Peter and St Paul these
palls are taken to St Peter's, and there blessed after evensong, after
which they are shut up in a silver-gilt box to wait till they are wanted
for bestowal on a new archbishop.

Each archbishop on election must go to Rome in person to receive the
pall, unless prevented by serious obstacles—when the latter is the case
it is solemnly sent to him by the Pope. He is not permitted to engage in
any episcopal duty before receiving the pall; afterwards the vestment is
worn only at High Mass on the following days: Nativity, St Stephen, St
John, Circumcision, Epiphany, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Holy
Saturday, Easter Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, Ascension, Pentecost,
Feasts of the Virgin, Nativity of St John the Baptist, all days of
Apostles, All Saints, Dedications of Churches, principal local feasts in
the diocese, Consecrations of Bishops, Ordinations of Clergy, Feast of
the local Dedication, and the Anniversary of the wearer's consecration.
The Pope, however, wears the pall at all times when he says mass.

The pall is the symbol of the archiepiscopal authority, therefore it may
not be worn without express papal permission outside the limits of the
jurisdiction of the archbishop.[57] When he dies, the pall is buried
with him, but it is only placed on his shoulders if he be buried within
his own province, otherwise it is folded and placed beneath his
head.[58] The pall is the only vestment which may not be lent by one
cleric to another.

[Illustration: FIG. 13.]

We now come to a singular point in the history of the pall, and one
which has so far baffled ecclesiologists to explain. Although the pall
is generally regarded as the peculiar emblem of archbishops, and seems
to have been kept for their especial and peculiar use by the rites which
we have described, yet a few favoured bishops have from very early times
been entitled to wear this vestment. The bishoprics which possess this
privilege are those of Autun, Bamberg, Dol, Lucca, Ostia, Pavia, and
Verona.

The pall is represented on several monuments of bishops of these
dioceses, _e.g._, the slab of Bishop Otto (1192) and the brass of Bishop
Lambert (1399), both in Bamberg Cathedral. In illuminated manuscripts
and elsewhere we often find figures of clerics of episcopal rank wearing
the pall, but holding the crook-headed staff, commonly supposed to be
the insignia of a _bishop_ as distinguished from an archbishop; but as
numerous examples exist to show that the latter notion (like the
majority of popular ideas in archaeology) is erroneous, this combination
proves nothing.

The peculiar circumstances distinguishing the pall from the rest of the
ecclesiastical vestments would lead us to expect some remarkable
disquisitions on its symbolism. This expectation is not disappointed.
The cross on the back and front reminds the wearer to reflect piously
and in a worthy manner on the Passion of the Redeemer, and holds up
before the people the sign of their Redemption. Such is the old view,
and it has at least the merit of simplicity and religious feeling. But,
unfortunately, Amalarius, in his dissecting manner, draws a parallel
between the pall and the golden plate of the Levitical High Priest; this
clears the way for the extraordinary disquisition of the pseudo-Alcuin
on the Tetragrammaton יהוח (as he inaccurately writes it), wherein _Jod_
signifies 'principium,' _He_ 'iste,' _Vau_ 'vita,' and _Heth_
'passio'—'id est, iste est principium passionis vitae.' Honorius thinks,
however, that the four letters typify the four arms of the cross.
Innocent III and others tell us that the pall signifies that discipline
with which archbishops should rule themselves and those set under them.
As Innocent's account of the pall gives as full an account as can be
obtained of the vestment and its ornamentation and fastenings, we give
an abstract of it here:

'The pall which the principal bishops wear signifies the discipline with
which archbishops should rule themselves and those set under them. By
this the golden chain[59] is obtained which those receive who strive
lawfully, of which Solomon saith, "My son, hear the instruction of thy
father and forsake not the law of thy mother, for they shall be an
ornament of grace unto thy head and chains about thy neck." For the
pallium is made of white wool, woven, having a circle above constraining
the shoulders, and two tails (_lineae_) hanging down on either side;
moreover, there are four purple crosses, front and back, on the right
and on the left. On the left side it is double, and single on the
right.'[60] After a long moralization on these facts, he goes on: 'The
three pins which are fixed in the pallium over the breast, on the
shoulder and in the back, denote pity for his neighbour, the
administration of his office, and the meting out of justice.... There is
no pin fastened in the right shoulder,' because there is no trouble in
everlasting rest. 'The needle is golden, sharp below, rounded above,
enclosing a precious stone,' which bears a variety of meanings. If we
may believe the Elizabethan reformers, the pall was an expensive item in
an archbishop's insignia. Although Gregory I ordained that it should be
given to the archbishop-elect freely, Jewel speaks of the Archbishop of
Canterbury giving 5,000 florins (£1,125 at 4s. 6d. the florin) to the
Pope for his pall, in addition to the first-fruits of his province; and
Bullinger speaks of the pall being so dear that 'in gathering money for
it' the archbishop often 'beggared his whole diocese.'

X. _The Stockings_, or buskins, seem to have been originally
appropriated to the Pope alone, bishops being content with the somewhat
scanty sandal already described. But by the time of Ivo of Chartres the
_caligae_ had taken their place among the articles in an episcopal
wardrobe. He is the first writer who mentions them. In the middle ages
they, like all the other vestments of which we have been treating,
forsook their primitive simplicity and became enriched with elaborate
ornamentation. They signify the need of framing the courses of their
feet aright; and in that they reach to the knees, they indicate that the
wearer should strengthen the feeble knees weakened by heedlessness, and
hasten to preach the Gospel.

[Illustration: FIG. 14.—BISHOP WAYNFLETE'S EPISCOPAL STOCKING.]

XI. _The Subcingulum._—The discussion of this vestment will be more
difficult than that of any other among the equipment of the clergy of
the West. It is all but obsolete at the present day; there does not seem
to be more than one representation of it extant, and that only shows a
small portion of it in an unsatisfactory manner; and the references to
it in ecclesiastical writers are few and far between.

In antiquarian or any other investigations it is invariably the best
rule, when a puzzle is set for solution, to work backwards from the
known to the unknown. We will follow this course in speaking of this
vestment, and commence with a description of it as worn at the present
day.

The modern _subcingulum_ is reserved for the exclusive use of the Pope.
It takes the form of a girdle, passed round the alb, and having on the
left side a maniple-like appendage. This seems to have been the form
which it had in the end of the fourteenth century, for in an 'Ordo
Missae Pontificalis,' published by Georgi,[61] we read: 'Primo induit
(pontifex) sibi albam, deinde cinctorium cum manipulo ad sinistram
partem.' In the century before this Durandus, in his 'Rationale
Divinorum Officiorum,' writes: 'Sane a sinistro latere pontificis ex
cingulo duplex dependet succinctorium'[62]—a doubled 'apron' hangs on
the left hand side; and he likens it to a quiver, in the course of an
elaborate comparison between the episcopal vestments of his time and the
spiritual armour of the Christian.

The _succinctorium_ must have adopted this form about the middle of the
thirteenth century. At the beginning of that century we find that it had
its use, and was not a mere ornament. In the 'Ordo Romanus' of Cencio de
Sabellis, written at the end of the twelfth century,[63] is a
description of the new Pope's taking possession of the Church of St John
Lateran. He is there described as being 'girt with a belt of crimson
silk, hanging from which is a purple _purse_ (bursa) containing twelve
precious stones and some musk.' These all had their symbolical meaning:
the belt denoted purity, the purse almsgiving, the stones the apostles,
the musk 'a good odour in the sight of God.'

Innocent III, writing at the commencement of the thirteenth century,
describes the vestment as peculiar to _bishops_, but does not refer to
it as peculiar to _popes_; neither, be it noticed, does Cencio. The last
restriction may have crept in one or two centuries after Innocent. He
does not enter into many details concerning it, but he clearly
distinguishes it from the _zona_, or girdle, which denotes continence,
as the _subcingulum_ signifies abstinence.[64]

About this time a fresco was executed on the wall of the _Sagro Speco_
at Subiaco, which remains till the present day. It represents a Pope
fully vested, but under the folds of the chasuble on either side is a
fretted ornament which is certainly not part of any of the ordinary
vestments of any rank of clergy. There is no alternative but to regard
Dr Rock as correct in considering this ornament as part of the
subcingulum.

[Illustration: FIG. 15.—FIGURE OF A POPE. (_Temp._ INNOCENT III.)]

This being granted, the subcingulum is seen to be a girdle, from either
side of which depends a lozenge-shaped 'lappet.' We shall meet with a
similar lappet in the =epigonation= of the Greek Church. Only portions
of these lappets are to be seen in the fresco in question, but enough is
apparent to show them to be lozenge-shaped.

The testimony of Cencio points to these lappets being, not mere
ornaments, but bags or purses hung to the belt; and this brings us to
another stage in the evolution of this vestment. We know that through
the middle ages a bag called a _gypcière_ hung at the belts of
civilians, and served the double purpose of purse and pocket. It is but
natural to suppose that the early clergy found such appendages useful
even in divine service. Let us now go yet further, and see whether
confirmation of these theories awaits us.

Honorius of Autun in 1130 writes: 'The subcingulum, also called perizona
or subcinctorium, is hung doubled about the loins; this signifies zeal
in almsgiving,' etc.

Note, in this passage, the expression 'hung doubled.' This can only
refer to the 'lappets' being hung _one on each side_. And the
'almsgiving,' which Honorius asserts this vestment to signify, suggests
a purse.

Other writers, in the century preceding Honorius, write to the same
effect; and even as early as the tenth century, in a manuscript of the
mass, we find a distinction drawn between the 'cingulum' and the
'baltheum' in the prayers said while vesting.

In short, it seems probable that the subcingulum, with its appendages,
is, like several other sacerdotal vestments, a modification into an
ornament of something which had been designed for some natural
requirement. When the maniple became too narrow and too richly
embroidered to be of the slightest use as a handkerchief, it cannot be
supposed that the priest did entirely without some resource; some plain
piece of cloth must surely have been employed in its place, and some
pocket must then have been required in which to place it. Again, some
receptacle must have been wanted in which to place those comforting
metal 'apples' in which hot water was placed when the day was cold; and
the thumbstall or ponser, the thimble designed to keep the oil which
adhered to his thumb after it had been dipped in the chrism, from
greasing any of his vestments. It seems only natural to suppose that the
subcingulum was originally designed to supply these wants.

XII. _The Rational._—This ornament, obsolete now, was assumed by the
bishops of the early years of the middle ages, in direct imitation of
the breastplate of the ephod worn by the Jewish High Priest.

It consisted of a wooden brooch, overlaid with enamelled metal, which
was fastened high up on the breast of the chasuble, and seems commonly
to have been worn when there was no central orphrey on that vestment.

The shape and ornamentation of the rational varied altogether with the
caprice of the artist who designed it. Examples are extremely rare in
inventories of cathedral goods, if, indeed, they occur at all. It is
probable that they were catalogued together with the _morses_ of copes,
with which they were practically identical in appearance.

The word 'Rationale' first meets us in the expression 'rationale
judicii,' used in the Vulgate _passim_ as a translation of the =to
logeion tês kriseôs=, by which the Septuagint expressed the breastplate
of the ephod. In the early Church writers the word 'judicii' was dropped
and 'rationale' used alone, but always to denote the Jewish ornament.
When pseudo-Alcuin wrote, in the tenth or eleventh century, the
ecclesiastical rational was quite unknown, for he says: 'Pro rationali
summi pontifices, quos archiepiscopos dicemus, pallio utuntur'—a
statement which he would certainly not have made if anything less unlike
the rational than the pallium had been known to him. Ivo of Chartres,
too, knows nothing of the Christian ornament, for although he does not
say definitely that the Jewish rational corresponded to the pallium, he
says that it corresponded to an ornament _conceded_ (_concessum_) to the
chief bishops of his time—an expression which would define the pallium,
but certainly not the rational. Honorius of Autun is the writer in whom
we first meet with direct and unequivocal mention of the ornament; and
he begins his remarks upon it by definitely stating: 'Rationale a Lege
est sumptum'—_Lege_, of course, being the Levitical law. This gives us
very closely the limits of date between which the rational was
assumed—some time between 1100 and 1130.

The rational, if we may accept the testimony of the monuments, gradually
died out about the fourteenth or fifteenth century. It seems never to
have been universal, and an actual rational is one of the rarest
ecclesiological treasures a collector can possess.

XIII. _The Mitre._—Like that of the _subcingulum_, the history of the
mitre is a curious piece of evolution; but, unlike the _subcingulum_,
the mitre can be traced through all its history in an unbroken chain of
literary references, monumental effigies, and actual specimens.

The word _mitra_ (Gk. =mitos=, _a thread_) is applied in the
transitional period to a female head-dress, and even St Isidore of
Seville makes use of the word in that sense. The Septuagint, however,
occasionally translates the expression for the cap of the high priest by
=mitra=; at other times they use the word =kidaris=, which they also
apply to the cap of the second order of the Jewish priesthood. The
Vulgate follows the Septuagint, sometimes using _mitra_, sometimes
_cidaris_, and occasionally _tiara_.

The advocates of an origin in primitive antiquity for Ecclesiastical
Vestments make much of two passages which are certainly obscure, and
would seem to indicate that in apostolic times 'bishops' wore a _gold
plate_ upon their heads. These passages are in a letter sent by
Polycrates of Ephesus to Victor, bishop of Rome, about the year 200
A.D., in which he alludes to St John as 'having become a priest wearing
the gold plate' =egenêthê hiereus to petalon pephorêkôs=;[65] and in the
writings of Epiphanius of Salamis (_circa_ 400 A.D.), in which he says
of James, the brother of Our Lord, that he was a priest after the
ancient rite, and was permitted to wear a gold plate—=hierateusanta
auton kata tên palaian hierôsunê heuromen ... kai to petalon epi tês
kephalês hexên autô pherein=,[66] citing the authority of Eusebius,
Clement, and others. These statements are so hopelessly vague and
confused that very little can be made out of them, but it has been
pointed out that (i) the passages in which they occur are largely
allegorical, (ii) that the =petalon= seems to refer to the gold plate of
Jewish priesthood, and that the expression 'priest with the =petalon='
probably was used currently in the early years of Christianity, much as
'mitred abbot' is by us at the present day. In any case, as Dr Sinker
says,[67] it 'is plain enough that if St John and St James, or either of
them, did wear this ornament, it was an ornament 'special to themselves'
and ceased with them, affecting in no sense the further use of the
church.'

Other passages, supposed to refer to this or similar practices, bearing
dates between the fourth and sixth centuries, are found on examination
to have no real bearing on the question. The number of extracts from
writers of that time which have been brought forward to prove the
antiquity of the mitre is considerable; but those which can at all bear
consideration apart from their contexts are all vague, unconvincing and
inconclusive; some, indeed, are so obviously figurative that their
production is only an amusing illustration of the straits to which the
believers in the elaboration of primitive ritual are reduced. And the
evidence of Tertullian on the other side is very clear—'quis denique
patriarches, quis prophetes, quis levites, aut sacerdos, aut archon,
quis vel postea apostolus aut evangelizator aut episcopus invenitur
coronatus?'[68]

In the face of this quotation it is not easy to see what to make of the
passages in St Jerome and elsewhere, in which a bishop is addressed by
the expression 'corona vestra,' much as we use the words 'your lordship'
now. Dr Rock argues from this that bishops, even so early as the fifth
century, wore a circlet or crown of gold at Divine service. If so, the
use must have been confined to Rome, for otherwise the Toletan or other
councillors would surely have given us definite information concerning
it.

St Isidore of Seville, in his treatise 'De Officiis Ecclesiasticis,'
book ii, chap. vii, describes the tonsure as indicative of the
priesthood and the regal nature of the church, the shaven part of the
head representing the hemispherical cap of the Jewish priests, and the
circlet of hair representing the coronet of kings. It is true that he is
not speaking definitely of bishops, but the fact that he is absolutely
silent respecting a crown of any kind other than the crown of hair—for
which he expressly uses the word _corona_—is at least presumptive
evidence that the crown of gold was not worn in his day. The prophecy of
King Laoghairé's druids affords a very curious corroboration of this;
see _post_, p. 128.

The earliest representation that Dr Rock can adduce of an ecclesiastic
wearing this circlet is a figure in the Benedictional of St Aethelwold,
an MS. of the tenth century at Chatsworth. Here we have a figure, the
brows of which are certainly encircled with a gold band set with
precious stones. As Marriott points out, however, this is probably more
of a secular than an ecclesiastical nature, and may indicate the royal
rank to which bishops at that time frequently laid claim.

Menard, after a careful study of ancient liturgies, came to the
conclusion that the mitre was not in use in the church prior to the year
1000. Contemporary art bears out this statement. Probably the earliest
genuine representation of a bishop wearing a head-dress to which any
importance can be attached from a liturgical point of view is an
illumination of St Dunstan[69] in an MS. (Claud. A 3) in the British
Museum. This is of the early years of the eleventh century. It shows us
a simple cap, low and hemispherical in shape, without the least trace of
the cleft now invariably associated with the episcopal headgear.

The fashion seems to have changed with considerable rapidity, and the
cleft very soon began to make its appearance. Its first beginning was a
very shallow, blunt depression between two low, blunt, rounded points,
one over each ear—in fact, a depression such as would naturally be made
in a soft cloth cap by passing the outstretched hand gently across the
crown. This change was not long in giving place to another and more
important modification. The mitre was turned so that the horns appeared
one in front, one behind, and they were raised a little higher than
before, and, instead of being rounded, were made of a triangular form.
The mitre in this shape is that universally represented in MSS. of the
twelfth century.

[Illustration: FIG. 16.—A BISHOP, SALISBURY CATHEDRAL (Jocelyn, Twelfth
Century).]

[Illustration: FIG. 17.—AN ARCHBISHOP, MAYENCE CATHEDRAL (Diether von
Isenburg, 1482).]

Little difference in shape is traceable in the mitres of the thirteenth,
fourteenth, fifteenth or sixteenth centuries. During these four hundred
years the mitre increased considerably in size, but it was reserved for
the seventeenth century to stereotype the final modification in form.
Hitherto the two horns of the mitre had as a general rule been in the
shape of plain triangles, bent round so as to adapt themselves to the
outline of the head; the mitre was thus cylindrical in outline. By the
seventeenth century, however, the triangles had been made spherical, so
that the mitre assumed the form of a pair of parentheses, or of a
barrel, which it still possesses.[70] By this time it had grown to a
considerable height—some eighteen inches.

When the mitre was a plain cloth cap it was kept in position by two
ribbons, which were knotted at the back of the head. The end of these
ribbons are well shown in the figure of St Dunstan. But the ribbons very
early lost their usefulness and became simple ornaments, and the
ubiquitous embroiderer was not long in seizing on these _infulae_, or
lappets, and enriching them with needlework to the best of her ability.

The mitre was originally made of plain white linen, and until about the
twelfth century continued to be so; it was occasionally, though by no
means always, elaborately decorated with needlework. Such simplicity,
however, was not consistent with the spirit of the age which followed,
and we find that in the thirteenth century the mitre was made of silk,
and invariably overlaid either with embroidery or pearls and other
jewels. To such a length was this enrichment carried at last in England,
that we read that Henry VIII removed from Fountains Abbey, among other
treasures, a silver-gilt mitre set with pearl and stone—weight seventy
ounces!

Although properly belonging to the seventh chapter, in which the ritual
uses of the various vestments which we have been describing will be
discussed, it is necessary here to detail the three classes into which
mitres are divided. Unlike other vestments, which are classified
according to the particular liturgical _colour_ which predominates in
their embroidery, mitres are classified according to the _manner_ in
which they are ornamented. The background, when it can be seen at all,
is white. A mitre which is simply made of white linen or silk, with
little or no enrichment, is called a _mitra simplex_; one ornamented
richly with embroidery, but without precious metals or stones, is called
a _mitra aurifrigiata_; and one in which precious metals and stones are
employed in its decoration is called a _mitra pretiosa_. The different
times at which these different kinds of mitres are worn will be noted in
their proper place in Chapter VII.

[Illustration: FIG. 18.—PASTORAL STAFF AND MITRA PRETIOSA (the Limerick
Mitre).]

The papal tiara may be briefly described in this place. It first appears
about the eleventh century as a conical cap, encircled with a single
crown at the brow; assumed about the time of the growth of the earthly
power of the papacy, it may well be regarded as symbolical of spiritual
and temporal rule. The subsequent modifications through which it passed
were few in number, though considerable in character: they consisted in
the addition of a second crown by Boniface VIII (1300 A.D.), of a third
by Urban V (1362-70), and the swelling out of the body of the head-dress
into a bulging form about the sixteenth century, much about the time
when the mitre assumed the same shape.

XIV. _The Episcopal Gloves._—These undoubtedly owe their invention to
the coldness and cheerlessness of the early churches, and were invented
simply to keep the hands of the wearer warm. But about the ninth century
they, with so many similar vestments, assumed a more sacred character,
and a prayer was prescribed for putting them on, as was the case with
the other and better established vestments. They do not appear to be
formally mentioned as vestments till the time of Honorius of Autun, who
draws moral lessons from them.

Throughout the middle ages the gloves were richly embroidered and
jewelled; often a large stone is to be seen on the back of each hand.

The gloves (_chirothecae_, or _manicae_) must be carefully distinguished
from the _manicae_ or _brachialia_, the sleeves of coarse cloth which
the bishop used to draw over his arm to protect the apparels of his alb
from the water when administering baptism by immersion.

As the hands are sometimes covered with gloves and sometimes bare, so
good deeds should be sometimes hidden to prevent self-sufficiency, and
sometimes revealed as an edifying example to those near us. So says
Honorius of Autun; perhaps this is as satisfactory an exegesis as has
ever been given of the gloves or any other vestment.

XV. _The Episcopal Ring._—Although, as we have seen, the ring was
recognised as one of the special marks of a bishop at the time of the
fourth council of Toledo, and was regarded by St Isidore of Seville as a
special article used in the investiture of a bishop, none of the
liturgical writers of the earliest years of the mediaeval period notices
it; not till we come to Honorius of Autun is any mention of it to be
found. The reason of this is not far to seek, and has been given by
Marriott. Rabanus, Amalarius, Ivo, and the rest, occupied themselves
more or less with the supposed connexion between the liturgical and the
Jewish vestments, and therefore, as they were not writing treatises
dealing solely with Christian vestments, they omitted all mention of
ornaments which had no direct bearing on the questions with which they
were engaged. Hence, both the ring and pastoral staff suffered, as the
most ingenious torturing could not extract anything in the Levitical
rites analogous to these important insignia.

The evidence of the monuments is conclusive on two points. First, that
the episcopal ring proper was only one of a large number of rings worn
by the bishop, the others being probably purely ornamental and secular;
second, that it was worn on the third finger of the right hand, and
_above_ the second joint of that finger, not being passed, as rings are
now, down to the knuckle. It was usually kept in place with a plain
guard ring.

The ring was always a circlet with a precious stone, never engraved, and
it was large enough to pass over the gloved finger. The stone was
usually a sapphire, sometimes an emerald or a ruby.

Although the ring is distinguishable, by its position on the right hand
as well as by other circumstances, from the wedding-ring, Honorius of
Autun (after referring to the ring placed on the finger of the Prodigal
Son and the wedding ring of iron with an adamantine stone forged by 'a
certain wise man called Prometheus') has been trapped into saying that
the bishop wears a ring that he may declare himself the bridegroom of
the church and may lay down his life for it, should necessity arise, as
did Christ.

XVI. _The Pastoral Staff._—We have briefly sketched the probable origin
of the pastoral staff in the preceding chapter, and come now to discuss
the forms it presented and the connexions in which it was used
during the middle ages. As there is no department of the study of
Ecclesiastical Vestments about which so much popular misconception
exists, it will be necessary to enter into these details at considerable
length.

As utterly unfounded as the common notions concerning 'low-side windows'
and crossed-legged effigies is the idea that the differences in the
positions of pastoral staves as represented in sculptured monuments have
any meaning whatsoever, secret or personal. A pastoral staff remains a
pastoral staff, and nothing more, whether it is on the right side of the
bearer or on the left, and whether its crook is turned inwards or
outwards.

Synonymous with 'pastoral staff' is the word _crozier_ or _crosier_; but
it is frequently ignorantly applied to a totally different object—the
cross-staff borne before an archbishop. The statements which we so often
see in works professing to treat on ecclesiological subjects as to the
pastoral staff being crook-headed and borne by bishops, the crozier
cross-headed, and borne (instead of the pastoral staff) _by_
archbishops, are derived from a misunderstanding of the evidence of
mediaeval monuments.[71] The truth is, that the pastoral staff, with
which the crozier is identical, is borne by bishops and archbishops
alike; but archbishops are distinguished from bishops by having a staff,
with a cross or crucifix in its head, borne _before_ them in addition.
In many monuments, it is true, archbishops are represented as carrying
the cross-staff, as, for instance, the brass of Archbishop Cranley in
New College, Oxford; but it was obviously impossible in a monument of
this kind to represent a cross-bearer preceding the archbishop, and the
slight inaccuracy was, therefore, perpetrated of making the archbishop
bear his own cross, thereby substantiating the evidence of the _pall_,
that the person represented was of higher rank than that of a bishop. It
was better managed at Mayence, where, in the monument of Albrecht von
Brandenburg, 1545, figured above (p. 101), the figure is represented as
bearing both the crozier and the cross-staff, one in each hand; and at
Bamberg, in the cathedral of which city is a brass to Bishop Lambert von
Brunn[72] (1399), wherein he is represented holding the crozier in his
left hand, the cross-staff in his right.

In the earliest representations of a staff of office there is a
considerable variety in the shape of the head; knobs, crooks, and even
Y-shapes, all meet us. The shape probably depended on the shape of the
branch of the tree from which the staff was cut, much as does the shape
of an ordinary walking-stick. By St Isidore's time, however, the
crook-head had become stereotyped; the number of exceptional forms which
we find after that date is small. There is a considerable number of
staves of about the eleventh century, either represented on monuments or
actually existing, of which the heads are tau-shaped; these possibly
betray Eastern influence. A few effigies or pictures of bishops remain
with a knob-headed staff; an example is to be seen in a ninth-century
Anglo-Saxon pontifical at Rouen.

[Illustration]

The crook-headed staff is, however, by far the commonest, and after the
eleventh century the only, form in which the bishop's crozier is found.
Some variety is discoverable in the extent to which the staff is
crooked. In some—notably in Irish specimens—the head is shaped like an
inverted U, the form of the whole staff being that represented in the
annexed diagram; but in the great majority of instances the head is
recurved into a spiral or volute.

In the Irish form of crozier the front is flat, and shaped like an oval
shield. This is often moveable, disclosing a hollow behind it, which was
almost certainly used as a reliquary.[73]

The materials of which the pastoral staff was made were very diverse.
The stick was of wood, usually some precious wood, such as cedar,
cypress, or ebony. This wood was often gilt or overlaid with silver
plates. In the twelfth century the staff was shod with iron and
surmounted with a knob of crystal, above which the crook proper was
attached. The crook-head of the Irish crozier was of bronze; that of the
other form generally of carved ivory. When the process of elaboration
was felt in this as in all the other sacerdotal ornaments, the stick as
well as the head was often carved from ivory, and either gilt or
silvered heavily, and set with precious stones. Beneath the crook were
often niches or shrines, containing figures of saints.

The bronze Irish crozier was decorated with the marvellous interlacing
knots and bands which are the special glory of early Irish Christian
art. On the flat front is often to be seen a plain cross, at the centre
of which is a setting for a precious stone, and in each quarter an
interlacing band. In the volute form of crozier a different style of
ornamentation was adopted; the surface was not ornamented, but the head
was carved into solid forms; in the centre of the volute was usually
represented some sacred person or scene, real or legendary, or else some
symbolical device or conventional patterns. It is hard to say which of
these two forms of crozier is the better from an aesthetic point of
view. The graceful curve of the volute certainly compares favourably
with the somewhat stiff outline of the Irish crozier; but the feebleness
of even the best mediaeval attempts at representing the human figure in
miniature considerably detracts from the artistic value of the volute
crozier when a human figure is introduced; while, on the other hand, the
incomparable excellence of the Irish metal-workers transformed the
U-shaped crozier into an object of great beauty. The lines of the knots
are always faultlessly executed, and the ornamentation is invariably in
good taste.[74]

The following copy of the Lincoln Inventory of pastoral staves (1536)
illustrates some of the points already noticed. It also indicates that
the head and staff of the crozier were separable, and, when stored in
the vestry, kept apart from one another:

 'In primis a hede of one busshopes staffe of sylver and gylte wᵗ one
 knop and perles & other stones havyng a Image of owʳ savyowʳ of the one
 syde and a Image of sent John Baptiste of the other syde wanting xxj
 stones & perles wᵗ one bose [boss] and one sokett weyng xviij unces.

 'Item one other hede of a staffe copoʳ & gylte.

 'Item a staffe ordend for one of the seyd hedes the wyche ys ornate wᵗ
 stones sylver and gylte and iij circles, a boute the staffe sylver and
 gylte wantyng vij stones.

 'Item a staffe of horn and wod for the hede of copoʳ.

 'Item j staff covered wᵗ silver wᵗʰout heeid.'

In the corresponding inventory of Winchester Cathedral we find entered
three pastoral staves silver-gilt, one pastoral staff of a 'unicorn's'
(presumably a narwhal's) horn and four pastoral staves of plates of
silver.

Suspended to the top of the staff was a streamer or napkin, which, like
the lappet of the mitre, was called the _infula_. This was originally
introduced to keep the moisture of the hand from tarnishing the metal of
the staff. The symbolists think it is a 'banner' of some sort or other.

It will be convenient, before proceeding to the discussion of the next
vestment on our list, to give a few particulars regarding the
archbishop's cross. This is necessary owing to the confusion already
noticed, which exists between the crozier and the cross; but as the
cross cannot strictly be included in a catalogue of ecclesiastical
vestments, we shall make our notes as brief as possible.

The custom of preceding an archbishop with a cross was introduced
throughout the Western Church about the beginning of the twelfth
century. It was carried by one of the archbishop's chaplains, who in
this country received the name of 'croyser,' or cross-bearer, for that
reason. The cross was usually richly ornamented with metalwork and
jewels, and often, if not always, bore a figure of Our Lord on each
face, so that the eyes of the archbishop were fixed on the one, those of
the people on the other.

The circumstance of highest importance connected with the archbishop's
cross, so far as it concerns our present purpose, is this: the prelate
_never_ bore the cross himself, except on the one occasion of his
investiture. He then received the cross into his own hands, but
immediately passed it on to his cross-bearer.

The Pope is often in mediaeval monuments and illustrations represented
as preceded by a cross with three transoms of different length, the
uppermost being the shortest, the lowermost the longest. This is simply
the result of a desire on the part of the artist to improve upon the
patriarch's cross of the Eastern Church, which _appears_ to have two
transoms, the upper transom being in point of fact a representation of
the board on which the superscription on the cross was written.

One more staff may be worth a passing mention—the staff borne as an
emblem of authority by the ruler of the choir, who looked after the
singing and behaviour of the boys. This was of silver, with a cross-head.

The false conceptions about the crozier have probably arisen from an
inaccurate etymological analogy with the word _cross_. The true
derivation connects it with such words as our _crotchet_ and _crook_.

The symbolism of the shepherd's staff is naturally the leading thought
in the minds of the mystics. It was probably, however, considered too
obvious, and they cast about to find yet further secret meanings. Thus,
Honorius notices that the Lord commanded the apostles to 'take nothing
save a staff only' when they were going out to preach, and then says
that 'the staff which sustains the feeble signifies the authority of
teaching,' and much more to the same effect. Innocent III says that the
point is sharp, the middle straight, the top curved, to indicate that
the priest should spur on the idle, rule the weak, collect the
wandering. He further explains the fact that the Pope does not bear the
pastoral staff by telling us that 'the blessed St Peter sent his staff
to Eucharius, the first bishop of Trèves, whom he had sent, together
with Valerius and Maternus, to preach the Gospel among the Germans.
Maternus succeeded him in the bishopric; he had been raised from the
dead by the staff of St Peter. And this staff is preserved with great
reverence in the church of Trèves.' St Thomas Aquinas supplements this
piece of information by telling us that for this reason the Pope carries
the pastoral staff when pontificating in Trèves.[75]

The episcopal staff is alleged to have borne the following inscriptions:
round the crook, 'Cum iratus fueris misericordiae recordaberis'; on the
ball below the crook, 'Homo'; on the spike at the bottom, 'Parce.' By
these inscriptions the bishop was warned that he was but a man himself;
that in wrath he should remember mercy; and that he should spare, even
when administering discipline. Whether these warnings were invariably
effective is a matter into which we will not inquire.

XVII. _The Tunicle._—This was simply a small variety of the dalmatic,
appropriated to the use of subdeacons and bishops.

It differed from the dalmatic merely in being somewhat smaller. It was
made of silk or of wool, and first appears about the year 820 as a
subdeacon's vestment; but it is considerably later than this that it
appears as a bishop's garment. In the ninth century bishops appear with
but one vestment—the alba—under the chasuble; between the ninth and
eleventh centuries the dalmatic makes its appearance; and it is not till
about 1200 that we find the tunicle illustrated in paintings or effigies
of bishops. A reference to the table given in the early part of the
present chapter will show that the literary evidence points in the same
direction.

The tunicle did not escape the common fate of all the vestments of the
mediaeval church, and it, too, became overlaid with needlework, first in
a strip across the breast of the subdeacon, then (as this would not show
under the vestments of the bishop) on the rest of the surface. The
tunicle on Bishop Goodrick's brass at Ely Cathedral—one of the latest
representations of this vestment in England—is as richly embroidered as
the dalmatic.

In a few episcopal effigies of the thirteenth century the dalmatic alone
appears. The tunicle being worn beneath the dalmatic, and being
naturally smaller, was hidden. This difficulty was, however, very soon
surmounted by the simple process of shortening the dalmatic.

Properly, the dalmatic only is fringed; the tunicle of the subdeacon
seldom, if ever, shows this manner of ornamentation. But in the later
episcopal effigies it is by no means uncommon.

XVIII. _The Orale_, or, as it is now called, the _Fanon_, is described
by Dr Rock as 'an oblong piece of white silk gauze of some length,
striped across its width with narrow bars, alternately gold, blue, and
red.... It is cast upon the head of the Pope like a hood, and its two
ends are wrapped one over the right, the other over the left shoulder,
and thus kept until the holy father is clad in the chasuble, when the
fanon is thrown back and made to hang smoothly and gracefully above and
all around the shoulders of that vestment, like a tippet.'

From the orale being supposed to represent the ephod, as well as from
the manner of its being put on, it is probable that it was an evolution
from the amice. It is not mentioned by liturgical writers before
Innocent III, and does not appear in paintings or monuments of much
older date; it therefore seems to have been assumed about the twelfth or
thirteenth century.

XIX. _The Pectoral Cross._—We must not omit to mention this important
episcopal ornament. As an official ornament it is of comparatively late
introduction; it first appears in the pages of Innocent III and
Durandus, and from the references which these liturgiologists make to
it, it was evidently regarded by them as exclusively confined to the
Pope's use. Thus, Innocent says: 'Romanus autem pontifex post albam et
cingulum assumit orale, quod circa caput involvit et replicat super
humeros' for certain symbolic reasons; 'et quia signo crucis auri lamina
cessit pro lamina quam pontifex ille [Judaeus] gerebat in fronte,
pontifex iste crucem gerit in pectore.' Dr Rock has been unable to find
any trace of the pectoral cross appearing on the breast of an ordinary
bishop before the sixteenth century. Even by the Popes it appears before
this time to have been covered by the chasuble. Probably the cross was
originally a reliquary.

On p. 29 we referred to a MS. of uncertain date in the monastery of St
Martin at Autun, which details the vestments worn in the Gallican church
in (probably) the tenth century. This gives a somewhat different
catalogue from the lists of the rest of the Western Church, and displays
some Eastern influence. The _pallium_, _casula_, _alba_, and _stola_ are
described so that they appear identical with the corresponding vestments
elsewhere; the maniple also appears, under the name _vestimentum
parvolum_; and we have in addition the _manualia_ or _manicae_, which do
not appear in any other Western lists; they are said in the MS. to have
been regularly worn 'like bracelets,' and to have covered the arms of
'kings and priests.' This points to vestments after the style of the
=epimanikia= of the Greeks, which will be noticed in their proper place
in Chapter V.

We have now described the vestments worn by the priests of the Western
Church at the Eucharistic service, and are thus in a position to give a
satisfactory answer to the question, 'Were they adaptations of the
Jewish, or natural evolutions of the Roman costume?' We have seen that
the jeweller, the goldsmith, and the embroiderer conspired to make the
vestments of the middle ages as gorgeous as possible, and that therein,
and in some few other particulars, they resembled the Mosaic costume;
but as we go back nearer and nearer to the first ages of Christianity
all the glitter drops off, vestment after vestment disappears, till we
reach the three plain white vestments of the fourth century, from which
it is but a step to the ordinary costume of a Roman citizen of good
position during the second or third century of our era. We have also
seen that all attempts at drawing hidden meanings from the vestments
fail; the results, when not far-fetched, are contradictory and
unconvincing.

 [49] Vest. Christ., p. lxxviii.

 [50] Vestes etiam sacerdotales per incrementa ad eum qui nunc habetur
 auctae sunt ornatum. Nam primis temporibus communi indumento vestiti
 missas agebant, sicut et hactenus quidam Orientalium facere
 perhibentur.—Walafrid Strabo De Reb. Eccl., cap. xxiv (Migne cxiv 952).

 [51] Very often—perhaps more often than not—the lower hem was
 ornamented with a narrow edging of embroidery running all round. In
 some albs as represented on Continental monuments there is a
 considerable distance between the apparel and the hem.

 [52] The late brass of Bishop Goodrich, in Ely Cathedral, represents
 the stole between the tunicle and dalmatic. This is exceptional, and
 probably an engraver's error.

 [53] One of these exceptions is presented by a small brass of a priest
 (Thomas Westeley, 1535) at Wyvenhoe, near Colchester.

 [54] There is a remarkable statuette of alabaster in the Cambridge
 Museum of Archaeology, which originally formed part of a retable in
 Whittlesford Church, Cambridgeshire. In this figure, which is clad in
 Eucharistic vestments, the maniple is absent, and its place seems to be
 supplied by a _chain_ suspended over the _right_ wrist. This may,
 however, represent some such saint as St Leonard, whose emblem is a
 chain and manacles: in which case it is just possible that the sculptor
 omitted the maniple to avoid the inartistic symmetry which would result
 from its insertion.

 [55] This description is given on the authority of Bloxam, companion
 volume, p. 64.

 [56] So Mariott. The original word is _calcaneum_.

 [57] We give a figure of an effigy in Mayence Cathedral to the memory
 of Albrecht von Brandenburg, who died in 1545. This effigy is
 remarkable, and probably unique, in representing the archbishop as
 wearing two palls. Although this is a convenient method of informing
 the world of the fact that the person commemorated held two
 archbishoprics (Mayence and Magdeburg), it is, of course, a solecism,
 as the pall of the one could not legally be worn within the precincts
 of the other, and _vice versâ_. This monument is especially valuable,
 as it clearly distinguishes between the cross-staff and the pastoral
 staff, which are often confused. See the account of the pastoral staff
 later on in the present chapter.

 [58] It is well known that ecclesiastics were buried in their
 Eucharistic vestments, with a chalice and paten, the former often
 filled with wine. Much nonsense is talked nowadays of the piety of the
 mediaeval builders and undertakers, who put their best work where no
 human eye could see it. Unfortunately for this theory, the chalice and
 paten were usually cheap base metal (Canterbury affords one notable
 exception), and the vestments were often an inferior or worn-out set.
 Economy was considered then, as now.

 [59] A not uncommon comparison for the loop of the pall.

 [60] A survival of the old method of wearing it.

 [61] Liturgia Rom. Pont., vol. iii, p. 556; _cit. ap._ Rock, Church of
 Our Fathers.

 [62] Rationale, III 4.

 [63] Printed in Mabillon, Musei Ital., ii, p. 212.

 [64] Were it not for this, we might infer from the other passages
 quoted that the succintorium was simply hung on the ordinary girdle.

 [65] Ap. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v 24; Migne, Patrol. Graec., xx 493.

 [66] Contra Haer., I xxix 4; Migne, Patrol. Graec., xli 396.

 [67] In Smith and Cheetham's 'Dictionary of Christian Antiquities,'
 s.v. _mitre_.

 [68] 'De Corona Militis,' cap. ix. Migne, ii 88.

 [69] See fig. 12, p. 97.

 [70] Traces of a slight 'bulge' are discernible in a few examples of
 even so early a date as the fifteenth century. It is well developed in
 von Brandenburg's effigy, figured on p. 101.

 [71] This blunder has even crept into the ninth edition of the
 'Encyclopaedia Britannica.'

 [72] The bishops of Bamberg had a right to wear the archiepiscopal
 pontificalia. See p. 102, _ante_.

 [73] The ordinary form of crozier was not unknown in Ireland; the
 well-known crozier of Cashel is a beautiful specimen. The crook form
 was, however, earlier.

 [74] This form of crozier is no doubt contemplated in the prophecy
 attributed to the druids of Laoghairé, King of Ireland, as cited in the
 law-tract known as the _Senchus Mór_—

  'Tiucfaid Tailginn tar muir meirginn
  A croinn cromcinn, a cinn tollcinn
  A miasa in airthiur atighe,' etc.—

 that is, 'the Tonsured ones shall come through the stormy sea, their
 staves crook-headed, their heads tonsured, their tables in the east of
 their houses,' etc. It is worth noting, apropos of what was said
 on p. 115 respecting the bishop's _corona_, that the words 'a cinn
 tollcinn'—'their heads tonsured,' are thus glossed in the MS.—'.i. a
 coirne ina cennaib'—'_i.e._, their _crowns_ on their heads.'

 [75] Sentent. IV, dist. 24, quaest. 3, art. 3, _ad fin._ ed. Parmae
 (1873), vol. vii, p. 913.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]




CHAPTER IV.

THE HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROCESSIONAL VESTMENTS; THE
ORNAMENTATION OF VESTMENTS.


In addition to the garments already described, which are more properly
appropriated to the Eucharistic service, there are a few which are
assumed on other occasions by the clergy of the Western Church. The
occasions upon which these particular vestments are worn belong properly
to the province of Chapter VII. We accordingly postpone the discussion
of them until that chapter is reached, concerning ourselves here with
the development, shape, and ornamentation of the vestments themselves.

The vestments which we have to describe in this chapter are the cassock,
surplice (with its modifications, the rochet and cotta), almuce, and
cope. These constitute the so-called processional vestments; a misnomer,
because they are not exclusively appropriated to processions. There are,
besides, certain others of a more general character, not strictly
falling under the head of either Eucharistic or Processional vesture,
and they will be more conveniently described in this chapter also. These
are the canon's cope, the mozetta, the Roman collar, and the various
types of sacerdotal head-dress.

I. _The Cassock._—The cassock was the long outer gown which was worn by
everyone, clerical and lay, male and female, during the eleventh,
twelfth, and succeeding centuries. When it was abandoned for the very
much more convenient short coat, that conservatism in ecclesiastical
matters, to which the very existence of ecclesiastical vestments is due,
prevented the clergy from following the example of the laity, and left
the cassock as the distinctive outer garment of the clergy on ordinary
occasions, as it still remains. The dignity attaching to a long garment
was also probably a factor in causing its ecclesiastical retention.

The Eucharistic vestments were placed over the cassock, as the cassock
was placed over the under-garments of the wearer. But it was so entirely
concealed by the long alb that it could scarcely be regarded as an
essential part of the vestments for the Eucharistic office. The case was
different, however, when the priest was vested in processional attire,
for the lower end of the cassock appeared very prominently under the
surplice, and its presence was consequently essential to complete the
processional outfit. We therefore discuss this vestment under the head
'Processional' rather than under the head 'Eucharistic.'

Cassocks were originally invented for purposes of warmth, and hence were
lined with furs. This custom was retained when the cassock became
exclusively a clerical dress, and we often find in monuments of
ecclesiastics indications at the wrist that the cassock was so lined.
The colour of the vestment was invariably black for ordinary
ecclesiastics, scarlet for doctors of divinity and cardinals, purple for
bishops and prelates, and on high occasions for acolytes; for the Pope,
white. The fur with which the cassock was lined was ermine or some other
precious kind for dignitaries; but ordinary priests were strictly
forbidden to wear anything more costly than sheepskin. The cassock as we
find it represented on mediaeval monuments was probably open to the
breast; I do not recollect having observed any counterpart to the modern
cassock, with a row of buttons from neck to hem (humorously compared by
Lord Grimthorpe to a boiler with a close row of rivets!). In some parts
of France and in Rome the cassock is kept in place by a sash; this also
is a modern innovation probably suggested by the custom of members of
the monastic orders.

II. _The Surplice._—From its fur lining, the cassock was called in
mediaeval Latin the _pellicea_; the name _superpellicea_ was accordingly
given to the vestment which was worn immediately over it—a name which
has passed by natural phonetic modifications into 'surplice.'

It will be remembered that the _alba_ of the second or transitional
epoch was a very much more ample vestment than its successor in
mediaeval times. The chasuble, tunicle, or dalmatic (sometimes all
three) had to be put on over it—an impossibility if it had maintained
its original size. It accordingly was contracted in size in order to
adapt itself to the new requirements; but in so doing the needleworkers
went to the other extreme, and produced a vestment which threatened to
become intractable every time the attempt was made to put it on over the
cassock when the latter article of dress was thick and lined with fur.
These difficulties resulted in the invention of a new garment, which
retained the amplitude of the old _alba_, and was worn only when no
vestment of importance (except the cope, which was adaptable) was put on
over it. This was the surplice. The alb was retained for the Eucharistic
service, as the upper vestments would lie over it more conveniently.

The surplice was a sleeved vestment of white linen, plain, except at the
neck, where there was occasionally a little embroidery in coloured
threads. The sleeves were very full, and hung down to a considerable
length when the hands were conjoined, as they generally are in
monuments. The surplice was put on by being passed over the head,
exactly like the alb; the modern surplice, open in front, and secured at
the neck with a button, was invented within the last two hundred years,
and was designed to make the assumption of the vestment possible without
disarranging the enormous wigs which were worn during the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries.

III. _The Rochet_ is a still further modification of the alb. The
sleeves are reduced to a minimum or totally absent. It appears to have
been worn, though not always, by choristers, and there is also evidence
that it was the form of surplice favoured by bishops. Thus we read:

 'Item 8 surplices for the quere.

 'Item 3 rochets _for children_.'—Inventory of St Mary Hill, London.

 'Bis adiit [Richardus de Bury] summum pontificem Johannem et recepit ab
 eo rochetam in loco bullae pro proximo episcopatu vacante ex post in
 Anglia.'—Will. de Chambre, 'Continuatio Hist. Dunelmensis,' Surtees
 Society, 1839, p. 127.

IV. _The Cotta._—This is a surplice, considerably modified, which has
the advantage of being cheap, and is accordingly worn as a substitute
for the longer surplice in poor parishes. It is a sleeveless vestment,
of crochet work or crimped linen, which reaches to the middle of the
back. It has not an effective appearance.

V. _The Almuce_,[76] which is also variously styled the Amys, or
Amess,[77] was a hood lined with fur, and, like the cassock, designed to
protect the priest from cold. In winter-time the churches—never very
warm—would have been uninhabitable before the invention of heating
stoves, had it not been for comforting articles of apparel such as these.

It was shaped so that it could lie over the shoulders as a tippet, or be
drawn over the head as a hood, and it must have been very necessary
during the protracted services of the middle ages. The vestment was
almost always of black cloth, as was the cassock; and the fur with which
it was lined varied in quality and colour with the degree of the wearer.
Doctors of divinity and canons wore an almuce lined with gray fur, the
former being further distinguished from the latter by the scarlet colour
of the outside cloth; all others wore ordinary dark brown fur. A
singular embellishment of this vestment consisted in the addition of the
tails of the animals from which the fur lining was taken sewn round the
border of the vestment.

At about the year 1300 the almuce, as a hood, was superseded by a cap,
which will be described in its proper place. It was therefore thrown
back, and suffered to fall behind, somewhat after the fashion of the
hood worn in our modern universities. In order to prevent it from
slipping off when in this position, it was sewn in front, so that an
aperture was made through which the head of the wearer had to be passed.
During the fourteenth century it gradually almost entirely lost its hood
shape, and became more and more like a tippet, the only relic of its
original form being the two long tails which hung in front somewhat like
the ends of a stole, and which were doubtless the remains of the strings
with which the original hood was fastened. The row of 'cattes tayles'
(as the Elizabethan reformers called them) was also retained.

When the almuce was in position on the head, the fur was inside, the
cloth outside. Obviously, when the vestment was thrown back over the
shoulder, the fur would be outside, the cloth inside. This is a
perfectly natural and intelligible transformation. Mrs Dolby, in
noticing it, speaks of it in a most misleading manner. After describing
the various changes which it underwent from hood to tippet, she says,
'By this time, too, what was originally the outside of the garment had
become the lining, and the fur the only material rendered visible,' as
though some ecclesiastical ordinance or the freak of some clerical
tailor had brought about this transformation. And Dr Rock says: 'Not the
least remarkable thing in these changes of the "furred amys" [as he
calls it] is, that it became, as it were, turned inside out.' The
remarkable thing would have been if anything else had happened.

At Wells Cathedral is the monument of Dean Huse (_ob._ 1305, but the
tomb is a century and half later), on which are sculptured, besides the
principal effigy, a series of small figures of canons holding books. The
almuces of these figures show a unique peculiarity: the tails are
fastened together on the breast by a cord which passes through them and
hangs down with tasselled ends.

Mr St John Hope, in a paper in 'Archaeologia,' vol. liv, p. 81, has
traced the history of the appearance of the almuce during the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries by reference to sculptured effigies and brasses
in England. From this paper I extract the following illustrative
examples:

1. An effigy in Hereford Cathedral, _circa_ 1311, shows the almuce 'like
a short cape down to the elbows, with long and broad pendants in front,
and turned back round the neck like a loose, high-standing collar. The
chief point to notice, however, is that the vestment is quite open in
front and not joined on the breast, showing that it was put on like a
woman's shawl.'

2. Another effigy in the same cathedral, _circa_ 1320, shows a similar
arrangement with the addition of a large morse to fasten the almuce.

3. In the fifteenth century, when the pendent tails became common, we
find two brasses at Cobham, Kent, one showing the almuce clasped on the
breast by a brooch, the other showing it open all down the front under
the cope.

4. In a drawing at New College, Oxford, executed about 1446, the Warden
of Winchester College is represented in a furred almuce not open in
front, but the Fellows who stand near him wear almuces laced up the
front. This drawing is reproduced in 'Archaeologia,' vol. liii, plate 14.

5. An effigy dating from the very end of the fifteenth century in St
Martin's, Birmingham, illustrates the almuce as it appeared when the
cape was joined completely across the breast.

To these facts we may add that as a general rule the two front tails in
the earlier representations of almuces have plain ends; in those of
later representations (from _circa_ 1450) the tails have a small
ornamental tassel, or tuft, attached to their ends.

[Illustration]

VI. _The Cope._—The cope may date back, as a vestment, to the ninth
century, but in that form it is certainly not older. Before that time it
was nothing more or less than an overcoat, which the clergy kept on in
their cold and draughty churches or in open-air processions. It is
represented in an Anglo-Saxon pontifical of _circa_ 900 as a plain cloth
vestment, fastened at the neck by a brooch or morse; the shape is
similar to that which we find in later times. The shape of the cope was
very much that of half the chasuble. It was secured at the neck by a
brooch, and suffered to drape on the person. The material, at least in
mediaeval times, was silk, cloth of gold, velvet, or other precious
stuffs. It was magnificently embroidered, jewelled, and enriched with
precious metals, the embroideries consisting either of strips along the
straight edges, which hung down in front, or else of these strips
combined with patterns running over the entire surface of the vestment,
or confined to the lower border. It is hard to say whether the cope or
the chasuble was the richer vestment in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries.

The cope, being originally a costume for outdoor processions, was
furnished with a hood at the back; but when the almuce took its place,
it degenerated, like so many other vestments, or parts of vestments,
into a mere ornamental appendage; it lost its hood form (which would
somewhat have interfered with the appearance of the almuce) and became a
triangular flap, usually embroidered with some scene in sacred or
legendary history. In many copes these hoods were absent, while to
others there were several hoods, so that subjects appropriate to the day
could be hooked on. This triangular flap gradually assumed curvilinear
sides, till ultimately the angle disappeared altogether and the flap
became semicircular.

[Illustration: FIG. 19.—BRASS OF ARCHDEACON MAGNUS, SESSAY, YORKSHIRE,
1550 (showing Processional vestments, including hooded cope).]

The 'morse,' or brooch, with which the cope was fastened, was the
counterpart of the rational. It was made of gold or of silver, or else
of wood overlaid with one of these metals. It was often enamelled and
jewelled, and was of a great variety of shapes.

VII. _The Canon's Cope._—This vestment must be carefully distinguished
from the _cappa serica_, or ordinary cope. It was a simple choir robe,
worn at ordinary services, of black cloth, permanently sewn at the neck,
though open from the breast downwards, so that it had to be passed over
the head. It was not ornamented in any way, and probably for this reason
was not popular as an object for treatment among manuscript illuminators
or monument sculptors and engravers. A hood was appended, which usually
hung on the back.

VIII. _The Mozetta._—This is a cape worn over the cope by the Pope,
cardinals, and bishops in the Roman Church. It is of white fur or
coloured silk, according to the season; the Pope wears a red mozetta
bordered with ermine when holding receptions; canons in choir wear a
black, bishops and (on penitential seasons) cardinals a violet mozetta;
on ordinary occasions cardinals wear a mozetta of red. The vestment is
probably a descendant of the almuce, and kin to the _chimere_.

IX. _The Roman Collar._—This being an entirely modern vestment, is
properly outside our range. It is an embroidered imitation of the
turndown shirt-collar of ordinary dress.

In mediaeval monuments the throat of the priest is exposed, as are also
those of present-day members of the older religious orders.
Considerations of comfort and appearance have led to the adoption of
this collar for the ordinary clergy. It should be 'made,' says Mrs.
Dolby, 'of a perfectly straight piece of fine linen or lawn,' and
'bordered on the turnover side and along its short ends by a
neatly-stitched hem of half an inch. Opened out, when made, it is two
and three-quarter inches wide; the turndown should be not more than one
and a half inch deep.... The Roman collar worn by a bishop is violet,
that of a cardinal is scarlet.'

X. _Ecclesiastical Head-dress._—Pseudo-Alcuin expressly contrasts the
Churches of the East and West in this—that the Western clergy officiated
at the mass bareheaded, which was not the practice of those of the
Eastern Church. This gives us information as to the usage of the Western
Church at about the tenth or twelfth century. In the following century a
cap is noticed 'as one of the marks by which a Churchman might be
known';[78] and it appears in inventories, classed along with mitres.

The use of a cap at Divine service was a matter of special papal
permission: thus, Innocent IV issued an indult in 1245 to the Prior and
Convent of St Andrew's, Rochester, permitting them to wear caps (_pileis
uti_) in the choir, provided that due reverence be observed at the
gospel and the elevation. Two forms of cap are to be seen in mediaeval
monuments: one a simple dome-shaped skull-cap, called _birettum_; the
other a circular cap, with a point in the centre, of this shape ⏞̲,
which was peculiar to university dignitaries. The latter is probably the
ancestor of the modern _biretta_; and, indeed, in a brass of Robert
Brassie in King's College Chapel, Cambridge (1558), appears a head-dress
which is a connecting link between the two.

The head-dress was always black, except for cardinals and a few bishops
and others to whom the privileges of cardinals had been especially
granted. These wore scarlet.

[Illustration: FIG. 20.—BRASS OF ROBERT BRASSIE, KING'S COLLEGE,
CAMBRIDGE (showing almuce and biretta-like cap).]

We have reserved for the conclusion of this chapter a more detailed
account of the subjects with which, and the manner in which these
various articles of sacred apparel were decorated.

Vestments, as represented in mediaeval sculptures or illuminations, the
testimony of which is confirmed by the examples which actually exist,
are not as a general rule ornamented in a haphazard manner over the
whole surface. The ornamentation is usually concentrated into patches of
embroidery or jewel-work, which are sewn on to certain definite places
in the vestment.

In describing the vestments singly we have already noticed the positions
in which these patches of embroidery were placed. It will be convenient,
however, to bring all these particulars together and briefly remind the
reader of them.

The _alb_ was decorated with a rectangular patch on the breast; another
on the back; two more above the lower hem, one in front, one behind; a
small patch on each cuff (entirely encircling the wrist in older
examples); and a narrow binding round the neck. The patches on the hem
were sometimes suspended loose from the belt, and the patches on the
breast and back fastened together and suspended loose over the shoulders.

The _amice_ was decorated with a band of embroidery along one side,
which was practically the only part of the vestment visible when it was
in position.

The _stole_ and _maniple_ were embroidered along their whole length;
they usually ended in a rectangular or trapezium-shaped piece of cloth,
embroidered with a different pattern from that which ornamented the rest
of the vestment (usually some form of cross), and fringed along its
lower border.

The _dalmatic_, besides the peculiar arrangement of fringes already
described, was ornamented with a series of horizontal bands of
embroidered work, running right across the body of the vestment. The
_bishop's dalmatic_ was usually embroidered all over.

The _chasuble_ was almost invariably adorned with an edging of
embroidered work, and when the body of the vestment was adorned it was
usually with some of the many modifications of the Ψ or Y cross.

The _sandals_ were sometimes ornamented all over, sometimes decorated
with a Ψ cross, the upper part of the cross being turned towards the toe.

The _pall_ properly had no ornamentation except its crosses.

The _stockings_ were either not embroidered at all or richly embroidered
over the whole surface.

The _rational_ was decorated with enamel, goldsmith's or jewelled work.

The _mitra simplex_ was decorated with little or no adornment; the
_mitra aurifrigiata_ with embroidered work all over it; the mitra
pretiosa with embroidery combined with jewels and goldsmith's work.

The _gloves_ do not appear to have been conspicuously ornamented. They
often bore a large jewel set against the back of the hand.

The _tunicle_ was generally quite simple; the _bishop's tunicle_,
however, in no wise differed from the dalmatic.

Of the _orale_ a full description has already been given; we need not
again refer to it.

Passing to the Processional and other vestments, it will be unnecessary
to mention any but the _cope_; for, with the exception of a little
trifling embroidered work in coloured threads round the neck of the
surplice, none of the other vestments showed any ornamentation. The cope
was ornamented with embroidered work down the straight edges in front,
and often round the bottom edge and the neck as well; often also the
whole vestment was elaborately embroidered all over. The hood, too, must
not be forgotten.

For some inscrutable reason a distinction is drawn in name between the
embroidered ornaments of the alb and amice and those of the remainder of
the ecclesiastical dress. The former are called apparels, the latter
orphreys.

The subjects with which these vestments are embroidered must next engage
our attention for a short time. These fall naturally into three broad
groups:

1. Conventional and meaningless devices.

2. Symbols or figures of Divine or beatified persons, or passages of
Scripture and other religious inscriptions.

3. Personal devices.

The number of conventional patterns which meet us embroidered on
ecclesiastical vestments is endless, and to attempt to catalogue even
the most striking would be an undertaking the magnitude of which would
only be equalled by its uselessness. A small collection of rubbings of
monumental brasses will convince the reader of this. Floral devices are
the most common, either in continuous scrolls or in repetitions and
variations of the same pattern; and these are found combined with
patterns of the other two groups to fill up the gaps and spandrels
between different figures or letters. But grotesque and real animals,
wild men, and various other objects of natural history, all have their
place; though, if the evidence of the monuments be reliable, these were
not so common in England as in the other countries which yielded
allegiance to the Western Church. It is, of course, possible that some
of these figures may have been intended as emblems of saints,[79] and
others may have been heraldic; but it is probable that the majority of
them were simply ornaments with no other intention beyond filling up
space effectively.

The symbols of Divine or beatified persons are of more interest. These
are usually found on the centre orphreys of the chasuble, on the edges
and hood of the cope, on mitres, and on rationals or morses, the
orphreys of the other vestments being usually conventional, floral, or
animal devices. The hood of the cope almost invariably bore some
emblematic or sacred device, or else some scene in sacred or traditional
history; the edge of the cope and the centre of the chasuble often bore
figures of saints in niches, one above another, or else connected scenes
from the life of a saint; while the rationals and morses, which were
under the province of the enamellers (and were consequently more easily
decorated than the embroidered vestments), usually displayed some more
elaborate design in miniature.

Of the greatest importance, however, are devices of the third
order—those which display the name, initials, rebus, or coat-of-arms of
the wearer or the donor of the vestment. In monuments these designs
invariably are connected with the name and family of the wearer, while
the personal devices recorded in inventories are usually connected with
the donor. The reason is, probably, that the vestments catalogued in
inventories originally were made for, and worn by, the donors thereof;
during their lifetime the devices showed forth the wearers' names; after
their death, the names of the testators: while the monuments, which were
supposed as nearly as possible to represent the persons commemorated as
they appeared while they lived, would naturally pourtray the vestments
which they wore, or might have worn, when celebrating mass or conducting
the other offices of church service.

Mediaeval priests and embroiderers seem to have shrunk from placing
these personal devices on the chasuble, though such ornamentation is not
altogether unknown even in that most reverenced of vestments. Thus, at
Arundel, Sussex, is a brass representing a priest in ecclesiastic
vestments, in which the initials of the wearer occur on the chasuble.
The cope, however, often shows initials or other designs[80] which serve
to identify the wearer. The same chariness does not seem to have been
felt with regard to the other Eucharistic vestments, possibly because
they were not so exclusively appropriated to the Eucharistic service.
Thus, at Beverley Minster there is a sculptured effigy of a priest whose
entire stole is covered with a series of coats-of-arms.

As I have already said, this group of orphrey patterns is of
considerably greater importance than the other two, which cannot be
regarded as other than mere artistic curiosities. It is generally
possible to identify the personality of the priest commemorated by a
monument, even if the inscription be lost or defaced, when these
convenient symbols enter into the composition of the orphreys on his
vesture. This helps us in assigning the date of the monument; and every
monument of which we know the date exactly adds something to our stock
of knowledge respecting the chronology of mediaeval art.

As giving an idea of the number and variety of the designs employed by
the embroiderers and enamellers to decorate the vestments of the church,
it has been thought that the following table will not be found
uninteresting. It is a classified catalogue of the designs enumerated in
a single inventory of a single collection of vestments, the inventory of
the commissioners of Henry VIII, drawn up in 1536, of the property of
Lincoln Cathedral.

It has not been considered necessary to preserve the uncouth spelling of
the original, especially as some words are scarcely spelt the same way
twice in the course of the document. Nor has it been thought worth while
to swell the bulk of the list by giving details as to the parts of the
vestments on which the various objects are represented, or the frequency
with which those occurring more than once are found, the purpose of the
list being simply to show faintly the variety of designs at the disposal
of the embroiderer or enameller. It should be premised that this is by
no means a complete list; in many cases the inventory gives little or no
information concerning the decoration of the vestment catalogued. Most
probably, however, all ornaments of interest or importance are here
included:

GROUP I

 _Flowers_:
  Fleurs-de-lys (possibly heraldic).
  Roses,  } possibly emblematic of St Mary the Virgin.
  Lilies, }

 _Birds and beasts, or parts thereof_:
  Leopards.
  Harts.
  Falcons.
  Falcons bearing crowns of gold in their mouths (probably heraldic).
  Swans.
  Ostriches.
  Ostrich feathers.
  Popinjays.
  Lions.
  Owls.
  Black eagles.
  Peacocks.
  Gryphons.
  Dragons.
  Phœnix.

 _Miscellaneous_:
  Knots.
  Clouds.
  Crowns.
  (Also a few others, properly included under Group II.)

GROUP II

 _Divine Persons_:
  The Holy Trinity.
  Our Lord.
  The Majesty.
  The Holy Ghost, Crucifix, and St Mary the Virgin.

 _Incidents in the life of Our Lord, and His emblems_:
  Our Lord with the Cross.
  The Passion, in scenes.
  The Crucifixion.
  Ditto, with SS Mary and John on either side.
  Ditto, ditto, the Father above.
  The Ascension.
  Our Lord sitting on the rainbow.
  The root of Jesse.
  The vernacle.
  The Holy Lamb.
  Crosses.

 _Members of the Holy Host of Heaven_:
  [Archangels, angels, and images, passim.]
  Two angels singing.
  Two angels incensing.
  An angel bearing a crown.
  Two angels bearing St John Baptist's head (properly heraldic).
  An angel with a harp.

 _Scenes in the life of St Mary the Virgin and her emblems_:
  Salutation.
  St Mary; on the left side three kings, on the right two shepherds,
    and an angel with 'Gloria in excelsis.'
  St Mary with the Holy Child.
  Ditto, and St Mary Magdalene.
  Burial.
  Assumption.
  Coronation.
  'Our lady of pity.'
  Wm. Marshall (donor of vestment) kneeling to the Virgin.
  Suns, Moons, Stars.
  Roses, lilies. (See Group I.)

 _Other Saints and their emblems_:
  'History of Apostles and Martyrs.'
  St Peter.
  St Catherine.
  St Catherine (the tomb springing oil).
  St John Baptist.
  St Bartholomew.
  History of St John Baptist, } Probably in different
  History of St Thomas,       }       scenes.
  Wheels (St Catherine).
  Keys (St Peter).
  The Majesty, SS Mary the Virgin, Peter, Paul, the four evangelists,
    and a man kneeling to them.

 _Various Scenes in Sacred History_:
  Eve eating of the tree.
  The massacre of the innocents.
  The last judgment.

 _Uncertain and Miscellaneous Subjects_:
  A bishop (probably some saint).
  A king (perhaps King David).
  Kings and prophets.
  Two kings crowned.

 _Inscriptions_:
  The hye wey ys best.
  'Divers verses.'
  Da gloriam deo.
  Gracia dei sum, etc.
  Vox domini super aquas.
  Cena dñi.

Also the following, which form a connecting-link between the second and
third groups, being requests for prayers for the donors of vestments:

  Orate pro anima Magistri Willelmi Skelton.
    "      "      Willelmi Spenser capellani.
    "      "      Magistri Ricardi Smyth vycar de Worseworth.
    "      "      Roberti Dercy.
  Memoriale Willelmi Marshall olim virgarii hujus ecclesiae.

GROUP III

 _Heraldic_:
  Leopards powdered with black trefoils (? leopards ermine).
  'White harts crowned with chains on their necks full of
    these letters S.S.'
  Orphreys with diverse arms.
  Mullets.
  'All may God amend' (Rudyng motto), together with Rudyng
    arms and badges.
  'A shield paled.'
  Arms of Lord Chadworth.

 _Names, Initials, and Dedicatory Inscriptions_:
  Ricūs de Gravesend.
  T.S., I.C., O.L., P.D. (on different vestments).
  Ex dono Johannis Reed Capellani Cantar' quondam cantarie
    Ricardi Whitwell.
  Southam ex dono Johannis Southam.
  Ex dono Mʳⁱ Willelmi Smyth archidiaconi Lincoln.

In many vestments, especially among those of early date, the embroidery
is of a distinctly Oriental character, which, if not actually Byzantine,
is founded on Byzantine models. These were popularized throughout Europe
by the Mohammedan weavers and their successors of the royal
establishment in Sicily. Often vestments are found bearing Arabic or
other Oriental inscriptions; these are sometimes meaningless, like the
patterns formed with Arabic letters on many Eastern shawls and cloths of
modern times, but occasionally they give important information as to the
date and origin of the vestment which they decorate. The coronation
vestments of the German Emperors, now at Vienna, are of entirely Eastern
character, and the cope bears inscriptions in Cufic characters, telling
us that it was made at Palermo in 1133. Occasionally the Eastern
ornaments and inscriptions are _forged_ (alas, for mediaeval morality!),
in order to counterfeit the workmanship of the highly popular Eastern
looms. Sometimes we find clumsy imitations of Arabic words treated
ignorantly by the forger as ornaments, the word being written correctly,
though in an obviously amateurish manner, from right to left, and a
replica _reversed_ set opposite to it, in order to balance it
symmetrically!

No country excelled England in embroidered work in the middle ages.
Matthew Paris's story of Pope Innocent IV's admiration of some English
vestments is well known. His holiness, 'seeing some desirable orphreys
in the copes and _infulae_ of certain English ecclesiastics, asked where
they had been made. "In England," was the answer. "Truly is England our
garden of delights," said he; "truly is it a well inexhaustible; and
where much is, thence can much be extorted." Whereupon the Pope, allured
by the lust of the eyes, sent his sealed letters to nearly all the
abbots of the Cistercian order in England (to whose prayers he had just
been committing himself in the chapter-house of the Cistercian order)
that they should not delay to send those orphreys to himself—getting
them for nothing, if possible—to decorate his chasubles and choral
copes.' Matthew Paris concludes his narrative by telling us that the
London merchants were gratified enough, but that many were highly
offended at the open avarice of the Head of the Church.[81]

This leads us to another point to be noticed with regard to mediaeval
vestments—their value as articles of merchandise. In the 'Issues of the
Exchequer,' 24, 25 Henry III (A.D. 1241-1242), there are several entries
of expenses involved in purchasing vestments. Thus we find 4l. 19s. paid
to Adam de Basinges 'for a gold cope purchased by our command and placed
in our chapel at the feast of the Nativity of our Lord in the 25th year
of our reign: also to the same 24l. 1s. 6d. for a cope of red silk given
to the Bishop of Hereford by our command in the same year and day: also
to the same 17l. 18s. 10d. for two diapered and one precious cloth of
gold, for a tunic and dalmatican entirely ornamented with gold fringe
purchased by our command and placed in our chapel the same year and day:
also to the same 47s. 10d. for a chesable of silk cloth without gold
purchased by our command and placed in our chapel: also to the same 7s.
2d. for an albe embroidered with gold fringe purchased by our command
and placed in our chapel: also to the same 17l. 1 mark for two
embroidered chesables purchased by our command and placed in our
chapel.'[82] The same year the enormous sum of £82 was given by the King
for a mitre.

It has been calculated that the present value of money is fifteen times
greater than it was in the thirteenth century. Applying this principle,
we obtain the following results, which give a clearer idea of the value
of the vestments purchased by the King:

 A cope costing 4l. 19s. would be worth, at present rates, £74 5s.

 A cope costing 24l. 1s. 6d. would be worth, at present rates, £361 2s.
 6d.

 Tunic and dalmatic costing 17l. 18s. 10d. would be worth, at present
 rates, £269 2s. 6d.

 A chasuble costing 2l. 7s. 10d. would be worth, at present rates, £35
 17s. 6d.

 An alb costing 7s. 2d. would be worth, at present rates, £5 7s. 6d.

 Two chasubles costing 17l. 13s. 4d. would be worth, at present rates,
 £265.

 A mitre costing 82l. would be worth, at present rates, £1,230.

Even if we allow that these vestments, being royal gifts, or royal
furniture, were of larger price than usual, it still remains evident
that a set of vestments was an expensive luxury. And when we consider
the enormous number of vestments which were existing in the different
cathedral establishments, we can hardly wonder at the cupidity of Henry
VIII being aroused. Mr St John Hope has calculated that in Lincoln (of
which we possess perhaps the fullest set of inventories) the
commissioners of 1536 found 125 red copes, 7 purple, 20 green, 36 blue,
9 black, 60 white, 2 yellow, 2 various, and perhaps 4 for choristers—265
in all; 16 red chasubles, 3 purple, 6 green, 11 blue, 5 black, 9 white,
1 yellow and 1 various—52 in all; 2 dalmatics, 94 tunicles, and 131
albs, not to mention other property in embroidered work, such as altar
frontals, or in precious metal, such as chalices. It is, of course,
impossible to assign an estimate of the value of this vestry, but even
if we reckoned the copes at £50 of our money—a low estimate in the
majority of cases—these vestments alone would be worth £13,250 together.
But this is pure guesswork and of no practical value; of more importance
is such an entry as the following, from the old Durham 'Book of Rites'
(printed by the Surtees Society):

 _'Prossession of Hallowe Thursdaie, Whitsondaie & Trinitie Sonday, by
 the Prior and the Monnckes._—The next morninge, being Hallow Thursdaie,
 they had also a generall Prossession, with two crosses borne before
 theme, the one of the crosses, the staff and all, of gould, the other
 of sylver and parcell gilt ... with all the riche Copes that was in the
 Church, every Monnke had one, and the Prior had a marvellous riche cope
 on, of clothe of ffyne pure gould, the which he was not able to goe
 upright with it, for the weightines thereof, but as men did staye it
 and holde it up of every side when he had it on. He went with his
 crutch in his hand, which was of sylver and duble gilt, with a rich
 myter on his head.'

In the private account-book of the last prior but one of Worcester[83]
is given the following interesting bill for a mitre:

 'Item to John Cranckes gold smyth of london for al maner of stuff
 belongyng of the new mytur, with the makyng of the same as hit apereth
 by parcelles foloyng:

 In primis for v grete stones                                xvis viijd.
 Item for xx/iiij & vj stones prece viijd apeece to
   the frontes                                              lvijs iiijd.
 Item for xxj stones sett in golde, weyng di.
   vnces                                                    xiijs iiijd.
 Item for xl medyll stones, prece vjd a stone                       xxs.
 Item for xx/iij & xv smale stones prece iiijd a
   stone, to garnesshe                                             xxvs.
 Item for iij vnces & a quarter of fyne peerll,
   at iij li. the vnce                                   iij[84] li xvs.
 Item for xij vnces of medull peerll, at xs the
   vnce                                                           vj li.
 Item the selver warke weys, in all xx/iiij xiij
   vnces, which is with the fassheon & all                xiiij li xvjs.
 Item to the broderar vj wokes (? _wekes_) xijd
   a day, besydes mete & dryncke                                 xxxvjs.
 Item payd for lynnen cloth to cowech ytt on
   with perll                                                      vijd.
 Item for sylke to thred the seid perll & steche
   the peerll j vnce & di                                           xvd.
 Item for yalow thred                                                jd.
 Item for Rybande of iiijd brede ij yeards                        viijd.
 Item for Reband of ijd brede A yearde                              ijd.
 Item for Rownde selk about the bordure                          jd. ob.
 Item for red selke to sow hytt with all,
   di. quarter the vnce                                          ijd ob.
 Item for past                                                    iiijd.
 (Item) for a quarter of sarcenett to lyne hytt                  xiiijd.
 Item for a case to the mytur of lethur                           iiijs.

 Summa xlixli. xvs. the coste of the mytur.'

Before parting with the ancient vestments of the Western Church, let us
spend a few moments on another, and to the antiquary a melancholy,
subject, namely, the fate which has befallen them.

The number of actual vestments which survive to our own day is
comparatively small. Notwithstanding the scrupulous care with which they
were kept, the action of time and probably of moths could not but
destroy the perishable material of which they were made; and as so
sacred were they regarded that when a vestment was worn out it was
burnt, and the ashes thrown into and washed down the drain of the
piscina, or font; so, at least, it was ordered by the ninth canon of the
Synod of Dublin, 1186.[85] In France and in England, however, far the
greatest havoc was wrought in the religious and political troubles of
the eighteenth century in the former case, of the two centuries
preceding in the latter.

The destruction of churches and church property in France at the hands
of the atheistical mobs of the Revolution was incalculable. Monuments,
glass and fabrics were broken and ruined, if not utterly destroyed, and
the vestments and Processional crosses were torn from the treasuries and
heaped up in the streets to be burnt in bonfires. In England the damage
was perhaps even more considerable, though it was executed in a quieter
and more deliberate manner. In the reaction after the revival of the
Roman faith under Queen Mary, orders were sent to the churchwardens of
the different parishes requesting returns from them as to the relics of
popery, if any, which remained in the churches under their care, and the
manner in which such superstitious objects had been disposed of,
whenever they had been removed. A very perfect series of these returns
exists for Lincolnshire, and they have been edited by Mr Edward Peacock,
F.S.A., in a highly-interesting volume entitled 'English Church
Furniture and Decorations,' published in 1866. In each return is a note
describing what was done with the vestments and other pre-Reformation
furniture of the church to which the return relates. From them we
extract the following entries, which may serve as specimens of the
varied fate of vestments, not only in the county of Lincoln, but
throughout the country:

 _Alford._ Itm̃ one cope whearof is made a clothe for the coīon table [a
 frequent entry].

 Itm̃ one vestment [chasuble] sold and defacid [a frequent entry].

 _Ashbie iuxa Sleford._ Itm̃ vestmẽtes copes crosses aulbes phanelles
 crosse clothes banner clothes and all such lyke ymplements—stollē out
 of or churche in quene maries tyme.

 _Ashbie iuxa Spillisbie._ Itm̃ one vestm̃t with crose clothes—geven to
 the poore Aõ iijᵒ Regine Elizabt̃h [a frequent entry].

 Itm̃ an alb—whearof wee have made a surples [a frequent entry].

 _Aswardbie._ Itm̃ two vestmentes were cut in peces yesterdaie and sold
 to Thomas waite and george holmes and theʸ haue put them to prophane
 vse.

 _Bomnbie._ Itm̃ a vestmᵗ and yē rest as fanells, stooles and such
 like—brent iiij yeare ago p̃te of the same and the rest hath made
 quishwines of John Michill and James Totter then churchwarden.

So we find at Braceby an alb made a covering for the font. At
Castlebytham we find 'one cope one vestment and one albe' were 'sold to
Thomas Inma for the some of Vs. Vpon sondaie was a sevenighte wc̃h he
haith defaced and cutt in peces.' Elsewhere, a vestment was made into a
'dublett,' others into 'clowtes for children,' or 'hangings for a bedd.'
Some churches had lost their vestments in the Edwardian Reformation, and
consequently, when they were required again in Queen Mary's reign,
substitutes had to be borrowed from private owners. These were
'restored' to their possessors; in a few cases the churchwardens
thoughtfully cut them in pieces before doing so.

There is one other series of vestments which deserves a passing
notice—the vestments in which the newly-baptized were clothed. In the
sixth or seventh century these consisted of the _alba_, the _sabanum_,
the _chrismale_, and the _garland_. The alba was probably similar to the
clerical alba; the form of the sabanum (=sabanon=) is uncertain, but it
was possibly not more than its name implies—simply a towel. The
chrismale was a piece of white linen tied on the head, intended to keep
the chrism in its place during the week in which these vestments were
worn. The garland was a chaplet of flowers with which the baptized were
crowned after baptism.

There is a rite in the Armenian Church in which the priest twists two
threads, one white and one red, lifts them up under the cross, and then
lays them on the person to be baptized. The white and red is obviously
symbolical of the mingled blood and water which flowed from our Lord's
side, but there are obscure traces in early writers which seem to
indicate that this observance was of more general acceptance, and that
the present rite is a corruption of something quite different. Durandus,
in the 'Rationale Div. Off.,' vi, c. 82, speaks of the alba of baptism
having upon it a red band like a 'corona,' and elsewhere we find a
combination of red and white mentioned in connection with the robes of
the neophytes.

These vestments were worn throughout the week after baptism, and put off
on the Sunday following, hence called _Dominica in albis depositis_.
They were either retained after baptism as a memorial of the
sacrament—and often used as shrouds after death—or else presented to the
church by the baptized.

[Illustration: FIG. 21.]

In the mediaeval church this comparatively elaborate suit was reduced to
one cloth, the chrysome, or chrism cloth, in which the body of a
newly-baptized infant was swathed. This cloth was kept upon the child
for a month, and if it died within the month the child was buried in it
as a shroud. Several monumental brasses are extant in which children are
represented in their baptismal robes; we reproduce an example in Chesham
Bois Church, Buckinghamshire. In the modern Roman Church the white cloth
is merely placed on the head; it is now too small to cover the body.

[Illustration: FIG. 22.—A COPE CHEST, YORK MINSTER.]

The chrism cloth was taken off if the child survived till the end of the
month, and returned to the church, in whose custody it was kept. These
cloths were used for the reparation of vestments and altar hangings, and
other sacred textile fabrics connected with the church. Thus in the
Treasurer's Rolls for Ripon we read (1470-71) the following entries:

 'Est de ccᵐᵃlxvj vestibus crismalibus de reman. ultimi compoti
 praedicti. Et de cᵐᵃiij vestibus crismalibus rec. de tot pueris
 baptizatis hoc anno. Summa ccciiijˣˣix.[86] De quibus.

 'In sepultura puerorum viij. Et in reparacione vestimentorum, xiiij. Et
 liberantur pro manutergiis inde fiendis, ordinatis pro expensis
 ecclesiae, ix. Et liberantur pro calicibus involvendis et aliis
 necessariis ejusdem ecclesiae, vj. Summa xxxvij. Et reman. cccᵐᵃlij
 vestes crismales.'[87]

 [76] This word is a curious hybrid. The _muce_ is the Teutonic for a
 cap or hood (_cf._ Scottish _mutch_, German _Mütze_). The word
 _mozetta_ is connected with this. The _al_ is the Arabic article,
 probably attached to it at some time in Spain.

 [77] Both objectionable terms, as they lead to confusion with the
 _amice_, the sound of all these words being practically
 indistinguishable.

 [78] Rock.

 [79] For example, the lamb (besides its more sacred significance) may
 possibly be taken as symbolical of St Agnes, the dragon of St George or
 St Margaret, the lion of St Jerome, the lily, sun, moon, stars, or rose
 of St Mary the Virgin, and so on indefinitely.

 [80] Examples of an entire name occurring on copes are extremely rare.
 I only know of one—the brass of Thomas Patesley (1418), at Great
 Shelford, Cambridgeshire. Initials are common in almost every county;
 _rebuses_ not quite so common, though we have the famous _maple_-leaves
 (alternating with _M_'s) in the cope of a priest called Mapleton, as
 shown on his brass at Broadwater, Sussex; while heraldic devices are
 fairly frequent, either as complete shields or selections from the
 charges borne by the priest's family. The brasses of Wm. de Fulbourne,
 at Fulbourne, Cambridgeshire, and of Thos. Aileward, at Havant,
 Hampshire, give us examples of both these methods of ornamentation.

 [81] Eisdemque diebus dominus papa videns in aliquorum Anglicorum
 ornamentis ecclesiasticis, utpote in capis choralibus et infulis
 aurifrisia concupiscibilia, interrogavit ubinam facta puissent. Cui
 responsum est In Anglia. At ipse, Vere hortus noster deliciarum est
 Anglia; vere puteus inexhaustus est; et ubi multa abundant de multis
 multa possunt extorqueri. Unde idem dominus papa concupiscentia
 illectus oculorum literas suas bullatas sacras misit ad omnes fere
 Cisterciensis ordinis abbates in Anglia commorantes quorum orationibus
 se nuper in capitulo Cisterciensi commendaverat ut ipsi aurifrisia ac
 si pro nihilo ipsa possent adquirere mittere non different pracelecta
 ad planetas et capas suas chorales adomandas. Quod mercennariis
 Londoniae qui ea venalia habebant non displicuit, ad placitum
 vendentibus: unde multi manifestum avaritiam Romanae ecclesiae
 detestabantur.—M. Paris, 'Chronica Majora' (Rolls Series), vol. iv, p.
 546.

 [82] 'Issues of the Exchequer' (ed. Dover), p. 16.

 [83] Quoted in the _Builder_, 7 July 1894.

 [84] _Sic._, should be viiij or ix.

 [85] Worn-out vestments were also found useful for the interment of
 ecclesiastics, as we have seen, supra p. 101.

 [86] There is an error of twenty somewhere in this calculation.

 [87] 'Memorials of Ripon,' vol. iii, p. 219 (Surtees Society).

[Illustration]

[Illustration]




CHAPTER V.

THE VESTMENTS OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES.


The proverbial conservatism of the unchanging East, which is felt in all
ecclesiastical as well as in social matters, will make our task in the
present chapter much lighter. The action of evolution, which makes the
history of the Western vestments so complex, is hardly felt in the East.
The mediaevalism, or, rather, primaevalism, which shuts out instrumental
aid from the musical portions of the Eastern service acts upon vestments
in minimizing the profusion of ornamentation which plays such an
important part in the externals of Western ritual.

One of our earliest authorities on the subject of Eastern vesture is St
Germanus of Constantinople (_circa_ 715 A.D.). In his treatise =Mystikê
Theôria= he enters at considerable length into a discussion of
Ecclesiastical Vestments and also of Monastic Costume, giving details,
which are curious, but of little or no value, concerning the alleged
symbolic meanings which they bear.

In the present chapter we have to discuss the vestments of the principal
Eastern Churches—the Orthodox 'Greek' Church, so called, the Armenian
Church, and the remote body of Christians on the coast of Malabar. The
general appearance and style of the vestments of these churches is
similar; there are, however, minor differences, which will appear as we
proceed.

The vestments and personal ornaments of the Orthodox Greek Church are as
follows:

    I. The =stoicharion=.
   II. The =epimanikia=.
  III. The =epitrachêlion=.
   IV. The =ôrarion=.
    V. The =zônê=.
   VI. The =phainolion=.
  VII. The =epigonation=.
 VIII. The =ômophorion=.
   IX. The =mandyas=.
    X. The =chamalauchê=.
   XI. The =exôchamalauchê=.
  XII. The =pateressa=.
 XIII. The =enkolpion=.
  XIV. The =sakkos=.

The Armenian vestments are as follows:

   I. The Vakass.
  II. The Shapich.
 III. The Poor-ourar.
  IV. The Kodi.
   V. The Pasbans.
  VI. The Shoochar.
 VII. The Sagavard.

[Illustration: FIG. 23.—ARMENIAN PRIEST.]

The Malabar vestments are:

   I. The Cuthino.
  II. The Orro.
 III. The Zunro.
  IV. The Zando.
   V. The Phaino.
  VI. The Cap and Shoes.

[Illustration: FIG. 24.—MALABAR PRIEST.]

I. The =stoicharion= was, and is, identical with the Roman _alba_. The
word is of uncertain etymology, and none of the guesses which have been
made are at all satisfactory. Like the _alba_, it was originally a
garment of secular use; this we infer from the _Apologia contra
Arianos_,[88] where we read that one charge (among others) which was
brought against Athanasius was that he had required the Egyptians to
furnish linen =stoicharia=. Germanus says of the vestment, 'being white,
the =stoicharion= signifies the glory of the Godhead and the bright
citizenship of priests. The stripes of the =stoicharion= on the sleeve
signify the bonds of Christ; the stripes which run across signify the
blood which flowed from Christ's side on the cross.' Setting aside the
symbolism, we learn that the vestment in the time of Germanus was white,
ornamented with stripes, probably red, upon the sleeves and across the
body. At present, while the vestment is still white on ordinary
occasions, on certain days coloured =stoicharia= are worn, as will be
shown in the chapter on Ritual Use. The =lôria=, or stripes, are now
confined to the =stoicharia= of bishops. In Russia, and elsewhere to
some extent, the =stoicharia= are often made of silk or velvet, though
linen remains the proper material; here we see a notable correspondence
with Western usage.

[Illustration: FIG. 25.—DEACON IN =stoicharion, ôrarion=, AND
=epimanikia=.]

The _shapich_ of the Armenians and the _cuthino_ of the Malabar
Christians correspond to this vestment and do not differ from it. It
goes by other names in other parts of the Eastern Church; these are set
forth in the appendix. Deacons, members of the minor orders, and
choristers wear the shapich ungirded.

II. The =epimanikia=. These correspond to the Western maniple, but they
differ from it in several notable respects. First, one is provided for
each arm instead of for the left arm only. Secondly, they are not worn
pendant on the arm, but are drawn round, so that they rather resemble
cuffs than napkins suspended on the wrist. In some early mosaics they
are shown not so much as cuffs, as large false sleeves. Something
similar seems to have been worn in the Gallican Church, if we may accept
the testimony of the MS. already referred to on p. 135.

[Illustration: FIG. 26.—PRIEST IN =stoicharion, epitrachêlion,
phainolion, zônê=, AND =epimanikia=.]

This vestment—for the two pieces may be said technically to form one
vestment—was for a long time restricted to bishops only, but priests
and, since 1600, even deacons have had the right to wear it. Bishops
only, however, are allowed to have the =epimanikia= embroidered with the
=eikôn= of Christ.

The =epimanikia= are alleged to signify the bands with which Christ was
bound.

The Armenian _pasban_ corresponds to the =epimanikion=; so does the
_zando_ of the Malabar Christians. Both _pasban_ and _zando_ are worn
one on each wrist; but whereas the Armenian vestment is more like the
Western maniple, the _zando_ is a false sleeve, fitting the arm tightly
and extending some way above the elbow.

III. The =epitrachêlion= is in essence identical with the stole of the
Western Church, but in form it differs widely. Instead of being a long
narrow strip passed behind the neck, it is a short broad band with an
aperture at one end, through which the wearer's head is passed, so that
instead of two ends pendant, one at each side, there is but one, hanging
down in the middle. It is probably the richest of all the Eastern
vestments; it is made of silk or brocade, and in large churches is
ornamented with jewels and precious metals. A seam runs conspicuously
down the middle, dividing the band into two; this gives the vestment a
more stole-like appearance than it would otherwise possess.

[Illustration: FIG. 27.—ARCHIMANDRITE IN =phainolion, epigonation,
enkolpion=, ETC.]

The Armenian _poor-ourar_ and the Malabar _orro_ are the equivalents of
this vestment, and resemble it in appearance. Both names are evidently
corruptions of the Greek =ôrarion=.

IV. The =ôrarion= is the Diaconal substitute for the =epitrachêlion=. It
is identical with the Latin stole, and, like that vestment when worn by
deacons, is carried on the left shoulder. St Germanus informs us that it
typifies the ministry of angels, in that it resembles a pair of wings;
this, like many other similar statements, may be taken for what it is
worth. The sole difference between the =ôrarion= and the stole lies in
its ornamentation; the latter is ornamented in a perfectly unrestricted
manner, the former bears embroidered upon it the =trisagion=,

=AGIOS AGIOS AGIOS=,

and the Armenian Church as a general rule dispenses even with this
inscription.

[Illustration: FIG. 28.—BISHOP IN =phainolion, epigonation, ômophorion=,
ETC.]

V. The =zônê= is simply a girdle which keeps the =stoicharion= and
=epitrachêlion= in place. To it answers the Armenian _kodi_ and the
Malabar _zunro_. The Armenians suspend a large white napkin to the
_kodi_ on the left-hand side, which is used to wipe the hands or the
vessels when necessary during the service, and thus takes the place of
the old Western maniple.

VI. The =phainolion= answers in all respects to the Western chasuble;
and it is evident that we are to see in its appellation the old name
_paenula_. The Malabar Christians have a vestment called the _phaino_,
which in appearance corresponds to the cope; but its use assimilates it
to the =phainolion=, as we should expect from the identity of name. The
_phaino_ is made of more or less costly materials, it is square (not
semicircular) in shape with rounded corners. A button and loop answer
the purpose of the Western morse. It may be here stated that the
embroidery and material of the _zando_ usually corresponds with that of
the _phaino_ with which it is worn. The priests of the Armenian Church
also wear a cope-shaped chasuble. Small bells are sometimes hung round
the lower edge. The =phainolion= of bishops was formerly distinguished
from that of priests by being covered with crosses; hence called
=phainolion polystaurion=.

VII. The =epigonation= is a lozenge-shaped ornament, made of brocade,
and suspended by one corner on the right side of the =epitrachêlia= of
bishops. It is ornamented with embroidery on its surface, and with
tassels attached to the three free corners. It was originally a
handkerchief, and it remained in this form for some considerable time;
in fact, it remains a handkerchief in the Armenian Church. Although
properly peculiar to bishops, certain other ecclesiastics wear it as a
special privilege.

VIII. The =ômophorion= is equivalent to the Western _pall_ (though it is
worn by all prelates, not by archbishops only), and similar to it in
shape; it is, however, rather wider, and is worn round the neck in a
knot. It is said to symbolize the lost sheep—presumably from its being
carried on the shoulder.

IX. The =mandyas= is a vestment similar to the cope, worn on certain
occasions by Archimandrites and the higher orders of the Hierarchy. The
difference between it and the Western cope consists in its being rather
fuller, and fastened at the lower ends in front as well as at the top.
Small bells are hung round its lower edge. The =mandyas= of an
archimandrite is not ornamented; that of a prelate is decorated with
wavy stripes called =potama kai pômata=, 'rivers and cups'[89]—a
fanciful method of expressing the 'rivers of grace which flow from
him.'[90]

X, XI. The =chamalauchê= is a cap, the =exôchamalauchê= a hood worn over
it. The =exôchamalauchê= of a Metropolitan is white, signed in front
with a black cross, that of other prelates black.

XII. The =pateressa= corresponds to the pastoral staff, but it is
shorter and is used as an ordinary walking-stick, which it resembles in
every particular. The handle is usually an ornamental modification of
the crutched or tau cross. The bishops of the Eastern Church wear no
ring.

XIII. The =enkolpion= is a pectoral cross, worn in the East, and similar
in all respects to the cross worn in the West.

XIV. The =sakkos= is the equivalent of the Western dalmatic: it is now
worn by all metropolitans.

The Armenian vestments which have not been described in the above
conspectus are (i) the _sagavard_, or priest's cap; (ii) the _vakass_, a
vestment which corresponds to the Western amice, and is nowhere else
worn in the East. It differs from it in the collar standing upright
instead of being turned down. Attached to the _vakass_ of high
dignitaries is a breastplate of precious metals and stones, bearing the
names of the twelve apostles. This is as obviously borrowed from the
Jewish 'breastplate of the Ephod,' as the _vakass_ itself is borrowed
from the Western amice; but the Armenians deny any Western influence in
the dress, asserting the entire vestment to be of Jewish origin; (iii)
the _shoochar_, which answers in every respect to the cope; and (iv) the
sandals, which are worn during service, are kept in the church, and may
not be used on other occasions.

Vartabeds (_i.e._, priests especially entrusted with the work of
preaching and instructing the ignorant in the principles of the
religion) and bishops substitute a mitre for the _sagavard_, and wear a
pectoral cross hanging by a gold chain round the neck. The copes of
bishops are ornamented by two strips of brocade, usually embroidered
with figures of saints; these are survivals of the _infulae_ of the
mitre, but are attached to the shoulder of the cope. Vartabeds are
distinguished by a staff of which the head consists of a cross with two
serpents turned round it.

The Armenian Church permits clergy to remain married if the marriage
hath taken place before ordination. The ordinary dress of unmarried
priests consists of a black or dark purple cassock with a broad belt,
over which is worn a gown, and (at the recital of the offices) a cope.
In Persia and Armenia they wear a cap with fur border called the
_kulpas_. Married priests wear a blue cassock, a black gown, and a blue
turban.

The vestments of the Nestorian Church are perhaps the simplest of the
forms of dress in vogue in the various non-reformed Churches. They are
six in number, and are respectively called the _prazôna_, _peena_,
_zunnâra_, _hurrâra_, _estla_ or _shorshippa_, and _msâne_. These
correspond respectively to breeches, surplice, or alb, girdle, stole,
chasuble, and shoes, but they differ in some degree from the analogous
vestments in use elsewhere. They are all made of white linen or calico,
the only colour employed being in the girdle and stole, which (to use
the convenient heraldic terms) are checky in squares white and blue,
bearing crosses of the same colours counter-changed. The chasuble, too,
has a Latin cross worked on the back. The latter is a clumsy vestment,
being simply a square cloth, thrown over the shoulders and held in
position with the finger and thumb. The stole does not reach below the
waist, and is kept in its place under the girdle. It is remarkable that
the vestments of the different orders of clergy differ only in the
quality of the material, and not in elaboration or form; and that they
are, as a general rule, only worn during the celebration of the Holy
Eucharist or the administration of Baptism. At other services the
priests usually wear their ordinary costume, which differs only slightly
from that of laymen.

The following list will show the parallelism existing between the
vestments of the East and of the West; it is useful as showing that the
differences between them consist entirely in matters of detail, and not
in essentials:

 [vakass]           = amice.
 =stoicharion=      = alb.
 =epimanikia=       = maniple.
 =epitrachêlion=  } = stole.
 =ôrarion=        }
 =zônê=             = girdle.
 =phainolion=       = chasuble.
 =epigonation=        may be compared with appendages of subcingulum.
 =ômophorion=       = pall.
 =mandyas=          = cope, approximately.
 =chamalauchê=    } = mitre,      "
 =exôchamalauchê= }
 =pateressa=        = pastoral staff.
 =enkolpion=        = pectoral cross.
 =sakkos=           = dalmatic

Thus, the =epigonation, mandyas, chamalauchê=, and =exôchamalauchê= have
no exact equivalent in the West; while, on the other hand, the amice is
only represented in one provincial church, and the tunicle, dalmatic,
gloves, ring, stockings and sandals, have no Eastern vestments to
correspond with them. This is just what we might expect, for these
vestments are all, comparatively speaking, of mediaeval invention or
application, and the Eastern Church, as we said in other words at the
commencement of this chapter, preserves many of the primitive rites and
usages in a condition much less altered by time than does its Western
sister.

 [88] 'Patrol. Graec.,' xxv, 358.

 [89] The assonance cannot be satisfactorily preserved in translation.
 Perhaps 'rivers and lavers' is the nearest approximation our language
 affords.

 [90] Neale.

[Illustration]




CHAPTER VI.

THE VESTMENTS OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES.


One of the main differences between a church unreformed and a church
reformed lies in this: that in the former the externals of public
worship are magnified in importance even to the minutest detail, while
in the latter the weight attached to such matters is diminished in a
greater or less degree.

Considerable variety is apparent in the importance attached by different
reformed churches to these matters, and, in consequence, considerable
variety is apparent in the extent to which they are elaborated. Those
churches which at the Reformation retained the episcopate, retained with
it, in a more or less modified form, many of the old usages; while those
churches which abolished the hierarchical and restored the democratic
system of church government, for the most part abolished the customs of
their pre-reformation predecessors. Perhaps among no bodies of
Christians are the externals of worship so little heeded as among the
English dissenting sects; these, being composed of seceders from a
reformed church, may be said to have undergone a double reformation,
which has had the effect of expunging the last traces of ritual from
their services. In the consequent neglect of order, the wearing of robes
of office has become entirely optional, not only with the different
sects, but even with the individual ministers; and where a gown is worn,
as no definite shape of gown is prescribed, the choice of robe remains
optional. Hence, these bodies need not concern us further, as the
discussion of their vestments would be merely an uninteresting and
monotonous account of the practice of isolated modern congregations.

The four churches whose usage must occupy our attention in the present
chapter are the Lutheran churches of Germany and Scandinavia, the
Episcopal churches of England and of Spain, and the Presbyterian
churches, with especial reference to the church of Scotland.


§ I. THE LUTHERAN CHURCHES.

Of all reformations, the least thorough, as far as outward observance
was concerned, was the reformation in which Martin Luther played the
leading part. In Lübeck is the brass of the Lutheran Bishop Tydeman, who
died in 1561, representing him in full Eucharistic vestments, in no wise
differing from the vestments of his non-reformed predecessors. At the
present day the predominance of the Evangelical church in Germany (as
distinguished from the Lutheran) has abolished vestments, with the
exception of the Geneva gown and its attendants, among the Protestants;
but in Sweden and Denmark, where the Protestant Episcopal is still the
national church, the old vestments, with some modifications and
omissions, are retained.

The Lutheran minister of the present day in Sweden and Denmark is
described as wearing an ample cassock, or black gown, and a white
frilled ruff, or collar, both in his outdoor life and at morning and
evening prayer. At the Communion Service he assumes an alb, or, rather,
surplice—a white, ungirded garment, open down the front—over which is
placed a chasuble with a large cross on the back.

The Swedish Kyrko-Handbog recognises these vestments: the _chorkappa_,
_messhake_ and _messe-sjorta_—answering to the cope, chasuble, and
surplice, respectively.


§ II. THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.

The history of vestments and their usage in England subsequent to the
reformation is not lacking in complexity, and is rendered harder to
unravel by the heated discussions carried on, and the contradictory
assertions brought forward, at the present day by the various parties
within the English church. It is no part of our duty here to give an
account of the different recensions of the liturgy published and
approved in the years after the reformation; we are here only concerned
with the rubrical directions which they contain to regulate the use of
vestments permitted in the English church.

The first English Prayer-Book, published in 1549, contained the
following injunction:

 'Upon the day and at the time appointed for the ministration of the
 Holy Communion, the Priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall
 put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to
 say, a white alb plain with a vestment or cope. And where there be many
 Priests or Deacons there so many shall be ready to help the Priest in
 the ministrations as shall be requisite; and shall have upon them
 likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say,
 albes with tunicles.'

It is quite clear, even without the documentary evidence which is
forthcoming, that this was merely intended as temporary, as, indeed, was
the whole 1549 Prayer-Book. In a letter which Fagius and Bucer addressed
to their Strassburg friends, describing their reception by Archbishop
Cranmer, there is given a short account of the ceremonies then in use.
In the course of this letter, they say, 'We hear that some concessions
have been made both to a respect for antiquity and to the infirmity of
the present age, such, for instance, as the vestments commonly used in
the Sacrament of the Eucharist.'

An inspection of the rubric will show that it was ingeniously designed
to please all parties. The word 'vestment,' of course, means the
chasuble, _the_ vestment _par excellence_, and therefore often spoken of
in that apparently general way. The 'alb and vestment' being specified
did not _necessarily_ exclude all the other vestments which were worn
_between_ these two. Hence those clergy who preferred the old rites and
ceremonies might read the rubric into permitting, or even enjoining, the
maintenance of the old vestments,[91] while those who subscribed to the
principles of the reforming party might set at defiance all old usages
by wearing the cope while celebrating the Communion.

Another rubric relating to vestments appears in the first Prayer-Book.
This is the first rubric printed after the order for the Communion, and
runs thus:

 'Upon Wednesdays and Fridays the English Litany shall be said or sung
 in all places ... and though there be none to communicate with the
 Priest, yet these days (after the Litany ended) the Priest shall put
 upon him a plain albe or surplice, with a cope, and say all things at
 the altar (appointed to be said at the celebration of the Lord's
 Supper) until after the offertory....'

Finally, in this Prayer-Book also occurs the following:

 'In the saying or singing of Mattins and Evensong, baptizing and
 burying, the minister in parish churches and chapels annexed to the
 same shall use a surplice. And in all cathedral churches and colleges
 the archdeacons, deans, provosts, masters, prebendaries, and fellows,
 being graduates, may use in the quire, besides their surplices, such
 hood as appertaineth to their several degrees. And whensoever the
 bishop shall celebrate the Holy Communion in the church, or execute any
 other public ministration, he shall have upon him, beside his rochet, a
 surplice or albe, and a cope or vestment, and also his pastoral staff
 in his hand, or else borne or holden by his chaplain.'

The revised Prayer-Book of 1552 is much more stringent in its
reformation of vestment-use. It condescends to mention vestments but
once, in a prohibitory rubric, which reduces vestment-use in the English
Church to an almost Presbyterian simplicity. This rubric is as follows:

 'And here it is to be noted that the minister at the time of the
 communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use
 neither albe, vestment, nor cope: but being archbishop or bishop, he
 shall have and wear a rochet: and being a priest or deacon, he shall
 have and wear a surplice only.'

In the Prayer-Book of 1559 a rubric is to be found requiring the
restoration of the vestments and ornaments of the first Prayer-Book,
thereby setting aside the order of the second Prayer-Book. At the
consecration of Archbishop Parker in 1559, we are told that at morning
prayer the archbishop-elect wore his academical robes. After the sermon,
the archbishop-elect and the four attendant bishops proceeded to the
vestry, and returned prepared for the communion service, the archbishop
in a linen surplice, the Bishop of Chichester in a silk cope, the
Bishops of Hereford and Bedford in linen surplices, but the Bishop of
Exeter (Miles Coverdale) in a woollen cassock only. Two chaplains of the
archbishop, who assisted the Bishop of Chichester at the communion
service, also wore silk copes.

After the communion service they again proceeded to the vestry and
returned, the archbishop in 'episcopal alb,' surplice, chimere of black
silk, and a collar of precious sable-fur round his neck; the Bishops of
Chichester and Hereford in episcopalia, namely, surplice and chimere.
Coverdale and the Bishop of Bedford wore cassocks only.

This passage shows us that the right of private judgment was exercised,
even at such an important ceremony as the consecration of an archbishop,
in 1559 as now. The Puritan principles of Coverdale were given full sway
even when acting in cooperation with his less austere brethren.

It also introduces us to a new vestment, the _chimere_, which is one of
the greatest puzzles to be found in the subject of vestments. Since the
Reformation, it has continued ever since as a dress peculiar to bishops,
but its origin and the exact date of its introduction are uncertain.

The _chimere_ is a short coat, properly without sleeves; but in England
the tailors of the Stuart period transferred the sleeves of the _rochet_
to the _chimere_. Hence the modern English bishops wear sleeveless
rochets and sleeved chimeres—both solecisms. The English chimere is
black, though from the reign of Edward VI to that of Elizabeth it was
scarlet; but the form current on the Continent, a large cape called the
_mantelletum_, is scarlet, and the chimere worn by the Roman prelates in
England is purple.

It is not unlikely, from the appearance of the vestment, that it is a
modification of the cope or almuce—possibly a combination of the two
vestments.

In 1560 Thos Sampson writes complaining to Peter Martyr that 'three of
our lately-appointed bishops are to officiate at the table of the Lord,
one as priest, another as deacon, and a third as subdeacon, before the
image of the crucifix, or at least not far from it, with candles, and
habited in the golden vestments of the papacy.' This seems to indicate
that at Court (where this was to take place) the old vestments were kept
up. From a letter of Miles Coverdale's written in 1566, we learn that
the square cap, bands, and tippet were enjoined to be worn out of doors
('Zurich Letters,' vol. i, p. 63, vol. ii, p. 121; Parker Society).

In all the subsequent Prayer-Books, the 'Ornaments Rubric,' as it is
called, is the source of our information with respect to the vestments
required to be worn in the English Church. This famous rubric runs thus
(as given in the Prayer-Book of 1662):

 'And here it is to be noted, that such ornaments of the church and of
 the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be
 retained and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the
 authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward
 the Sixth.'

The indefiniteness observed in the Edwardian rubrics, to which this
injunction refers, invests the 'Ornaments Rubric' with a certain
vagueness; and this is responsible for the long and violent strife that
has waged around it, and for the chaotic condition of modern Anglican
order, both in vestments and other observances.

Recent attempts have been made on the part of individual clergymen to
introduce certain details of the ritual of the Western Church into the
services of the Church of England. All such innovations are, however,
regarded as illegal, and clergymen attempting to introduce them lay
themselves open to prosecution. The rulings in the case known as the
Folkestone ritual case (Elphinstone _v._ Purchas) is the standard of
reference in such matters. Among many other details, the use of the
following vestments was declared absolutely contrary to the
Ecclesiastical Law of England: The biretta, chasuble, alb, and tunicle
at the Holy Communion; the cope at Holy Communion except on high feast
days in cathedrals and collegiate churches. On other occasions a decent
and comely surplice is to be used by every minister saying the public
prayers or administering the sacrament or other rites of the Church.[92]

This tendency to elaboration and to revival of mediaeval practices is
not, however, altogether of modern growth. In Wells Cathedral is the
effigy of Bishop Creighton, who died in 1672, clad in cassock, amice,
alb, and cope, the latter with a jewelled border. On his head is a cap
with side-flaps, over which is a _mitra pretiosa_. More singular still,
considering that the person commemorated was an ardent reformer, is the
brass of Bishop Goodrick at Ely Cathedral, who died in 1554. He is
represented in full Eucharistic vestments of the pre-Reformation period.
Both these apparent anomalies are probably to be accounted for by the
Romanizing tendency of the reigning monarchs under whom both these
persons lived.

The vestments of the clergy did not escape the lash of the satirists of
Queen Elizabeth's reign. About 1565, for instance, a tract was published
entitled 'A pleasant Dialogue between a Soldier of Berwick and an
English chaplain: wherein are largely handled and laid open such reasons
as are brought for maintenance of Popish Traditions in our English
Church.' The soldier speaks thus to Bernard, the priest: 'But, Bernard,
I pray thee, tell me of thine honesty what was the cause that thou hast
been in so many changes of apparel this forenoon, now black, now white,
now in silk and gold, and now at length in this swouping black gown, and
this sarcenet flaunting tippet.' This describes Bernard as first in his
ordinary cassock or clerical dress; then in his surplice for morning
prayer; then in the cope for communion; and, lastly, in the preaching
gown and tippet. The passage is interesting, as it brings the practice
of wearing a black gown at the sermon, once universal in the English
Church, but now fast dying out, back almost to the reformation.

One more English church vestment remains to be noticed—the scarf. This
is a broad black band of silk, which is worn like a stole, passed round
the back of the neck and allowed to depend on either side. It is worn by
doctors of divinity and by the clerical authorities of collegiate and
cathedral bodies. Its origin is _possibly_ to be found in the stole, but
it is more probably a modification of an article of University costume.

During the imposition of Episcopacy upon Scotland in the Stuart period
the dress of the clergy was of a form designed by no less a person than
his Sacred Majesty King James I himself. At that monarch's own request
the Parliament of 1609 passed an Act authorizing him to do so, assigning
in its preface the reasons for this step to be 'that it had been found
by daily experience that the greatness of his Majesty's empire, the
magnificence of his Court, the fame of his wisdom, the civility of his
subjects, were alluring princes and strangers from every part of the
world, and that it was fitting that bishops and ministers, judges and
magistrates, should appear before those in becoming apparel; it was
therefore referred to his Majesty's serene wisdom to devise appropriate
garments and robes of office for these different functionaries.'

The result of this was an order 'that ministers should wear black
clothes and in the pulpit black gowns; that bishops and doctors of
divinity should wear "black cassikins syde to their knee" [equivalent to
the "bishop's apron" of the modern English prelate and the short
Presbyterian cassock], black gowns above, and a black craip [scarf]
about their necks. The bishops were ordained to have their gowns with
_lumbard_ sleeves, according to the form of England, with tippets and
craips about their craigs [necks].'

In 1631 Charles I directed the _surplice_ to be worn. In 1633, when he
visited Scotland, the bishops and chaplains officiated before him in
surplices. He induced Parliament to pass an Act like that of 1609,
giving him the power to regulate clerical costume; but this was so much
objected to by the clergy themselves (some of whom expressed a fear that
his Majesty would order them to wear 'hoods and bells'), that in 1634
they petitioned the King not to interfere with the arrangements of his
predecessor; and their request seems to have been granted.


§ III. THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.

The practices of both these churches are commendably simple: a white
tunic, or surplice, and a white stole, are the only vestments or
ornaments at any time to be worn, except in sermons or at funerals, when
a black gown _may_ be assumed. Deacons wear their stoles in the ancient
diaconal fashion, _i.e._, over the left shoulder and under the right
arm; presbyters wear theirs round the neck and hanging straight down.


§ IV. THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

[Illustration: FIG. 29.—A SYNOD MEETING OF THE REFORMED CHURCH OF FRANCE.]

We have already shown that in Apostolic times, and the first few years
of the post-Apostolic period, robes of office were not worn by the
officiating minister. Vestments do not meet us until the moderatorship
of the Ecclesiastical Assemblies had crystallized into the Episcopate.

The oldest Christian organization now existing in which the diordinal
system of government has been restored is undoubtedly the Waldensian
church. Although this church has not been _proved_ to be older than the
thirteenth century, it cannot be asserted that its foundation is not
anterior to that date; an impenetrable mist—rendered more obscure, it
must be admitted, by the doubtful authenticity of many of the church
documents—shrouds its early years. Unfortunately it cannot be discovered
whether its clergy wore any distinctive robes when conducting its
services. The chroniclers have not thought it worth their while to tell
us, but it is improbable that anything very elaborate was worn, as a
church which made a change so drastic as the abolition of the Episcopate
would be unlikely to maintain the elaborate accessories of the
non-reformed church. At present the simple black gown is worn, as in all
other branches of the Presbyterian church throughout the world.

The task of compiling details regarding the vestments of the
Presbyterian church is rendered easy by the small account which that
church, in all its sections, takes of ritual matters; but the same cause
also increases its difficulty in another direction. Paradoxical as this
statement may appear, it becomes intelligible when we reflect that but
few Presbyterian assemblies would consider it consistent with their
dignity to take any notice of matters of dress, personal or official;
while on the other hand few Presbyterian writers have thought such
matters worthy of their notice. The writer has referred to liturgies in
the English, French, German, Roumanian, and other languages,
representing the chief reformed Churches of Europe holding the
Presbyterian system, but has failed to find any rubrical direction or
reference containing any information. The collecting of material is thus
simplified by the small amount of material actually available, but
rendered difficult by the baldness of the records in which the materials
have to be sought.

The vestments worn by clergy of the Presbyterian Churches are not so
much ecclesiastical as professional or academical, like the barrister's
gown. They are at most four in number: the cassock, scarf, bands, and
gown, to which the hood of the wearer's degree is added.

The cassock is a somewhat ugly garment of black silk, which resembles an
ordinary short coat; it rarely reaches as far as the knees. There can be
no doubt that it is a modification, for convenience' sake, of the long
cassock worn by clergy of the Episcopal Churches, which was the inner
garment, university and clerical, of the middle ages. The scarf is a
long strip of black cloth, wound sash-wise round the waist and knotted
in front. The bands are two short pendant tails of white lawn, hanging
in front, now fastened round the neck by an elastic cord. These survive
in the universities as well as in the Presbyterian Church. The name was
originally applied to the Elizabethan ruff, in which must be sought the
prototype of the ecclesiastical bands; and the use of a cylindrical box
to keep the ruff in has caused the survival of the old meaning of the
word in 'bandbox.' The stiff starched or propped band passed at the
commencement of the seventeenth century into the _falling band_ (not
unlike a modern child's lace collar), of which the ecclesiastical
'bands' is the diminution.

The gown is of the pattern known as the Geneva gown—a black silk gown
with ample sleeves and faced with velvet.

It should be here remarked that there is considerable laxity in
individual usage. The cassock and scarf are almost universally
discarded, and, in fact, they were probably never very generally worn.
For the Geneva gown is often substituted the gown proper to the
university degree of the wearer.

Very few regulations affecting robes have been passed by any of the
assemblies of the churches in the Presbyterian Alliance. The General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1575 passed an important
injunction, which, however, refers rather to personal than to official
attire. As it is a curious document, we give it here in full:

 'For as muche as a comelie and decent apparrell is requisite in all,
 namelie, ministers, and suche as beare functioun in the kirk, first, we
 thinke all kinde of browdering [broidering] unseemlie; all begaires
 [coloured stripes] of velvet, in gowne, hose, or coat, and all
 superfluous and vaine cutting out, steeking [stitching] with silkes,
 all kinde of costlie sewing on pasments [laces], or sumptuous and large
 steeking with silkes; all kinde of costlie sewing or variant hewes in
 sarkes; all kinde of light and variant hewes in clothing, as reid,
 blew, yellow, and suche like, which declare the lightnesse of the
 minde; all wearing of rings, bracelets, buttons of silver, gold, or
 other mettall; all kinds of superfluiteis of cloath in making of hose;
 all using of plaids in the kirk by readers or ministers, namelie, in
 the time of their ministrie and using their office; all kinde of
 gownning, cutting, doubletting, or breekes of velvet, satine, taffatie
 or suche like; and costlie giltings of whingers and knives, and suche
 like; all silk hatts, and hatts of diverse and light colours; but that
 their whole habite be of grave colour, as blacke, russett, sad gray,
 sad browne; or searges, worsett, chamlett, grogram, lylis, worset, or
 suche like; that the good Word of God, by them and their
 immoderatenesse, be not slandered.'[93]

There is one rule, or rather unwritten convention, affecting the wearing
of vestments in the Presbyterian Church, at least, in the British
Islands. The _bands_ are regarded as an indication that their wearer is
the minister of a recognised congregation; hence, when an ordained
minister of the Presbyterian Church who does not hold such an office
happens to be conducting a service, he does not wear bands.

The Geneva gown has not always been worn in the Presbyterian Churches
abroad. Thus in the Church of Holland, till recently, the official
costume of a minister was a picturesque uniform, consisting of the old
three-cornered hat, and a coat resembling the ordinary evening-dress
coat, having a long pleated strip called the 'mantle' hooked on the
neck, obviously a survival from an earlier and more ample gown of some
kind, knee-breeches, buckled at the knees, and buckled shoes. This
costume was worn only when the minister was officiating at service. It
has now, however, been universally abandoned for the Geneva gown.

The gown and bands, with or without the cassock and scarf, are now worn
only at Divine Service; but in the early part of the seventeenth century
(in Britain as on the Continent) they were worn by ministers sitting in
assembly as well, in accordance with the decree of the Synod of Fife,
which in 1611 ordained that ministers should attend meetings in the
exercise of Synodal assembly in black gowns and other abulʒiements[94]
prescribed in the Act of Parliament.

The elders never wear any insignia of office, and never have done so.

 [91] With one modification only. The albs are expressly ordered to be
 worn _plain_.

 [92] For a complete analysis of the 'Ornaments Rubric' with elaborate
 historical and legal disquisitions, reference should be made to the
 published report of the Folkestone case (Kegan Paul, 1878).

 [93] Calderwood, 'Historie of the Kirk of Scotland' (Wodrow Society),
 vol. iii, p. 354.

 [94] Habiliments.

[Illustration]




CHAPTER VII.

THE RITUAL USES OF VESTMENTS.


We have now described the form and ornamentation of the different
vestments worn by the clergy of the principal sections of Christendom;
but we have only incidentally touched upon another and equally important
matter, namely, when and how these vestments were worn, and the
liturgical practices connected with them. A more extended account of
these matters will be the subject of the present chapter.

The non-reformed Western and Eastern Churches alone need occupy our
attention. The vestment uses of the various reformed churches are
practically _nil_, and all available details concerning these Churches
have already been given in the preceding chapter.

Vestments were obtained by a church or a cathedral in many ways. They
were often embroidered for presentation to the church by ladies, who
found in the work of embroidery an easy and pleasant way of passing the
time; or else by the inmates of nunneries as a religious work. Some were
presented as expiatory offerings by conscience-stricken laymen; others
bequeathed as a perpetual memorial by incumbents or prelates. Others,
again, were purchased with money mulcted as compensation for sins.

The first sacred function in which any vestment took part was its own
benediction. This was always spoken by a bishop, and was in form of
prayers said over all the vestments of a suit together, and the
individual vestments separately. The following may be taken as specimens
of these dedicatory prayers; it is unnecessary to occupy space in giving
all, as complete sets can be found in any Pontifical:

 _Benedictio omnium vestimentorum simul._—Omnipotens Deus qui per Moisen
 famulum tuum pontificalia et sacerdotalia ac levitica vestimenta ad
 explendum ministerium eorum in conspectu tuo, et ad decorem tui
 nominis, per nostre humilitatis servitutem pontificare ✠ benedicere ✠
 consecrare digneris ✠ ut divinis cultibus et sacris misteriis apta et
 benedicta existant; hiisque sacris vestibus pontifices, sacerdotes seu
 levite tui induti ab omnibus impulsionibus seu temptacionibus
 malignorum spirituum muniti et defensi esse mereantur, tuisque
 ministeriis apte et condigne servire et inherere, atque in hiis placide
 tibi et devote perseverare tribue. Per Christum. Oremus.

 Deus invicte virtutis auctor, et omnium rerum creator ac sanctificator,
 intende propicius ad preces nostras, et hec indumenta levitice et
 sacerdotalis glorie ministris tuis sumenda tuo ore proprio benedicere ✠
 sanctificare ✠ et consecrare digneris omnesque eis utentes, tuis
 misteriis aptos, et tibi in eis devote et amicabiliter servientes
 gratos effici concedas. Per Christum Dominum.

 _Benedictio Amicti._—Oremus. Benedic Domine quesume omnipotens Deus
 amictum istum levitici seu sacerdotalis officii et concede propicius ut
 quicumque eum capiti suo imposuerit benedictionem tuam accipiat; sitque
 in fide solidus et sanctitatis gravedine fundatus. Per Christum. Etc.

The vestment thus dedicated was sprinkled with holy water after each
prayer.

The ritual uses of vestments may be conveniently described in two parts;
discussing in the first the persons by whom they were worn, and, in the
second, the occasions upon which, and the manner in which, they were
worn.

The vestments were distributed among the different orders of clergy in a
manner similar to that in which the early vestments of the second period
were allotted (see p. 28), but on a more complex system, as befitted
their greater elaboration. Some hints of this system have already been
given in the preceding pages; it will be convenient here to amplify this
information.

The seven orders of the Western Church are the three minor orders
(_ostiarius_, _lector_, _acolytus_), and the four major orders
(subdeacons, deacons, priests, and bishops; we may divide the last into
three subdivisions, bishops proper, archbishops, and the Pope). All
ranks wore the _alb_, and all the major orders the _maniple_. All those
above the rank of subdeacon wore _amice_ and _stole_, and all above the
rank of deacon the _chasuble_. Subdeacons were distinguished by the
_tunicle_, deacons by the _dalmatic_; both vestments were added to the
outfit of bishops, the latter with a remarkable distinction already
described (p. 79). The _stockings_, _sandals_, _subcingulum_
(originally), _mitre_, _gloves_, _ring_, and _staff_ were peculiar to
bishops and to certain abbots to whom these _pontificalia_ had been
expressly granted by the Pope.[95] Archbishops added the _pall_ to this
lengthy catalogue, and the Pope (who dispensed with the pastoral staff)
reserved the _orale_, and in later times the _subcingulum_, for his
exclusive use.

We now turn to the consideration of the occasions upon which, and the
manner in which, these vestments were worn.

The vestments worn at the mass by the celebrant and his assistants were
those which we have described under the heading of 'Eucharistic
Vestments,' and of these one, the chasuble, was worn exclusively at this
service and at no other.

In Advent, and between Septuagesima and Easter, the deacons and
subdeacons were directed to substitute chasubles for their dalmatics or
tunicles; and these chasubles were ordered to be worn, not in the usual
manner, but folded, and passed across the breast like the diaconal
stole. That is to say, the chasuble, which must have been of a
flexible[96] material, was folded into a strip as narrow as possible,
and secured over the shoulder and under the girdle of the alb. These
were not to be worn during the whole service, however; the subdeacon had
to remove his folded chasuble at the Epistle; at the Gospel the deacon
had to cross his over the left arm, and so keep it till after the
post-communion.

There is but one representation of a deacon so vested known to exist in
England. It is one of a series of sculptured effigies of ecclesiastics
on the north-west tower of Wells Cathedral. These have been described by
Mr St John Hope in 'Archæologia,' vol. liv. We give here the figure to
which special reference is at present being made. Besides the chasuble,
the effigy is vested in cassock, amice, alb, and girdle; and a book,
probably meant for the Gospels, is represented as carried in the hand.

It should be observed that at the mass of a feast falling within the
limits of time prescribed, the ordinary dalmatic and tunicle were worn
in the ordinary way.

[Illustration: FIG. 30.—DEACON IN FOLDED CHASUBLE, WELLS CATHEDRAL.]

This peculiar custom was unknown to the Franciscans. The deacons of this
order put off the dalmatic entirely upon fast-days, and did not
substitute any other vestment for it; a similar practice, with respect
to the tunicle, was observed by the subdeacons, so that the deacons wore
_alb_ and _stole_ only, the subdeacons _alb_ and _maniple_. This
practice was not observed at the Vigils of Saints, or of the Nativity,
and on a few other occasions.

When a cleric of sacerdotal rank _ministered_ (as opposed to
_celebrated_) at the mass, his dress was the amice, the alb, the stole,
and the _cope_. The same vestments are worn by the priest at the mass of
the pre-sanctified[97] on Good Friday.

Before the vestments are put on for the mass the priest must wash his
hands, and prepare the chalice, placing over it the purificator or
napkin used for wiping the sacred vessels. Above the purificator he
places the paten, with an unbroken host, and covers it with a small
linen cloth, over which he puts the burse. This done, he takes the
vestments one by one; he first receives the amice, takes it by its ends
and strings, and kisses the middle of it where there is a cross. A
prelate, it should be noticed, always puts on a surplice before vesting.
The amice being put in its place, the alb and girdle are then assumed,
then the maniple and chasuble. Each vestment is kissed before being put
on, and a prayer said with the assumption of each; these prayers differ
little in style from those said in the similar ceremony in the Eastern
Church, and it has therefore been thought unnecessary to give them here.

In an inventory of the Vestry of Westminster Abbey,[98] the following
directions are given in a late fifteenth-century hand:

 _The Revestyng of the abbot of Westmʳ att evensong._—Fyrst the westerer
 shall lay the abbots cope lowest opon the awter wᵗ in the sayd westre,
 nex opon hys gray Ames, then hys surples, after that hys Rochett and
 uppermost his Kerchure.

 Hys Myter & crose beyng Redy wᵗ hys glovys and pontyfycalls.

 _The Revestyng of the sayd abbot att syngyng hy Masse._—Fyrst the
 westerer shall lay lowest the chesebell, above that the dalmatyke and
 the dalmatyk wᵗ yᵉ longest slevys uppermost & the other nethermost then
 hys stole & hys fanane and hys gyrdyll, opon that his albe theropon his
 gray Ames a bove that hys Rochett and uppermost hys kerchur wᵗ a vestry
 gyrdyll to tukk up his cole.

 Hys Miter & crose beyng Redy wᵗ hys glovys and pontyfycalls And a fore
 all thys you muste se that hys sabatyns & syndalls be Redy at hys first
 cūyng whan he settyth hym downe in the travys.

This direction is important in one respect. It shows us the order in
which the vestments were put on, it is true; that, however, one would
naturally infer from the order in which they are seen in the monuments.
But it tells us also that a canon wore his canonical habit underneath
his mass habit at high mass, but so arranged that it should be, as far
as possible, out of sight; hence the direction to have 'a vestry girdle
to tuck up his cowl.' At Wells, Hereford, and Norwich Cathedrals are to
be seen figures of canons, the almuce or amess appearing at the neck,
although they are vested in eucharistic habit.

The duty of the minister, as far as the vestments of the celebrant are
concerned, consists in seeing that the vestments are laid out in their
proper order on a table in the vestry, or, should there be no vestry, on
a side-table near the altar (never on the altar itself); the vestments
for the assistant should be on the right-hand side of those for the
celebrant, the vestments for the deacon and subdeacon on the left. He
should also see that each is properly put on, especially that the alb is
drawn through the girdle so as to overhang it and to be raised about a
finger's breadth from the ground, and that the chasuble is straight. He
must especially be careful that the assistant does not put on his cope
before the priest puts on his chasuble. During the celebration he has to
see that the chasuble is not disarranged by genuflexions, and to raise
the chasuble so as to give complete freedom to the priest's arms at the
elevation of the host. After the celebration the vestments are taken off
with similar ceremonies in the reverse order.

On Ember days, Rogations, in processions, and when the Sunday or Saint's
day mass is said in the chapter house, on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday,
and Palm Sunday, albs and amices only are to be worn by the ministers.

The dress at the ordinary offices (mattins, lauds, etc.) is amice, alb,
stole, and cope; a brass at Horsham represents a priest so vested, and
has the merit of showing the exact manner in which the stole should be
crossed. This combination of vestments was also worn at benedictions, at
absolution after a mass for the dead, and, as just remarked, by the
assistant at mass if a priest, and by the celebrant at the mass of the
pre-sanctified. 'The cope,' the rubric tells us, 'is not strictly a
sacerdotal vestment, but it is worn by the rulers of the choir and
others.'

The clergy in choir wear black (choral) copes, except on principal
doubles,[99] and on the doubles falling on Sunday, when silk copes of
the colour of the day are worn. On the vigil of Easter, and through and
on the octave, they wore surplices only, as also on doubles occurring
from Easter to Michaelmas.

If a bishop celebrate, and if it be Maunday Thursday, or Whitsunday, he
has seven deacons, seven subdeacons, and three acolytes—on other doubles
only five. On feasts with Rulers, two at least; on Good Friday only one.
The rulers of the choir were those whose duty it was to chant the office
and Kyrie at mass, and to superintend the choristers. On doubles these
were four in number, on simples two. Rulers wore silk copes of the
colour of the day over a surplice, and had silver staves as emblems of
office.

The Roman Pontifical lays down succinct rules for the vesting of a
bishop for the different duties of his position. These are as follows:

 _Confirmation._—White cope and stole, amice, rochet, mitra aurifrigiata.

 _Ordinations._—As for high mass: colour according to the day.

 _Consecration of a Bishop._—The consecrator as for high mass: colour
 according to the day; each of the two assistant-bishops in rochet,
 cope, amice, stole, and mitra simplex.

 _Profession of a Nun._—As for high mass.

 _Coronation of a Sovereign._—As for high mass: colour according to day;
 each of the assistant-bishops in rochet, amice, white stole and cope,
 mitra simplex. In England all the bishops used to wear full
 pontificalia.

 _Laying the Foundation of a Church._—Rochet, amice, white stole and
 cope, mitra simplex, pastoral staff.

 _Consecration of a Church._—The same till the mass, then full
 pontificalia (white).

 _Reconciliation of a Church._—The same.

 _Consecration of the Holy Oil on Maunday Thursday._—Full (white)
 pontificalia, mitra pretiosa.

 _At a Synod held in a Cathedral Church._—Rochet, amice, red stole, red
 cope, mitra pretiosa.

 _Procession of Palms._—Alb, amice, purple stole, purple cope, mitra
 simplex.

 _Procession of Corpus Christi._—Alb, amice, stole, tunic, dalmatic,
 white cope; a mitra pretiosa borne behind. In England and in France red
 was the colour.

 _Rogation Days._—Alb, amice, purple stole, purple cope, mitra simplex.

In occasional services, such as baptism, a surplice and stole are worn.
At baptisms two stoles are used, one of violet, which is worn at the
first part of the service, and the other of white, which is substituted
for the first in the course of the office. This observance has a
symbolical meaning; violet being the colour which typifies sin and
penitence, and white being associated with ideas of purity, the change
in the stole is emblematic of the regenerating change which the rite of
baptism is supposed to work. A reversible stole, violet on one side and
white on the other, is sometimes used for this service. In processions
and benedictions at the altar (_i.e._, blessings of wax, images, etc.)
the cope must be worn. In other benedictions stole and surplice are
sufficient.

The cope must also be worn at an absolution after a mass for the dead;
the colour of the cope for such a service is black, the ministers lay
aside their dalmatics, and when the celebrant assumes the cope he must
lay aside his maniple. If for any reason a cope be not obtainable, these
rites (benedictions, absolutions, etc.) must be performed in alb and
crossed stole only, without chasuble or maniple.

Should it be found necessary to celebrate high mass without the aid of a
deacon or subdeacon, the Epistle is ordered to be sung by a lector
vested in a surplice.

We must now approach an important branch of this complex subject—the
varieties in the colour of the vestments depending on the character of
the day, in other words, the liturgical colours of the vestments.

It does not appear that the definite assigning of particular colours to
particular days is of older date than Innocent III's time; but before
him, and even as far back as the time of the fathers of the church, we
find that the early Christians had symbolical associations with colours,
which have formed the foundation on which the elaborate structure of
later times was built.

It is a matter of common knowledge that there are associations of
sentiment and colour which are practically indissoluble. Black and
sorrowful, white (or bright) and joyful, are synonymous terms, and
similar expressions are universal.

_White_, in the first ten centuries of Christianity, typified purity and
truth. Saints, angels, and Our Lord are for that reason represented
clothed in white. As we have seen, the earliest vestments were probably
white; the newly-baptized wore white during the week after baptism, and
the dead were shrouded in white; the latter, however, probably more for
convenience than for any symbolic reason.

_Red_, the colour of flame, was associated with ideas of warm, burning
love. Our Lord is sometimes represented in red when performing works of
mercy.

_Green_, the colour of plants, was regarded as typifying life, and
sacred or beatified persons are sometimes depicted as clothed in this
colour in reference to their everlasting life. Lastly,

_Violet_, which is formed by a mixture of red and black, was said to
symbolize 'the union of love and pain in repentance.' It also typifies
sorrow, without any reference to sin as its cause; thus the _Mater
Dolorosa_ is occasionally represented in a violet robe.[100]

Further than this we cannot go, and perhaps we have said too much. It is
quite possible that these theories may have been put forward to account
for phenomena which depended entirely on the taste and whim of the
painters. It is well known that in the early ages of Christianity ideas
of colour were vague, and yellow and green, dark blue and black, light
blue and violet, were all regarded as being the same colour. Previous to
the tenth century, it is quite true that coloured vestments are to be
seen in mosaics and fresco-paintings; but the combinations of colours
are such as to leave no doubt that they were simply adopted by the
painter as convenient aids to distinguishing the various vestments from
the surrounding background and from each other.

Coming now to Innocent III, we find that he prescribes four liturgical
colours, white, red, black and green. These were the principal or
primary liturgical colours; but there are others, secondary to these,
which were modifications in tint of the primaries. Thus, properly, red
is the colour of _martyrs_, white the colour of virgins; but there is a
secondary colour, saffron, for _confessors_, and the secondaries, rose
and lily, are considered interchangeable with red and white.

Hopelessly at variance are the practices throughout the Western Church,
and we will not attempt to give more than a brief outline of the general
principles. For those who desire fuller information reference is made to
a paper by Dr Wickham Legg in the first volume of the Transactions of
the St Paul's Ecclesiological Society, in which no less than sixty-three
different 'uses' are analyzed and tabulated, or compared.

The rules to which we have just referred are almost the only regulations
respecting which uniform use prevails. For obvious reasons, white is
appropriated to feasts of St Mary and of the other virgin saints; black
is appropriated to the office of the dead; and red to the feasts of
martyrs. Usually white is used for Christmas and Easter, and red for
Whitsuntide and Feasts of Apostles. As a general rule, however, the same
sentimental associations are to be seen with colours in the middle ages
as may possibly be traced in earlier times: _violet_ being essentially
penitential in its character, _red_ being indicative of fire, blood or
love, _white_ of purity and joy, _black_ of mourning, and _green_ of
life. Hence _violet_ is the usual colour for Advent and Lent, _red_ for
feasts of martyrs, apostles and evangelists, and in some uses for
Passion-tide and Easter; _white_ for Christmas, feasts of virgins,
Easter, and sometimes Michaelmas and All Saints; _black_ for Good Friday
and offices of the dead; _green_ from the Octave of Epiphany to
Candlemas, and from Trinity to Advent. The use of the last colour is,
however, very arbitrary; it only occurs at one or two seasons in the
year in each diocese, and these are very diverse.

The following is the Roman sequence of colours for the year, and it may
be taken as an example of all:

 Advent to Christmas Eve: black or violet.
 Christmas Eve, if a Sunday: rose.
 Christmas Day: white.
 St Stephen: red.
 St John the Evangelist: white.
 Holy Innocents: violet; red if a Sunday.
 Circumcision: white.
 Epiphany: white.
 Candlemas: violet for the procession of candles before mass, then white.
 Septuagesima to Maunday Thursday: violet.
 Good Friday: black.
 Easter: white.
 Ascension: white.
 Rogation Days: violet.
 Pentecost: red.
 Trinity Sunday: white.
 Corpus Christi: white.
 Trinity to Advent: green.
 Feasts of the Virgin Mary: white.
 St John Baptist: white.
 St Michael: white.
 All Saints: white.
 Martyrs: red.
 Apostles: red.
 Evangelists: red.
 Confessors: white.
 Virgins: white.
 Transfiguration: white.
 Holy Cross: red.
 Confirmation: white.
 Dedication of a Church: white.
 Harvest Festivals: white.
 Requiem: black.

One or two miscellaneous points may be worth a passing notice before we
bring our account of the vestments of the Western Church to a close.

During Lent it was the practice to cover up the images in the church
with a curtain called the _velum quadrigesimale_. In the Fabric Rolls of
York, for instance, we read the following entry (Anno 1518, 1519):

 'Pro coloribus ad pingendum caminos de novo factos et pro e fauthoms
 cordarum pro suspensione pannorum quadrigesimalium ante novum
 crucifixum ivs.

 'Pro pictione unius panni pendentis coram novo crucifixo in tempore
 quadrigesimali, et pro les curtayn ringes et pro les laic ac pro
 suicione alterius panni xiis.'

A point respecting the _ring_ is worth mention. Doctors of Divinity and
bishops only may wear a ring in the Western Church, and the former must
take it off when celebrating mass.

Besides the Episcopal and Diaconal _dalmatic_, there is a third kind, to
which allusion must be made: the Imperial dalmatic, which from time
immemorial has been placed on the sovereigns of Europe at their
coronation.

The Imperial Dalmatic in the treasury of St Peter's at Rome is thus
described:

 'It is laid upon a foundation of deep blue silk, having four different
 subjects on the shoulders behind and in front, exhibiting—although
 taken from different actions—the glorification of the body of our Lord.
 The whole has been carefully wrought with gold tambour and silk, and
 the numerous figures (as many as fifty-four) surrounding our Redeemer,
 who sits enthroned on a rainbow in the centre, display simplicity and
 gracefulness of design. The field of the vestment is powdered with
 flowers and crosses of gold and silver, having the bottom enriched with
 a running floriated pattern. It has also a representation of paradise,
 wherein the flowers, carried by tigers of gold, are of emerald green,
 turquoise blue, and flame colour. Crosses of silver cantonned with
 tears of gold, and of gold cantonned with tears of silver alternately,
 are inserted in the flowing foliage at the edge. Other crosses within
 circles are also placed after the same rule, when of gold in medallions
 of silver, and when of silver in the reverse order.

 'This vestment is assigned to the 12th century. It has been conjectured
 that this dalmatic was formerly used by the German emperors when they
 were consecrated and crowned, and when they assisted the pope at the
 office of mass. On such occasions the emperor discharged the functions
 of subdeacon or deacon, and, clothed with a dalmatic, chanted the
 Epistle and Gospel; in illustration of this custom it may be remarked
 that several of the German Emperors took part in the service, even so
 late as Charles V, who sung the Gospel at Boulogne in 1529. The
 dalmatic was, in fact, in those times, as it continues at the present
 day, both a regal and ecclesiastical habit, and it has constantly been
 the custom of European kingdoms for the sovereigns to wear it at their
 coronation.'[101]

But the Ecclesiastical nature of the regal costume of the middle ages
does not end with the dalmatic. Thus, the effigy of Richard I. at
Fontevraud wears a cope-like mantle, a dalmatic, and a white sub-tunic,
answering to the distinctive costumes of bishop or priest, deacon and
subdeacon respectively. When the body of Edward I was exhumed at
Westminster in 1774, he was found to wear among other garments a
dalmatic and a _stole_, crossed on the breast in the priestly manner.
The body of John, in Worcester, was found in 1797 to be habited in
costume similar to that represented on his effigy, with the addition of
a monk's cowl, no doubt adopted in order to safeguard his prospects of
future happiness, as death in the monastic habit was regarded as
ensuring a passport to heaven.

The vestments of the Eastern Church are much simpler, and the rites
connected with them have nothing like the complexity associated with
those of the Western Church. They have but two colours, for
instance—violet for fast-days (including Lent),[102] and white for the
rest of the year—and ridicule the elaboration to which liturgical
colours have been brought in the Western Church. This fact might be
indicated, if any disproof of the existence of a primitive system of
liturgical colours were needed.

The following are the rubrical directions and prayers used at vesting
for the Eucharistic service in the Greek Church:

 _Being then come within the altar [after the procession up the church]
 they [the priest and deacon] make three bows before the holy table, and
 kiss the holy gospel and the holy table: then each, taking his_
 =stoicharion= _in his hand, makes three bows and saith softly to
 himself_:

 O God, purify me, a sinner, and have mercy upon me.

 _The Deacon comes to the priest, holds his_ =stoicharion= _and_
 =ôrarion= _in his right hand, and bowing down his head to him, saith_:

 Bless, sir, the =stoicharion= and the =ôrarion=.

 _The priest._ Blessed be our God always, now and for ever, even unto
 ages of ages.

 _The deacon then goes apart on one side of the altar and puts on his_
 =stoicharion=, _saying_:

 My soul shall rejoice in the Lord, for He hath put on me the robe of
 salvation, and clothed me with the garment of gladness: as a bridegroom
 hath He put a crown on my head and decked me like a bride.

 _Then, kissing the_ =ôrarion=, _he puts it upon his left shoulder. Then
 he puts on his_ =epimanikia=: _putting on that on his right hand, he
 saith_:

 Thy right hand, O Lord, is glorified in strength; Thy right hand, O
 Lord, hath destroyed the enemies, and in the greatness of Thy glory
 hast Thou put down the adversaries.

 _Then, putting the other on his left hand_:

 Thy hands have made me and fashioned me. O give me understanding that I
 may learn Thy commandments.

 [_He then prepares the sacred vessels._]

 _The priest puts on his sacred vestments in the following manner.
 First, taking up his_ =stoicharion= _in his left hand, and making three
 bows towards the east, he signs it with the sign of the cross, saying_:

 Blessed be our God always, etc.

 _And then he puts it on, saying_, My soul shall rejoice, etc., _as the
 deacon said above._

 _Next he takes up the_ =epitrachêlion=, _and, blessing it, he saith_:

 Blessed be God who poureth out His grace on His priests, like the
 precious ointment upon the head that ran down unto the beard, even unto
 Aaron's beard, and went down to the skirts of his clothing.

 _He then takes the_ =zônê=, _and girding himself therewith, saith_:

 Blessed be God who hath girded me with strength, and hath put me in the
 right way, making my feet like harts' feet, and hath set me up on high.

 _He next puts on his_ =epimanikia=, _saying as was said above by the
 deacon. After which he takes up his_ =hepigonation=, _if he be of such
 dignity as to wear one, and blessing it and kissing it, saith_:

 Gird thee with thy sword upon thy thigh, O thou most mighty, according
 to thy worship and renown. Good luck have thou with thine honour, ride
 on because of the word of truth, of meekness, and righteousness, and
 thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things: always, now and for
 ever, even unto ages of ages. Amen.

 _Then he takes his_ =phelônion=, _and blesses and kisses it, saying_:

 Let thy priests, O Lord, be clothed with righteousness, and let thy
 saints sing with joyfulness: always, now and for ever, even unto ages
 of ages. Amen.[103]

When the vestments are put off after the communion, the priest says
_Nunc Dimittis_, =trisagion=, and _Pater Noster_.

It does not appear that any complex rules hold good in the Greek Church
respecting the vestments to be worn on certain days in the Church's
year. The following synopsis of the vestment uses in the ordination
service will show most clearly the nature and distribution of
Ecclesiastical vestments in the Eastern Church.

_Ordination of a Reader_: A short =phainolion= put on by the bishop,
which is presently removed by the subdeacons; the =stoicharion= is then
blessed and put on by the bishop.

_Ordination of a Subdeacon_: The candidate comes dressed in the
=stoicharion=; the subdeacons hand the =ôrarion= to the bishop, who
signs it on the cross; the new subdeacon kisses the cross and the
bishop's hand, and girds himself with the =ôrarion=.

_Ordination of a Deacon_: The candidate kneels before the altar; the
bishop, at the beginning of the service, puts the end of the
=ômophorion= upon him. After the service the bishop takes the =ôrarion=
and puts it on the new deacon's left shoulder, saying =axios=, which is
repeated thrice by the choir; then the bishop gives him the
=epimanikia=, and =axios= is repeated as before. The fan (for blowing
flies from the table) is presented after this, with the same words.

_Ordination of a Priest_: At the commencement the candidate kneels at
the altar, and the bishop puts the =ômophorion= on his head. At the end
the =ôrarion= is taken from him, and the =epitrachêlion= is received by
the bishop, who kisses it; the newly-ordained priest kisses the vestment
and the bishop's hand; the bishop puts it on the priest, saying =axios=,
which is repeated as at the ordination of a deacon. The =zônê= and
=phainolion= is then conferred in a similar manner.

_Ordination of a Bishop_: The new bishop comes to the service in all his
sacred vestments. At the end the =ômophorion= is put upon the elect,
except when the consecration takes place in the see of the bishop, in
which case the =sakkos= and the other episcopal garments are given
first. The same ceremonial is repeated as at the other ordinations.

The vestments worn at the administration of baptism are the =phainolion=
and =epimanikia=.

There are three orders of devotees in the Greek monasteries. The
_probationers_ wear a black cassock or vest called _shaesa_, and a hood
(Russian _kamelauch_, =chamalauchê=). The _proficients_ wear, in
addition, an upper cloak (=mandyas=). The _perfect_ are distinguished by
their hood or vail, which perpetually conceals their faces from sight.

 [95] When the abbot of a monastery was also a bishop, the _prior_ had
 also the right to wear _pontificalia_ when his superior was absent.

 [96] The difficulty of folding the chasuble without injuring it has led
 to the substitution of a broad purple stole-like vestment, worn exactly
 like the folded chasuble. This is called the _stolone_.

 [97] The Sacrament when used on a day when the Eucharist service is not
 gone through in its entirety.

 [98] Edited by Dr Wickham Legg in 'Archaeologia,' vol. lii., p. 195.

 [99] Feasts were divided into Doubles, Simples, and Sundays. Doubles
 were so-called from the anthems being _doubled_, _i.e._, said
 throughout at the beginning and end of the Psalms in the breviary
 office, instead of the first words only being said. The principal
 doubles were Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Whitsunday,
 Assumption, the Local Anniversary, and the Dedication of the Church.

 [100] These explanations of colours are taken from Smith and Cheetham's
 'Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.'

 [101] Rev. C. H. Hartshorne in _Arch. Journal_.

 [102] Violet or purple =stoicharia= are worn throughout Lent, except on
 Annunciation Day, Palm Sunday, and Easter Eve.

 [103] Translation from King's 'Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church
 in Russia.'

[Illustration]

[Illustration]




APPENDIX I.


COSTUMES OF THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS.

The following appendix does not profess to furnish more than an outline
of the extensive subject with which it deals; for further details, as
well as for illustrations of members of each of the orders, reference
must be made to the great work of Bonanni, cited in Appendix III.
Bonanni names the different habits rather loosely; in the main his
nomenclature has been followed, but brought to a more uniform system.


_Monks._

The dress of monks usually consists of the _vestis_, tunic or closed
gown; the _scapular_, roughly speaking, a narrow, chasuble-like dress,
with the front and back portions rectangular and of uniform width
throughout; one or more open gowns (_pallium_ or _cappa_); and the
_caputium_ or hood, fastened at the back and capable of being drawn over
the head. 'Discalced' is not always to be taken in its fullest
significance, or as signifying more than simply 'sandaled.' Different
vestments are worn by individual orders or houses; the nature of these
will be self-evident from their names.

1. ALEXIANS.—Black vestis and pallium, both reaching a little below the
knee: caputium.

2. AMBROSE, ST.—Dark-coloured gown with cappa and scapular. Discalced.

3. ANTONIUS, ST (_Armenia_).—Ample black tunic, girded, mantellum,
cuculla, and caputium.

4. ANTONIUS, ST (_Canons of_).—Black gown signed with a blue T; girded
white collar, black mantle, also signed with T. Others, who are devoted
to manual labour, wear a similar dress, but tawny in colour. The T is a
representation of a crutch, the symbol of sustaining and power.

5. ANTONIUS, ST (_Egypt_).—Black tunic and scapular, with round
caputium. Discalced.

6. ANTONIUS, ST (_Syria_).—Long black gown with short round caputium,
black leather girdle; over all, long black mantle.

7. APOSTOLI.—Tawny tunic with girdle of leather, scapular with caputium
attached. Cappa, and in winter short and narrow mantellum.

8. AUBERT, ST (_Canons regular of_; _Cambrai_).—Violet cassock, and cap
or biretta: white surplice.

9. AUGUSTINE, ST.—Black tunic girded, black cape and hood. White may be
worn indoors.

10. AVELLANANS.—White tunic, scapular, azure pallium, square biretta in
place of mantellum.

11. BASIL, ST (_Armenia_).—Tunic and caputium white, scapular black.

12. BASIL, ST (_Germany_).—Tunic, long scapular, long broad cappa,
caputium on shoulder, and a biretta on head in outline resembling the
'Tam o' Shanter' cap.

13. BASIL, ST (_Greece_).—Black woollen tunic, over which another with
sleeves about three palms wide, open in front, with woollen fringes or
loops of another (but still dark) colour, which can be fastened with
small buttons. Head always covered with a cap, which conceals the ears.
Caputium with _vittae_ or streamers attached, which hang over the
shoulders, and are said to typify the cross.

14. BASIL, ST (_Italy or Spain_).—Till 1443 resembling the Greek dress
(No. 13). After that date, tunic, leather girdle, scapular, cuculla,
caputium—all black.

15. BASIL, ST (_Russia_).—Like Greece (No. 13), with the addition of a
small cuculla.

16. BENEDICT, ST (_St Justina of Padua_).—Black woollen tunic to which a
caputium is sewn. Scapular; cuculla from shoulder to feet with very wide
sleeves.

17. BENEDICT, ST (_Clugniacs_).—Black cappa clausa with rude sleeves or
hood.

18. BENEDICT, ST (_India_).—Black tunic somewhat short, white scapular,
mantle, and caputium.

19. BETHLEHEMITES.—Black woollen tunic with leather girdle; cappa, on
left side of which a _pannula_ with a representation of the manger at
Bethlehem. Discalced. Black cap on head.

20. BIRGITTA, ST.—Gray tunic and cuculla, to which a caputium is sewn,
gray mantellum, signed with red cross, having a white roundle or plate
at the centre.

21. CAELESTINES.—White, black caputium and scapular.

22. CAMALDULENSES (_Hermits_).—White woollen tunic, scapular and round
caputium; cuculla (also white) in service. Black shoes.

23. CAMALDULENSES (_Monks_).—As Benedictines, but white, and the
scapular is girded round the loins. Tunic with very wide sleeves,
caputium, etc.

24. CAPUCHINS.—Rough black woollen tunic girded with coarse rope; hood
and cape. Discalced.

25. CARMELITES.—Tunic, girdle, scapular, caputium, brown; cappa or
mantle white. Hat on head black, except in Mantua, where it is white.

26. CARMELITES A MONTE SACRO.—Cappa shorter than that of the other
Carmelites, and no cap on head at any time.

27. CARTHUSIANS.—Black woollen pallium, over which white gown passed
over the head, and scapular with side loops.

28. CISTERCIANS.—Benedict XII decreed _brown_ as the Cistercian colour;
but there was an uncertainty as to the interpretation of this decree;
some, alleging that _gray_ or _black_ were included in the term 'brown,'
wore those colours. To remedy this confusion, Sixtus IV decreed black or
white: black caputium and scapular girded round loins; black cuculla
added out of doors. In choir white.

29. CISTERCIANS (_Fogliantino_).—Like the Benedictines in shape, white
in colour. Formerly discalced everywhere, now only in France. Black
wooden sandals worn in Italy.

30. CISTERCIANS (_La Trappe_).—White cuculla with ample sleeves, girded;
caputium.

31. CHARITON, ST.—Lion-coloured tunic, with black cuculla and caputium.

32. CHOORS (_Canons regular of; Bordeaux_).—White woollen vestis, white
linen scapular; linen cotta in choir. Almuce, worn over the arms in
summer, round the neck in winter.

33. COLORITI (_Calabria_).—Long tunic, with round caputium and mantellum
from rough black natural wool; woollen girdle.

34. COLUMBA, ST (_Avellana_).—White woollen tunic or caputium, over
which a scapular; a narrow pallium added out of doors.

35. CROSS, ST (_Canons regular of; Coimbra_).—Cassock, surplice, and
almuce; the ordinary canonical dress.

36. CRUCIFERS (_Italy_).—Blue tunic (formerly ash-coloured, or
uncertain), scapular, and hood. Silver cross constantly borne in the
hand.

37. CRUCIFERS (_Belgium_).—White tunic, scapular, and caputium; black
mozetta, signed in front with a red and white cross.

38. CRUCIFERS (_Lusitania_).—Blue tunic, over which gown, mozetta and
hood. A pallium added out of doors.

39. CRUCIFERS (_Syria_).—Black.

40. DIONYSIUS, ST (_Canons regular of; Rheims_).—Long surplice, over
which (in winter) a cappa clausa without armholes. Biretta. Almuce worn
over arm.

41. DOMINIC, ST.—Tunic, scapular, and broad round caputium of white
wool. Black cappa, shorter than the tunic, added out of doors.

42. FONTIS EBRALDI (_Fontevraud_).—Black tunic girded, scapular,
caputium.

43. FRANCIS, ST.—Ash-coloured tunic girded with a cord divided by three
knots; round caputium and mozetta.

44. FRANCIS, ST (_de observantia_).—Woollen tunic girded with cord;
cape, hood; colour formed by mixture of two parts of black wool to one
of white. Discalced, in wooden or leathern sandals.

45. FRANCISCANS (_of St Peter of Alcantara_).—Rough and patched tunic
girded with cord; cape and hood. Feet entirely unprotected.

46. FRANCIS DE PAUL, ST (_Fratres minimi_).—Woollen tunic, dark tawny
colour with round caputium, whose ends hang below the loins before and
behind, both girded by a rope, the free end of which is knotted with
five knots (novices knot _three_ knots only). Pallium reaching a little
below the knees, worn in winter both indoors and out. Formerly
discalced, with sandals of various materials; afterwards, however, this
practice was dispensed with.

47. GENOVEFA, ST (_Canons regular of_).—White vestis and rochet, black
biretta, fur almuce over left arm. In winter a long black pallium is
added to the vestis and rochet, and a black caputium or hood.

48. GEORGE IN ALGA, ST (_Canons regular of_).—Cassock, over which a blue
gown.

49. GILBERT, ST (_Canons regular of_).—Black cassock and hood, and
surplice lined with lamb's wool. Linen cappa added at service.

50. GRAMONTANS.—Any dress, very rough. The 'reformed' dress is a rough
white linen tunic, over which another, thinner, of black; scapular and
caputium.

51. HERMITS (_Egypt_).—Tawny tunic, black pallium.

52. HIPPOLYTUS ST, (_Brothers of Mercy of_).—Brownish tunic, scapular,
hood.

53. HUMILIATI.—White tunic, scapular, mantle, cape, and cap.

54. JAMES, ST (_Canons regular of_; _Spada_).—White woollen vestis and
rochet.

55. JEROME, ST (_Hermits of_).—White woollen tunic, scapular with round
caputium, cappa open in front: all black wool.

56. JEROME, ST (_Hermits of_; _foundation of Lupo Olmedo_).—White tunic
girt with black leather girdle round loins; small round caputium and
tawny cuculla. Black biretta worn at home.

57. JEROME, ST (_Hermits of_; _foundation of Peter Gambacorta_).—Tawny
tunic girded with leather girdle, tawny crimped cappa, round and narrow
caputium, square black biretta.

58. JEROME, ST (_Fiesole_).—Tawny woollen vestis with crimped cappa open
in front. Leather girdle. Discalced; wooden sandals, afterwards
abandoned.

59. JESUATI.—White tunic, square caputium, gray cappa (after 1367). A
white appendage, like a sleeve, worn instead of caputium, changed by
Urban VIII for a caputium of the same colour as the mantle.

60. JOHANNIS DEI, ST.—Dark ash-coloured tunic with scapular reaching to
knees;[104] round, pointless caputium. Black cap added out of doors.

61. JOHN, ST (_Canons regular of; Chartres_).—White vestis and rochet;
almuce over left shoulder.

62. JOHN, ST (_Hermits of; de Pœnitentia_).—Rough woollen cloth, tunic
and cappa with hood, feet entirely unprotected, heavy wooden cross
suspended in front from neck.

63. JOHN BAPTIST, ST (_Canons regular of; England_).—Black or brown
vestis, scapular, cappa clausa, and mantle, all signed with a black
cross.

64. KLOSTERNEUBURG (_Canons regular of; Austria_).—White surplice and
black cappa, for which latter an almuce is substituted on festival days.

65. LIRINENSES (_Lerina Island, Tuscany_).—Tunic and mantle girded with
scarf, over this sleeved cappa aperta with small caputium: all black.

66. LO, ST (_Canons regular of; Rouen_).—Violet cappa, violet mozetta or
cape, and hood in winter; white cassock and rochet.

67. MACHARIUS, ST (_Egypt_).—Violet tunic, black scapular, small
cuculla; cap on head covering hair, forehead, temples, and ears.

68. MARK, ST (_Canons regular of; Mantua_).—White woollen vestis,
rochet, pallium, for which latter a mozetta is substituted in choir and
a white biretta added. Sheepskin almuce on left arm.

69. MARTIN, ST (_Esparnai_ [_Aspreniacum, Campania_]).—Vestis talaris of
white, above which a sarrocium or scorligium, which is a species of
rochet, described by Mauburnus.[105]

70. MARY, ST (_de Mercede Redemptionis Captivorum_).—White tunic,
scapula, short caputium, and cappa. A small shield bearing _party per
fess in chief gules a cross pattée argent in base three pallets_ (the
base charge is the arms of the Kingdom of Arragon), is worn in front.

71. MARY, ST (_de Mercede Redemptionis Captivorum, another dress_).—In
this the caputium is prolonged and the feet discalced.

72. MARY, ST (_Servants of_).—Coarse tunic, scapular, cappa and hood:
all black.

73. MAURICE, ST (_Canons regular of_).—Cassock, rochet, purple cape or
mozetta, biretta.

74. MONTE LUCA (_Hermits of_).—Tunic, short chasuble-like scapular,
mantle and hood and cap or hat, the latter optional; all tawny colour.
Some are discalced, others with shoes or sandals.

75. MONTE SENARIO (_Hermits of_).—Black tunic, scapular, pallium
extending below knees, caputium.

76. MONTE VERGINE (_in Avellina; monks of_).—Tunic, scapular, and
cuculla; out of doors pallium and cap substituted for cuculla. All
white.

77. OLIVETANS.—White vestis with wide sleeves, caputium crispatum on
shoulder.

78. PACHOMIUS, ST.—White woollen tunic and cuculla, the latter signed
with a violet cross.

79. PAMPLONA (_Canons regular of_).—Cassock, alb, sleeveless rochet,
ash-coloured mozetta.

80. PAUL, ST (_Hermits_).—White woollen vestis, rather short, with short
mantellum over, and short caputium; discalced.

81. PAUL, ST (_Monks_).—White tunic sleeved, caputium, and collar round
shoulders. Out of doors, black cap and cloak (white in Hungary).

82. PETER, ST (_Canons regular of; Monte Corbulo_).—At first gray
cassock and rochet, and almuce or caputium; after 1521 black cassock,
white-sleeved rochet, and black cloak.

83. POLAND (_Canons regular of_).—White tunic and linen surplice
reaching to about the knees, fur almuce about shoulders, dark-coloured
skull-cap of wool edged with fur.

84. PORTUGAL (_Canons regular of_).—White rochet and tunic, tawny
almuce, and pallium.

85. PREMONSTRATENSIANS.—White tunic and scapular, sewn up in front,
white sleeveless cappa without girdle, white biretta, almuce, white
shoes. (The white is all _natural_, not dyed.)

86. ROUEN (_Canons regular of the Priory of the Two Lovers_).—White
tunic or alb and rochet, almuce.

87. RUFUS, ST (_Canons regular of; France_).—White cassock buttoned up
in front, white girdle, black biretta.

88. SABBA, ST.—Tawny tunic girded, with black scapular. Discalced.

89. SAVIOUR, ST (_Canons regular of; Laterans_).—White buttoned cassock,
linen rochet. Out of doors black pallium and biretta.

90. SAVIOUR, ST (_Canons regular of; Lorraine_).—Black tunic with little
linen rochet hanging down from the neck to the left side, five inches
broad, like a girdle, over which in choir a cotta, and gray almuce
carried on the arm in summer; in winter a full sleeveless rochet with
cappa reaching to the ankles of black linen, whose front edges are
decorated with red cloth about a foot wide. Caputium, whose front edge
surrounds the face like an almuce, with fur about two inches wide.

91. SAVIOUR, ST (_Canons regular of; Sylva Lacus Selva_).—White woollen
tunic, rochet and scapular, black cappa.

92. SEPULCHRE, THE HOLY (_Canons regular of_).—White rochet, black cappa
and caputium. At the left side of the cappa a Greek cross cantoned by
crosslets in red.

93. SEPULCHRE, THE HOLY (_Canons regular of; Bohemia, Poland,
Russia_).—Black vestis and rochet, over which a mantelletum—a waistcoat
or rochet-like vestment, sleeveless, but rather long, open in front, and
reaching to a little above the knees—on the left side of which a
double-transomed cross.

94. SYLVESTER, ST.—Tunic, caputium, scapular, cuculla of blue. Biretta
worn on sacred occasions.

95. TRINITATIS, SS (_Redemptionis Captivorum_).—White tunic, scapular,
and cappa, with red and blue cross flory on the scapular and left side
of the cappa.

96. TRINITATIS, SS (_Redemptionis Captivorum; Spain_).—Cappa brown,
otherwise as above described. By others in Spain a tawny cappa is worn,
and the feet are discalced. Round black caputium added.

97. TRINITATIS, SS (_Redemptionis Captivorum; France_).—All white, the
cross plain; feet discalced; caputium also white.

98. USETZ (_Canons regular of_).—White buttoned tunic and surplice,
extinguisher-shaped, like the ancient chasuble.

99. VALLE DE CHOUX (_Burgundy, between Dijon and Autun, Canons regular
of_).—White, black scapular, girded with black girdle.

100. VALLE RONCEAUX (_Canons regular of_).—Black, with white scapular,
very small, and resembling archiepiscopal pall. Black cappa added in
service.

101. VALLE DI SCHOLARI (_Canons regular of_).—White woollen tunic and
scapular; black cappa lined with lamb's wool, biretta.

102. VALLEY OF JEHOSHAPHAT (_Canons regular of_).—Full red cuculla and
caputium.

103. VALLIS VIRIDIS (_near Brussels; Canons regular of_).—Black tunic
and cassock, white rochet, black caputium.

104. VALLUMBROSANS.—Identical with the Sylvestrines, but grayish-black
instead of blue.

105. VICTOR, ST, WITHOUT THE WALLS (_Canons regular of; Paris_).—White
tunic and wide-sleeved surplice, almuce, biretta.

106. VINDESHEIM (_Canons regular of_).—White tunic and rochet, biretta,
fur almuce added on shoulders in winter.

107. WILLIAM, ST (_Hermits of_).—Tunic, over which another sleeveless,
girded. Scapular, feet entirely unprotected. At first white, but black
after union with the Augustinians.


_Nuns._

The dress of nuns, as a general rule, consists of a _vestis_ (gown or
tunic), girt at the waist, and a scapular. To these various orders add
_pallia_, _mantella_, etc., as will appear from the following list. As a
general rule, a white _gremial_ or breast-cloth is fastened over the
head and round the throat and breast; over this two loose _vela_ or
cloths are placed on the head, the inner white, the outer black. The
feet, even of 'discalced' nuns, are protected at least by wooden, bark,
or leathern sandals; very rarely are the feet entirely unprotected.

1. ACEMETAE (_or Vigilants_).—Uncertain; according to some authorities,
green vestis, signed with a red cross, above which a mantellum or cape.
Black velum on head.

2. AGNES, ST (_Dordrecht_).—White vestis and scapular, black velum on
head, ruff round neck.

3. AMBROSE, ST.—White, black velum on head.

4. ANGELICA, ST (_Milan_).—White vestis and scapular, cross on breast,
ring on finger, with cross in place of a jewel.

5. ANTONIUS, ST (_Syria_).—No definite rule, any dress suitable to
monastic life.

6. AUGUSTINE, ST (_Solitaries of_, 1256).—Black; Gregory IX gave licence
to wear white, with black scapular and velum on head.

7. AUGUSTINE, ST (_ancient habit_).—Black tunic, white linen rochet, on
head a cloth, ornamented with semée of red crosses, reaching down the
back like a cloak or cope.

8. AUGUSTINE, ST (_discalced; Spain_).—Similar to the corresponding
monks, but with the usual vela on the head.

9. AUGUSTINE, ST (_discalced; Lusitania_).—White vestis (to which a
black vestis is added on feast days) girded with black leather girdle,
white scapular, black mantellum; on the head a rough white linen cloth
hanging before the face to the eyes, but behind to the waist. On this
white cloth another, black, about five palms in breadth.

10. AUGUSTINE, ST (_Penitents of_).—Black vestis and cappa, reaching to
knees; scapular white; face covered with a black veil.

11. AUGUSTINE, ST (_Venice_).—White; black veil on face.

12. BASIL, ST (_Eastern_).—Natural (undyed) black dress; black mafors
(narrow scapular-like pallium); gloves or sleeves covering the arms and
hands as far as the fingers; black velum covering the whole head.

13. BASIL, ST (_Western_).—As in the East till 1560. After that date,
black vestis, scapular and velum reaching from head to knees; black
gremial or breast-cloth. A cassock with ample sleeves added for church
services.

14. BEGGA, ST (_Antwerp_).—Black vestis, black pallium from head
downwards, a cap (biretta), resembling in outline an inverted saucer, on
head white velum round head and across breast.

15. BENEDICT, ST.—As monks, but with velum in place of caputium.

16. BENEDICT, ST (_de Monte Calvario_).—White tunic and scapular, with
black velum on head. Discalced.

17. BIRGITTA, ST.—White camisia, gray tunic, cuculla with sleeves
reaching to tip of middle finger, gray mantellum. On the head a
'garland' or 'wreath' concealing the forehead and cheeks, and secured at
the back of the head by a pin. On this is placed a black velum fastened
by three pins, one on the forehead and one over each ear. Above this is
a corona of white cloth consisting of a Greek cross passing over the
head from forehead to back and from ear to ear, the ends joined by a
circle that passes round the temples. At each of the intersections of
the cross arms with each other and with the circle is fastened a small
piece (_gutta_) of red cloth—the total of five doubtless typical of the
Five Wounds.

18. CAESARIUS, ST.—White vestis, girded; black velum on head.

19. CALATIAVANS.—White; white scapular signed with red cross flory,
usual white and black vela on head.

20. CAMALDULENSES.—White; scapular confined with white girdle; usual
vela on head.

21. CANONESSES REGULAR (_Belgium_, _Lorraine_, etc.).—White tunic girt
at waist, mantle over; black velum on head; a rochet is worn in some
houses.

22. CANONESSES REGULAR (_Rouen_).—Originally white; now black tunic,
black mantellum lined and edged with white mouse-fur; black and white
vela disposed as usual on head.

23. CANONESSES (_Mons_).—Black vestis with white sleeves; black velum on
head reaching down back half-way; pallium or mantle on shoulder hanging
to ground, black lined with white. In church service the dress consists
of white linen surplice or cassock reaching to feet, braided with a cord
sewn upon it arranged in ornamental knots and scrolls; peaked
head-dress, from the point of which hangs a long pendant streamer.
Pallium or mantle of black silk, lined with mouse-fur, white with black
spots.

24. CAPUCHINS.—Rough woollen vestis, scapular, mantellum, white gremial
cloth, black and white vela on head.

25. CARMELITES (_ancient_).—Tawny tunic, short white pallium or mantle,
white velum encircling head.

26. CARMELITES (_modern_).—Tawny tunic and scapular, white pallium
reaching to feet, usual vela on head.

27. CARMELITES (_France_).—Brown habit, white mantellum lined with fur,
white gremial cloth covering head and breast, black velum above this.

28. CARMELITES (_discalced_).—Like ordinary Carmelites, but with
somewhat long cappa of coarse cloth; two black vela on head; feet shod
with woollen cloth and bark sandals.

29. CARTHUSIANS.—White tunic and scapular; cloth on neck and breast,
usual velamina on head.

30. CASSIAN.—White tunic and linen rochet, with black velum on head.

31. CISTERCIANS.—White; gray (sometimes black) scapular, girded; in
choir a white cuculla added.

32. CLUGNIACS.—Black tunic, girded; ample scapular, also black; usual
vela on head.

33. COLUMBANUS, ST.—White tunic, cuculla, gremial cloth, and velum on
head.

34. CROSS, ST (_Penitents of_).—White tunic, over which another, black,
girded with leather girdle. White gremial cloth and velum.

35. DOMINIC, ST.—White vestis, girded; scapular; black and white vela on
head. In choir or at the Sacrament a cappa is added.

36. DOMINIC, ST (_Penitents of_).—White tunic and scapular; white
gremial cloth and velum, over which a flowing black pallium is placed
which hangs down to the feet.

37. ELIGIUS, ST.—Black tunic, white mantle, white gremial cloth on head
and breast, over which black velum.

38. FONTEVRAUD.—Black tunic, white gremial and velum.

39. FONTEVRAUD (_reformed_).—Black pallium added to previous dress.

40. FRANCIS OF ASSISI, ST.—Rough tunic girt with a rope, scapular and
mantellum; white gremial cloth. Discalced; feet in wooden sandals.

41. FRUCTUOSUS, ST.—Cuculla, pallium, and tunic, all gray; girdle
securing tunic black. Discalced (sandals worn in summer, shoes in
winter).

42. GENOVEFA, ST (_Canonesses of_).—White tunic and surplice, black fur
'almutia,' ornamented with white spots, worn at service over left arm
(something like a long maniple). White gremial cloth, and black velum
over it on head.

43. GILBERT, ST.—Black tunic, mantle, and hood, the last lined with
lamb's wool.

44. HILARY, ST.—Gray tunic, not long, over which a short tawny pallium;
black velum on head, with white band round forehead; shoes with pointed
toes turned upward.

45. HOSPITALERS OF ST JOHN OF JERUSALEM.—Tawny tunic with white cross
sewn on breast. White velum on head.

46. HOSPITALERS OF ST JOHN OF JERUSALEM (_France_).—Black vestis signed
with a white cross fourchée; pallium with similar cross on left
shoulder; white and black vela on head. Fastened to the pallium a rosary
divided into eight parts, symbolical of the instruments of the Passion.

47. HOSPITALERS (_Canonesses; Paris_).—White vestis, linen rochet,
pallium from shoulders to feet, usual vela on head.

48. HOSPITALERS OF THE HOLY GHOST (_Saxony_).—Black vestis, with
double-transomed cross fourchée in white on the left side of breast.
Usual vela on head.

49. HUMILIATI (_Milan_).—White tunic girded; loose white scapular; white
velum.

50. INFANT JESUS, VIRGINS OF.—Woollen vestis of dark tawny colour. On
certain days black velum on head reaching nearly to feet.

51. ISIDORE, ST.—Uncertain; probably gray tunic and cappa with hood.
Discalced.

52. JAMES, ST, DE SPATHA.—Black vestis with red cross flory fichée on
the right on the breast. White cappa reaching to feet. Usual vela on
head.

53. JEROME, ST.—White tunic, gray scapular, black pallium, black velum
on head.

54. JESUATAE.—White tunic and brown scapular; cappa of the same colour
added at service. Usual vela on head.

55. LATERAN CANONESSES REGULAR.—White tunic and rochet; white gremial
cloth over head and breast, over which black velum. A wide-sleeved
surplice added for service.

56. LAURENCE, ST (_Venice_).—Black vestis with white velum on head, not
altogether covering the hair. A long flowing cassock added for a
service-robe, and a long black velum placed over the white velum.

57. MACHARIUS, ST.—Tawny vestis with black cappa, or a sheepskin over
it.

58. MALTA, KNIGHTS OF.—Black tunic and scapular, black pallium, very
long and supported over the arms to keep it from the ground; white
Maltese cross on left shoulder of pallium. Black and white silk chain
hanging from neck supporting wooden images of the instruments of the
Passion.

59. MARIA, ST, IN CAPITOLIO (_Canonesses of_).—Silk vestis, above which
a white rochet. Head covered with long black velum reaching to ground.
At first a crimped, ruff-like collar round the neck; this was afterwards
abandoned.

60. MARIA FULIENSIS, ST.—Rough white vestis; white gremial cloth on head
and breast, loosely covered with black velum. Discalced.

61. MARY THE VIRGIN, ST, ANNUNCIATION OF.—Gray tunic, white chlamys or
cloak, red cross-shaped scapular, usual head coverings.

62. MARY THE VIRGIN, ST, ANNUNCIATION OF (_another order_).—White
vestis, black girdle, white scapular, blue gown, white gremial on head
and breast, black velum.

63. MARY THE VIRGIN, ST, ASSUMPTION OF.—Blue, secured with white girdle,
white scapular, white gremial cloth, white velum (very long) on head. In
choir a pallium of mixed silk and blue wool is added.

64. MARY THE VIRGIN, ST (_Canonesses regular of_).—Black tunic, over
which a long black cappa is girded in choir; usual gremial cloth and
vela.

65. MARY THE VIRGIN, ST, DAUGHTERS OF (_Cremona_).—Black. Resembling the
habit of the priests of the Society of Jesus, but with black velum in
place of biretta. An extra black velum and an extra black mantle is
added out of doors.

66. MARIA, STA (_de Mercede Redemptionis Captivorum_).—White vestis and
scapular; usual vela on head. In centre of breast a shield bearing
_party per fess in chief gules a cross pattée argent, in base three
pallets_.

67. MARY THE VIRGIN, ST, SERVANTS OF.—Same as corresponding monks, with
velum instead of caputium. In Germany certain of this order wear a white
velum with a blue star on the forehead.

68. MARY THE VIRGIN, ST, SEVEN SORROWS OF.—Black woollen vestis and
girdle, head and breast with white linen covering, long black
head-covering put on out of doors.

69. MARY THE VIRGIN, ST, PURIFICATION OF.—Simple black vestis, white
collar and cuffs, black velum on head—much like ordinary mourning dress.

70. MARY THE VIRGIN, ST, VISITATION OF.—Black vestis, pectoral cross of
silver with figure and monogram of Christ. Usual vela on head.

71. MARY OF THE ROSARY, ST.—Black; image of the Conception, surrounded
by a rosary embellished with figures of the instruments of the Passion,
on breast; white gremial cloth and white velum on head.

72. OLIVETANS.—White cuculla and tunic; usual vela on head.

73. PACHOMIUS, ST.—Black tunic and gray hood; a row of small white Greek
crosses along every edge.

74. PHILIPPINES OF ROME.—Black woollen tunic, white sleeveless surplice
with black cross in centre. Usual vela on head.

75. PREMONSTRATENSIANS.—White vestis and pallium, white scapular girded.
On the forehead a cross signed on the white velum.

76. PETER OF ALCANTARIA, ST (_Solitaries of_).—Rough vestis girded with
a rope; scapular, mantle, and velum. No covering on head.

77. SACRAMENT, ADORATION OF THE MOST HOLY.—Black vestis, black velamen
over head and shoulders, golden figure of the Host on breast.

78. MARY THE VIRGIN, ST, PRESENTATION OF.—Black, white scapular, usual
vela on head signed with cross in the centre of the forehead.

79. SEPULCHRE, CANONESSES OF THE HOLY.—Black tunic, over which a white
sleeveless surplice reaching to knees. Usual vela on head. Mantellum, on
the left shoulder of which is a double transomed cross in red. To the
left side are two ropes sewn, knotted together by five knots to typify
the Five Wounds.

80. STEPHEN, ST.—White woollen vestis and scapular with red cross
fourchée on breast. Usual vela on head. In choir a white cuculla is
added with full sleeves of red silk.

81. SYLVESTER, ST.—Similar to monks, but with usual vela on head.

82. TRINITATIS, SS (_Redemptionis Captivorum_).—White vestis and
scapular, black pallium. On pallium and scapular a red and blue Greek
cross fourchée. Usual vela.

83. TRINITY, MOST HOLY.—White tunic and scapular, tawny cappa signed
with Greek cross fourchée in red and blue. Similar cross on scapular.
Black sandals.

84. URBANISTS.—Blackish vestis and scapular, tawny mantellum at service,
white gremial cloth, white and black vela on head.

85. URSULA, ST.—Black vestis girded with cord, white gremial cloth, long
black velum on head.

86. URSULA, ST (_Rome_).—Woollen vestis of mingled black and violet,
with black tunic fastened by black leather girdle. Usual vela on head,
the black one reaching to the knees.

87. URSULA, ST (_Parma_).—Black vestis, very long dark violet pallium,
the hem girt up in the girdle, and that part over the head concealing
the eyes.

88. VALLUMBROSANAE.—As monks, but with black cuculla; usual vela on head.

89. MINISTRANTES INFIRMIS (_Belgium_).—Black dress and scapular; white
velum over head and shoulders.

90. MINISTRANTES INFIRMIS (_Liburni_).—Blue dress with long and wide
sleeves, white velamen over head and breast, another white velamen loose
on head girded with rope round waist.

91. SACRAMENT, POOR VIRGINS OF THE HOLY.—Woollen tawny tunic girt with
rope. White velamen on head.


MEDIAEVAL UNIVERSITY COSTUME.

The details here given respecting mediaeval university costume are
abridged from a long and exhaustive paper by Prof. E. C. Clark in vol.
50 of the _Archaeological Journal_.

There is no doubt that the university dress of the middle ages is an
adaptation of monastic costume. The original schools from which the
universities were developed were of a clerical character, and their
members wore clerical dress. The dress of the mediaeval universities was
international, unlike the costume worn to-day; hence the following
account, while primarily concerned with the English universities, will
serve as a description of Continental university dress as well.

The system of degrees was developed in France by the end of the
thirteenth century. There were four grades: first, the ordinary scholar
or undergraduate; then the determinant; thirdly the licentiate; and
fourthly the master, professor or doctor. The undergraduate resided,
attended lectures, and argued on questions in the schools; the
determinant 'determined' or decided on questions upon which he had
previously merely argued; the licentiate received the chancellor's
'licence' to incept (_i.e._, take the steps necessary for obtaining the
master's degrees), to lecture, and to dispute in school exercises. The
mastership was the highest grade, and it included the regent, who was
engaged in teaching, and the non-regent, who had ceased to teach. From
the second grade probably sprung the baccalaureat; the bachelor was at
first a kind of supernumerary teacher, whose lectures were probably
recognised only within his own university.

The robes are thus described:

1. _Toga or roba talaris_, the simplest and most general form of
university dress, probably originally derived from the Benedictine
habit. It was full and flowing, open in front, with wide sleeves through
which the arms passed their whole length. Subsequent modifications
curtailed the sleeves for undergraduates (retaining the fuller form for
mourning), and (in England) introduced distinctive marks for the various
colleges. The modern Bachelor and Master of Arts gown is derived from
this dress combined with other garments. In certain colleges in Oxford
it was directed to be sewn up from the wearer's middle to the ground. In
Clare Hall, Cambridge, fellows were permitted to line it with fur.
_Gona_ and _Epitogium_, which we meet with in certain mediaeval
statutes, are probably synonyms of this.

2. _Hood._ The hood (_caputium_) was originally the head-covering in bad
weather; it was afterwards dropped on the shoulders, and then assumed
the form of a small cape. A large _tippet_ is sometimes seen
 beneath this cape in representations of academical costume. The
_Undergraduate's_ or _Scholar's hood_ was black, not lined, and to it a
long liripipe or streamer was sewn at the back; the _Graduate's_ was
furred or lined, with a short liripipe. The various degrees were
indicated by differences of lining; bachelors wore badger's fur or
lamb's wool; licentiates and regents wore minever or some more expensive
fur; non-regents wore silk. When the undergraduates abandoned hoods
(before sixteenth century; exact date uncertain) they became a
distinctive mark of the attainment of a degree.

The liripipe was also called _tipetum_ or _cornetum_. The latter may be
the origin of the French _cornette_, a silk band formerly worn by French
doctors of law, and a possible origin for the modern English scarf. The
word _liripipe_ is also used to denote pendant false sleeves, and also
the tails of long-pointed shoes. This, however, lies rather in the
region of everyday costume. In 1507, at Oxford, we find _typet_ or
_cornetum_ used to denote an alternative for the _toga talaris_ allowed
to Bachelors of Civil Law. This is clearly not the tail of a hood, but
its exact significance is uncertain.

3. _Mantellum._ The origin and meaning of this word are alike uncertain.
The use of '_mantelli_ or _liripipia_, commonly called typets,' was
prohibited to fellows and scholars of Magdalen College, Oxford, by a
statute dated 1479, except _infirmitatis causa_. From this we may infer
that the _mantellus_ (also called _mantella_ or _mantellum_) was
something akin to the liripipe. In another notice (1239) they are
coupled with _cappae_: certain riotous clerks had to march in a
penitential procession '_sine cappis et mantellis_.' Prof. Clark infers
from these passages and from other sources that the academical mantellum
'is not a hood, but is worn either instead of, or in addition to, the
hood, with the cope, or else instead of the cope or long tabard.'

4. _Cassock._ This was at one time worn by all members of universities
under their gowns. Doctors of divinity, doctors of laws, cardinals, and
canons wore scarlet. Certain days at present are called 'Scarlet Days'
in the English universities, on which doctors in all faculties wear
scarlet. This may be a survival of the ancient scarlet cassock.

5. _Surplice._ 'A dress of ministration, used in college chapels by
non-ministrants, more as a matter of college discipline than as
academical costume.'

6. _Almuce._ Distinctive of masters and doctors, distinct from the hood.
Another possible origin of the English hood.

7. _Cope._ There were two kinds of cope in use at the English
universities—the _cappa manicata_ or sleeved cope; and an uncomfortable
contrivance called the _cappa clausa_, which was sewn all the way up,
passed over the head when put on, and was not provided with sleeves or
other openings for the arms save a short longitudinal slit in front. The
Archbishop of Canterbury prescribed this as a decent garb for
Archdeacons, Deans and Prebendaries in 1222. Regents in arts, laws, and
theology were permitted to lecture in a _cappa clausa_ or _pallium_
only. The _cappa manicata_ was probably worn generally, as being a
sober and dignified dress; it very rarely occurs in contemporary
representations.

8. The _tabard_ or _colobium_ was a sleeveless gown closed in front; but
ultimately it was slit up, the sleeves of the gown proper were
transferred to it, and the use of the latter discontinued. All not yet
bachelors were required by the statutes of Trinity Hall, Cambridge
(1352), to wear long tabards, while Clare Hall, the adjoining
foundation, required its Master (Head), masters, and Bachelor Fellows to
wear this and other robes, in 1359. Kings' Hall (1380) required every
scholar to wear a _roba talaris_, and every bachelor a robe with tabard
suited to his degree.

9. _University Head-dress._ A skull-cap was early allowed to
ecclesiastics to protect the tonsured head in cold weather, and, except
the ordinary hood, this is the only head-dress recognised by the early
university statutes. This _pileus_, however, soon assumed a pointed
shape, thus ⏞̲ and in this form was recognised as part of the insignia
of the doctorate; doctors only are represented wearing it upon
monuments. The central point developed afterwards into the modern
tassel. Bachelors wore no official head-dress.

 [104] So Bonanni's text; it reaches to the _feet_ in his plate.

 [105] Cit. ap. Bonanni, vol. iv, No. xvii: Quidam enim subtile integrum
 cum manicis integris habent, quidam autem deferunt hanc lineam vestem
 in formam longi et lati scapularis sine manicis in lateribus apertam
 quidam circa tibia ad latitudinem palmae Carthusiensium more consutam,
 alii scapulare latum cum rugis habent aliis est forma parvi scapularis
 et brevis cum rugis et plicis e collo pendentis quod Scorligium dicunt
 quibusdam ex latere linea hasta aliis arca collum pecia linea.




APPENDIX II.

AN INDEX OF SYNONYMOUS TERMS.


 Alba (Lat.), alb.
 =Anaboladion= (Gk.), amice.
 Anabolagium (Lat.), amice.
 =Anabolaion= (Gk.), amice.
 Anagolaium (Lat.), amice.
 Aurifrigium (Lat.), orphrey.
 Baltheus (Lat.), girdle.
 Bitarshil (Copt.), stole.
 Caligae (Lat.), stockings.
 Cambo (Lat.), pastoral staff.
 Cambutta (Celto-Lat.), head of pastoral staff.
 Campagi (Lat.), stockings.
 Cappa (Lat.), cope.
 Capuita (Lat.), pastoral staff.
 Cassacca (Lat.), cassock.
 =chamalauchion= (Gk.) = =chamalauchê=.
 Chirothecae (Lat.), gloves.
 Chrysoclave (O.-Eng., from Lat.), orphrey.
 Cingulum (Lat.), girdle.
 Clappe (O.-Eng.), pastoral staff.
 Cleykstaff (O.-Eng.), pastoral staff.
 Cleystaff (O.-Eng.), pastoral staff.
 Cruche (O.-Eng.), pastoral staff.
 Ephod (Lat., from Heb.), amice.
 =epimanika= (Gk.), maniples.
 =epimanikia= (Gk.), maniples.
 =epitrachêlion= (Gk.), stole.
 Faino (Syr.), chasuble.
 Fanon (_a_), (Lat.), maniple.
 Fanon (_b_), (Lat.), orale.
 Ferula (Lat.), pastoral staff.
 Fourevre (Fr.), mozetta.
 Humerale (Lat.), amice.
 Hure (O.-Eng.), ecclesiastical skull-cap.
 Jabat (Copt.), alb.
 Kerchure (O.-Eng.), amice.
 Koutino (Syr.), alb.
 Manicae (Lat.), gloves.
 =manikia= (Gk.), maniples.
 Mantile (Lat.), maniple.
 Mappula (Lat.), maniple.
 =ôrarion= (Gk.), stole.
 Orarium (Lat.), stole.
 Oururo (Syr.), stole.
 Pedum (Lat.), pastoral staff.
 =peritrachêli= (Gk.), stole.
 =peritrachêlion= (Gk.), stole.
 =phailonion= (Gk.), chasuble.
 =phainoli= (Gk.), chasuble.
 =phainolion= (Gk.), chasuble.
 =phakeôlion= (Gk.), stole.
 Phrygium (Lat.), orphrey.
 Pluviale (Lat.), cope.
 Poderis (Lat.), alb.
 Poruche (Rus.), maniple.
 Regnum (Lat.), tiara.
 Roba (Lat.), university gown.
 Roc (A.-S.), tunicle or dalmatic.
 Sabatyns   } (O.-Eng.), stockings.
 Sabbatones }
 Sambuca (Lat.), pastoral staff.
 =sticharion=  } (Gk.), alb.
 =stoicharion= }
 Subtile (Lat.), tunicle.
 Succinctorium (Lat.), subcingulum.
 Sudarium (Lat.), maniple.
 Superhumerale (Lat.), alb.
 Tibialia (Lat.), stockings.
 Tilsan (Copt.), chasuble.
 Toga = university gown.
 Tourmat (Copt.), alb.
 Triregnum (Lat.), tiara.
 Tunica alba (Lat.), alb.
 Tunica talaris (Lat.), cassock; also university gown.
 Tunicella (Lat.), tunicle.
 =hypomanikia= (Gk.), maniples.
 Varkass = vakass.
 Vestment (O.-Eng.), chasuble.
 Virga pastoralis (Lat.), pastoral staff.
 Zendo (Syr.), maniple.
 Zona (Lat.), girdle.




APPENDIX III.

A LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO IN THE COMPILATION OF
THIS WORK.


 ⁂ As this list is intended as a _guide_ to the student rather than as a
 criterion of the labour involved in writing this volume, it has been
 reduced by the omission of classical and other texts from which casual
 quotations have been made, and of many books which the author consulted
 without obtaining any information of value.

Badger (G. P.), The Nestorians and their Ritual. 2 vols. London, 1852.

Bloxam (M. H.), Companion to the Principles of Gothic Ecclesiastical
Architecture. London, 1882.

Bock (F.), Geschichte der liturgischen Gewänder des Mittelalters. 3
vols. Bonn, 1859.

Bona (J.), Rerum liturgicarum libri duo. 3 vols. Turin, 1747.

Bonanni, Catalogo degli ordini religiosi della chiesa militante. 5 vols.
Rome, 1722.

Calderwood (D.), Historie of the Kirk of Scotland. 8 vols. Wodrow
Society, Edinburgh, 1842-49.

Carter (J.), Specimens of English Ecclesiastical Costume. London, 1817.

Cripps (H. W.), A Practical Treatise on the Law relating to the Church
and Clergy. 6th edition. London, 1886.

Dolby (Anastasia), Church Vestments: their Origin, Use, and Ornament.
London, 1868.

Fabric Rolls of York Minster. Surtees Society, Durham, 1859. (Also
several other volumes of the publications of this Society.)

Fortescue (E. F. K.), The Armenian Church, founded by St Gregory the
Illuminator. London, 1872.

Haines (H.), A Manual of Monumental Brasses. Oxford, 1861.

Harrison (B.), An historical Enquiry into the true Interpretation of the
Rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer. London, 1845.

Hart (R.), Ecclesiastical Records of England, Ireland, and Scotland from
the Fifth Century till the Reformation. Cambridge, 1846.

Hartshorne (C. H.), English Mediaeval Embroidery. _Archaeological
Journal_, vol. i, pp. 318-335, vol. ii, pp. 285-301. 1845-47.

Hefele (C. J.), Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte, Archäologie und
Liturgik. 2 vols. Tübingen, 1864.

Howard (G. B.), The Christians of St Thomas and their Liturgies. Oxford,
1864.

Issaverdens (J.), Armenia and the Armenians. 2 vols. Venice, 1874.

Josephus, Works of, ed. Richter. Leipsig, 1826.

King (J. G.), The Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in Russia.
London, 1772.

Labbe (P.), and G. Cossart, Sacrosancta concilia ad regiam editionem
exacta. 18 vols. Paris, 1671-72.

Lanigan (J.), An Ecclesiastical History of Ireland. 4 vols. Dublin,
1822.

Marriott (W. B.), Vestiarium Christianum. London, 1868.

Martene (E.) and U. Durand, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum. 5 vols. Paris,
1717.

Maskell, Monumenta ritualia ecclesiae anglicanae. Oxford, 1882.

Migne, Patrologia (almost all quotations from the early church writers
are taken from this edition). Paris, 1849-64.

Moleon (le Sieur de), Voyages liturgiques de France. Paris, 1718.

Neale (J. M.), A History of the Holy Eastern Church. 4 vols. London,
1850.

Papal Letters (Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to
Great Britain and Ireland, ed. W. H. Bliss). London, 1893.

Paris (M.), Chronica majora. Ed. Luard. 7 vols. Rolls Series. London,
1872-1883.

Pugin (A. W.), Glossary of Ecclesiastical Ornament and Costume. London,
1868.

Quick (J.), Synodicon in Gallia Reformata; or the Acts, Decisions,
Decrees, and Canons of those Famous National Councils of the Reformed
Churches in France. 2 vols. London, 1692.

Reichel (O. J.), English Liturgical Vestments in the Thirteenth Century.
London, 1895.

Renaudot (E.), Liturgiarum orientalium collectio. Paris, 1716.

Rock (D.), Church of our Fathers. 3 vols. London, 1849-52.

Rock (D.), Textile Fabrics: a Descriptive Catalogue of the Collection of
Church Vestments, [etc. in South Kensington Museum]. London, 1870.

Row (J.), The History of the Kirk of Scotland from the Year 1538 to
August, 1637. Wodrow Society, Edinburgh, 1892.

Rubenius (A.), De re vestiaria veterum, praecipue de lato clavo. In the
_Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanorum_ of J. G. Graevius, vol. vi, col. 913.
Leyden, 1697.

Saussay (A. de), Panoplia clericalis libri xv. Paris, 1649.

Shaw (H.), Dresses and Decorations of the Middle Ages. 2 vols. London,
1853.

Smith (W.) and S. Cheetham, A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.
London, 1875.

Stothard (C. A.), Monumental Effigies of Great Britain. 2 vols. London,
1817.

Webb, Sketches of Continental Ecclesiology. London, 1848.

Wey (F.), Rome. London, 1872.

Willemin (N. X.), Monumens français inédits. 2 vols. Paris, 1839.

Reference has also been made to the _Church Times_, the _Builder_, and
the principal archaeological periodicals and publications of
archaeological societies.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]




_INDEX._


 Absolution, vestments worn at, 223

 Acolytes, cassock of, 139

 —— insignia of, 213, 214

 Aethelwold, benedictional of, 115

 Aix-la-Chapelle, chasuble at, 86

 Alb. _See also_ Alba, 64

 —— material and colour of, 65

 —— ornamentation of, 66, 151

 —— plain, when worn, 67

 —— symbolism of, 68, 69

 —— dimensions of, 69

 —— modifications of, 140, 141

 —— contrary to English Church law, 201

 —— by whom worn, 214

 Alba. _See also_ Alb, Dalmatica, Roba Talaris

 —— by whom and when worn, 28, 30

 —— origin of, 29, 31

 —— description of, 30

 —— canons respecting, 30

 —— ornamentation of, 32, 59

 —— baptismal, 36, 37

 —— of newly baptized, 171

 —— sigillata, bullata, 66

 —— in Gallican church, 135

 —— Eastern equivalent of, 178

 Alcuin (pseudo-) quoted, 34, 64, 69, 77, 89, 96, 103, 111, 149

 Almuce, description of, 142

 —— distinctions of ecclesiastical rank in, 142

 —— derivation of name, 142

 —— evolution of, 143-146

 —— worn under Eucharistic vestments, 219

 —— in the universities, 256

 Amalarius of Metz quoted, 52, 68, 77, 89, 92-95, 103, 122

 Ambrose cited, 38

 Amess. _See_ Almuce

 Amice, 64

 —— origin of, 71

 —— how, by whom, and when worn, 71, 214

 —— description of, 71

 —— symbolism of, 72

 —— ornamentation of, 151

 —— vakass borrowed from, 188

 Amys. _See_ Almuce

 Anastasius Bibliothecarius quoted, 34

 Anglican church, vestments in, 194 _et seqq._

 Apparels, 153

 Aquinas, St Thomas, cited, 132

 Archdeacons, supposed, in St David's Cathedral, 80

 Aregius, Bishop, receives dalmatica, 54

 Armenian church, baptismal rite in, 171

 —— —— vestments of, 176 _et seqq._

 Augustine cited, 38

 Aurelian, his grant of oraria to the Romans, 38

 Autun, MS. at, on vestments of the Gallican church, 29, 135

 —— Honorius of. _See_ Honorius

 —— Bishops of, their privileges, 102

 Auxanius, circumstances of his receipt of the pallium, 51


 Bamberg, Bishops of, their privileges, 102

 Bands, origin and development of, 208

 —— when worn in Presbyterian church, 209

 Baptismal vestments of administrator, 36, 122, 222;
    of baptized, 171

 —— alba, 36

 —— stole, 222

 Bells and pomegranates, 6

 Benedict III, life of, quoted, 66

 Benediction of vestments, 212

 Biretta, birettum, 150, 201

 Bishops, insignia of, 27, 28, 213

 —— stole, how worn by, 74

 —— dalmatic of, 79

 —— wearing archiepiscopal insignia, 102

 —— subcingulum once worn by, 107

 —— vestments worn by, on different occasions, 221.
    _See also_ under the names of different vestments

 Bloxam quoted, 80

 Bonanni quoted, Appendix i

 Boniface VIII adds crown to tiara, 121

 Bonnet of Levitical priest, 5

 Brachialia, 122

 Braga, Councils of. _See_ Council

 Breastplate of the ephod, 9

 Breeches, 4

 Bucer quoted, 195

 Bullinger quoted, 104

 Buskins. _See_ Stockings

 Byrrhus, 33


 Caligae. _See_ Stockings

 Calliculae, 59

 Canons. _See_ Council

 Canon's cope, 148, 220

 Cap, Levitical, 5

 —— ecclesiastical, 149

 —— Malabar, 177

 —— university, 256

 Cappa, monastic, 235

 —— serica, 148

 —— manicata, 256

 —— clausa, 256

 —— _See also_ Cope

 Caputium, 235, 254

 Cardinals wear scarlet cassock, 139

 Carthage, Council of. _See_ Council

 Cashel, crozier of, 127

 Cassianus quoted, 44

 Cassikin, 204

 Cassock, description of, 138

 —— distinction of ecclesiastical rank in, 139

 —— modern, 139

 —— in Presbyterian church, 207

 —— in universities, 255

 Casula in Gallican church, 29, 135

 —— secular, 43, 44

 —— _See also_ Chasuble

 Celebrant, vestments of, 214

 Celestine, Pope, his letter on vestment ritual, 26, 46, 57

 Cencio de Sabellis quoted, 107, 108

 Chain, golden, 103

 =Chamalauchê=, 176, 188, 234

 Chambre, Will. de, quoted, 141

 Charles I, his ordinance respecting vestments, 204

 Charles the Great, 60

 Chasuble (_see also_ Planeta), 64

 —— materials of, 81

 —— eucharistic and processional, 82

 —— description and varieties of, 83, 84

 —— dimensions of, 86

 —— ornamentation of, 86, 152

 —— symbolism of, 89

 —— forbidden in English church, 201

 —— folded, when worn, 215

 Childebert consents to bestowal of pallium, 51

 Chimere, 148, 199

 Chirothecae. _See_ Gloves

 Choir, vestments of, 148, 220

 Chorkappa, 194

 Chrismale, 171

 Chrysome, 172

 Cicero quoted, 43

 Cidaris, 112

 Clark, Professor E. C., quoted, 253, _et seqq._

 Clavi, 31, 32, 42, 49, 58, 80

 Clement, liturgy of, 15, 19

 Coat of fine linen, 4

 Collar, Roman, 148

 Colobium, 32-36

 —— in the universities, 256

 Colours, liturgical, unknown in Early church, 58

 —— in Western church, 223

 —— in Eastern church, 230

 Commodus, 33

 Consecration of Archbishop Parker, 198

 Constantius, 17

 Cope, origin of, 146

 —— description and material of, 146

 —— hood of, 147

 —— morse of, 147

 —— canon's, 148, 220

 —— ornamentation of, 153

 —— for most part forbidden in English church, 201

 —— worn by minister, 217

 —— university, 256

 Corinthians, First Epistle to, quoted, 22

 Cornette, Cornetum, 255

 Coronation robes, 162.
   _See_ Dalmatic, imperial

 Cotta, 141

 Council, second of Braga, 40

 —— fourth of Braga, 40, 41

 —— fourth of Carthage, 30

 —— of Mayence, 41

 —— first of Narbonne, 30

 —— fourth of Toledo, 27, 31, 35, 39, 53, 55, 64, 114, 122

 —— _See also_ Synod

 Coverdale, vestments worn by, 198

 —— cited, 200

 Cross-staff, 125, 130

 Crozier. _See_ Pastoral staff

 Cuthino, 177, 180

 Cyprian, St, of Carthage, 33

 Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, 17


 Dalmatic (_see also_ Dalmatica), 64

 —— derived from alba, 78

 —— episcopal and diaconal, 79, 214

 —— ornamentation of, 80, 152

 —— symbolism of, 79, 81

 —— by whom worn, 214

 —— imperial, 229

 Dalmatica, a vestment in Rome, 29, 45, 53

 —— secular, 32

 —— Sylvester's decree concerning, 34

 —— Isidore on, 35

 David wears ephod, 8

 Deacon, insignia of, 28, 34, 52, 214

 —— when to wear alba, 30

 —— Sylvester's decree respecting vestments of, 34, 52

 —— stole, how worn by, 74

 —— dalmatic of, 79

 —— folded chasuble, when worn by, 215

 Degrees, Mediaeval university, 253

 —— how distinguished by dress, 254

 De Saussay quoted, 58

 Destruction of vestments, 168

 Development of vestments, chaps. i-iii _passim_

 Doctors of Divinity wear scarlet cassocks, 139

 —— —— wear gray almuces, 142

 Doeg, 8

 Dol, Bishops of, their privileges, 102

 Dolby, Mrs, quoted, 69, 144, 149

 Dominica in albis depositis, 172

 Dorsal orphrey, 88

 Doubles, 220

 Drawers, 4

 Dublin, Synod of. _See_ Synod

 Duchesne quoted, 50

 Dunstan, St, figure of, 97, 116, 118

 Durandus quoted, 106, 134, 172

 Durham Rites quoted, 167


 Eastern Churches, vestments of, chap. v

 =Egkolpion=, 176, 188, 191

 Elagabalus, 33

 Embroidery. _See_ Apparels, Orphreys

 —— Oriental, 162

 England, excellence of embroidery in, 163

 —— destruction of vestments in, 169

 —— vestments of church of, 194

 Ephod, description of, 6, 7

 —— girdle of, 7

 —— by whom worn, 8

 —— worshipped, 8, 9

 —— proper name, 9

 —— breastplate of, 9

 —— Latin name for amice, 257

 =Epigonation=, 108, 176, 186, 191

 =Epimanikia=, 136, 176, 180, 191, 233

 Epiphanius quoted, 113

 Epitogium, 254

 =Epitrachêlion=, 50, 176, 182, 191, 233

 Estla, 190

 Eucharistic vestments, chap. iii

 —— chasuble, 82

 =Exôchamalauchê=, 176, 188, 191

 Exodus, book of, quoted, 4-8


 Fabius, 33

 Fagius quoted, 195

 Ferula, 58

 Fife, Synod of. _See_ Synod

 Final period of vestments, chap. iii

 Flower of chasuble, 89

 Folkestone ritual case, 201

 Fountains Abbey mitre, 119


 Gallican church, vestments of, 29, 135

 Gammadia, 58

 Garland, baptismal, 171

 Genesis of vestments, chap. i

 Geneva gown, 208

 Georgi quoted, 106

 Germanus quoted, 18, 175, 178, 184

 Germany, vestments in, 193

 Gideon, 8

 Girdle, Levitical, 4

 —— of ephod, 7

 —— ecclesiastical, 64, 70.
    _See also_ =zônê=

 —— contrasted with subcingulum, 107, 109

 Gloves, 64

 —— when recognised as vestments, 121

 —— symbolism of, 122

 —— ornamentation of, 152

 —— by whom worn, 214

 Gold plate, apostolic, 112

 Golden chain (loop of pall), 103

 Gona, 254

 Gown, black preaching, 202, 204

 —— monastic, 235

 —— university. _See_ Toga

 —— _See also_ Geneva gown

 Gregory the Great quoted, 28, 45, 51, 52, 104

 —— picture of, 54

 —— sacramentary of, 55

 Gypcière, 108


 Head-dress, ecclesiastical, 149

 —— university, 256

 High Priest, vestments of, 6 _et seq._

 Holland, church of, vestments in, 22, 210

 Homer cited, 20

 Honorius of Autun quoted, 64, 69, 75, 103, 109, 111, 121,
   122, 123, 131

 Hood of chasuble, 82

 —— of cope, 147, 153

 —— monastic, 235

 —— university, 254

 Hope, Mr St John, quoted, 144, 166

 Hosea quoted, 8

 Humeral orphrey, 88

 Hurrâra, 190


 Infulae, 118, 129

 Innocent III quoted, 58, 64, 69, 75, 89, 96, 103, 107,
   131, 134, 225

 Innocent IV covets English orphreys, 163

 Institution of bishops, 55

 Inventory of Boniface VIII, 75

 —— Canterbury, 65

 —— Dover, 65

 —— Lincoln, 81, 129, 158, 166

 —— London, St Mary Hill, 141

 —— Peterborough, 65, 66, 68

 —— Westminster, 65, 70, 218

 —— Winchester, 65, 129

 Irish crozier, 126, _et seqq._

 Isidore of Seville, 27, 35, 54, 55, 56, 58, 112, 115, 122, 126

 Issues of the Exchequer quoted, 164

 Ivo of Chartres quoted, 52, 64, 69, 89, 96, 105, 111, 122


 James I prescribes vestments for Scotland, 203

 Jerome, 15-18, 114

 Jewel, Bishop, cited, 104

 Jewish vestments, 2-14, 18, 136

 Joannes Diaconus, his portrait of Gregory I, 54

 John, Bishop of Ravenna, 53

 Josephus quoted, 4-10 _passim_

 Judges, Book of, 8, 9


 Kamelauch, 234

 =Kidaris=, 112

 Kodi, 177, 186

 =Kolobion=. _See_ Colobium

 Kulpas, 189


 Lampridius quoted, 33, 43, 44

 =Lampros=, meaning of, 19

 Landulphus, pontifical of, 40

 Laoghairé, druids of King, their prophecy, 115, 128

 Lector, 213

 Leo III, 58

 Letters on vestments, 59

 Levitical vestments. _See_ Jewish

 Limerick mitre, 120

 Lincolnshire, destruction of vestments in, 170

 Lineae = tails of pall, 104

 Linen breeches, 4

 —— tunic, 4

 Liripipe, 254

 Liturgical colours. _See_ Colours

 Liturgy of Clement. _See_ Clement

 Lituus, 56

 =Lôria=, 180

 Lucca, Bishops of, their privileges, 102

 Luther, reformation of, 193


 Macarius, 17

 Mafors, 246

 Maimonides quoted, 4

 Malabar vestments, 177 _et seqq._

 =Mandyas=, 176, 187, 191, 234

 Manicae, 121, 135

 Maniple, 64, 180.
  _See also_ Mappula

 —— description of, 75

 —— symbolism of, 77

 —— ornamentation of, 151

 —— by whom worn, 214

 Mantelletum, 199

 Mantellum, 245, 255

 Mantle, 210

 Manualia, 29, 135

 Mappula, a Roman vestment, 29, 45

 —— origin of, 52

 —— spread of, 53, 54

 Marriott quoted, 15, 16, 19, 25, 29, 50, 62, 94, 115, 122

 Martene, 29

 Mayence, Council of. _See_ Council

 Menard, 115

 Mesnaemphthes, 5

 Messesjorta, 194

 Messhake, 194

 Micah, 8

 Minerva Library, pontifical in, 37

 Minister, dress and duties of, at mass, 217, 219, 220

 Mitre, Levitical, 10

 —— ecclesiastical, 64

 —— origin of, 112

 —— early, 114

 —— development of, 116

 —— infulae of, 118

 —— ornamentation of, 118

 —— various kinds of, 119

 —— by whom worn, 214

 Monastic dress, appendix i

 —— —— Eastern, 234

 Monuments, etc., cited—
   Arundel, 156
   Bamberg, 102, 125
   Bathampton, 85
   Beverley, 71, 157
   Birmingham, 145
   Broadwater, 156
   Caerleon, 49
   Cambridge, 150
   Chesham Bois, 172, 173
   Cobham, 145
   Ely, 74, 133, 202
   Fontevraud, 230
   Fulbourne, 156
   Havant, 156
   Hereford, 145, 219
   Horsham, 220
   Kilkenny, 90
   Lübeck, 193
   Mayence, 100, 117, 118, 125
   Milton, 77
   Norwich, 219
   Oxford, 125, 145
   Randworth, 78
   Ravenna, 46
   St David's, 80
   Salisbury, 117
   Sessay, 147
   Shelford, Great, 156
   Towyn, 71
   Wells, 144, 201, 215, 216, 219
   Winwick, 83
   Worcester, 67
   Wyvenhoe, 76

 Morse, 110, 147

 Mozetta, 142, 148

 Msane, 190


 Names of vestments, 68

 Narbonne, bishop of, rebuked, 26

 —— council of. _See_ Council

 Nestorian vestments, 189

 Nicholas I, Pope, 51

 Numbers, Book of, quoted, 9


 =Omophorion=, 50, 176, 187, 191, 233

 Orale, 64, 134, 153

 =Orarion=, 50, 176, 184, 191, 233

 Orarium, 27, 28, 47, 73.
   _See also_ Stole

 —— derivation of name, 38

 —— secular, 38, 49

 —— canons respecting, 39, 40, 41

 —— origin of, 38, 49, 50

 Oriental embroidery, 162

 Origin of vestments, chap. i

 Ornamentation of vestments, 58, 66, 87, 150 _et seqq._

 Ornaments rubric, 200

 Orphreys, 72, 73, 87, 88, 153

 Orro, 177, 184

 Ostia, Bishops of, their privileges, 102

 Ostiarius, 213

 Ouches, 7


 Paenula, 43, 44, 49, 186

 Pall, 64, 187.
   _See also_ Pallium

 —— material and development of, 96

 —— history of individual specimens, 99

 —— by whom and when worn, 96, 100, 102

 —— symbolism of, 102

 —— cost of, 104

 —— not ornamented, 98, 152

 Pallium, monastic cloak, 26, 46, 235, 245

 —— vestment = pall, 29, 47-51, 135

 —— linostimum, 34, 46, 52

 Paris, Matthew, quoted, 163

 Parker, consecration of Archbishop, 198

 Pasbans, 177, 182

 Pastoral staff, 27, 64

 —— by whom carried, 28, 57, 214

 —— origin of, 56

 —— description and development of, 57, 126 _et seqq._

 —— erroneous views concerning, 124

 —— Irish form of, 126 _et seqq._

 —— infula of, 129

 —— symbolism of, 129, 131

 =Pateressa=, 176, 188, 191

 Paul, St, quoted, 22, 35

 Pavia, Bishops of, their privileges, 102

 Peacock, Mr E., quoted, 170

 Pectoral cross, 134, 188, 189, 191

 —— orphrey, 88

 Pelagians, Jerome's letter against the, 17, 19

 Pellicea, 140

 Periods of history of vestments, 25

 Perizona, 109

 =Petalon=, 112, 113

 =Phailonê=, 35

 Phaino, 177, 186

 =Phainolion=, 176, 186, 191, 233, 234

 Pileus, 151, 256. _See also_ Cap

 Pins of pall, 97, 98

 —— —— symbolism of, 104

 Planeta, 28

 —— secular, 44

 Plate, gold on mitre, Levitical, 10

 —— —— apostolic, 112

 Plautus quoted, 43

 Pollux, Julius, quoted, 43

 Polybius cited, 20

 Polycrates quoted, 113

 Poor-ourar, 176, 184

 Pope, grant of pall by, 51, 99, 214

 —— his bearing the pastoral staff, 57, 131

 —— insignia of, 105, 106, 119, 130, 134, 135, 139, 214

 Prayer-Book of 1549, 195

 —— 1552, 197

 —— 1559, 197

 Prazôna, 190

 Pre-sanctified, Mass of, 217, 220

 Presbyterians, vestments of, 205

 Priests, insignia of, 27, 41, 74, 214

 Priest's cap, Levitical, 5

 Primitive period of vestments, chap. i, 25

 Processional vestments, chap. iv

 —— chasuble, 82

 Pseudo-Alcuin. _See_ Alcuin


 Rabanus Maurus quoted, 12, 62, 68, 89, 92, 96, 122

 Rational, 64, 110-112, 152

 Ravenna, mosaics at, 46-48

 —— John, Bishop of, 53

 Reformed churches, vestments of, chap. vi

 Reichel, Rev. O. J., 50

 Requiem, vestments worn at, 223

 Rhinthon cited, 43

 Ring, 54, 64

 —— by whom worn, 27, 54, 214, 228

 —— description and symbolism of, 123

 Ripon Treasurer's Rolls quoted, 174

 Ritual uses of vestments, chap. vii

 Roba Talaris, 254

 Robe of the ephod, 6

 Rochet, 141, 199

 Rock, Dr, quoted, 48, 49, 66, 67, 75, 85, 106, 108, 114, 115,
   134, 135, 144

 Roman civil costume, 14 _et seqq._, chap. ii _passim_

 Rubenius, Albertus, quoted, 38

 Rulers of the choir, their insignia, 131, 221


 Sabanum, 171

 Sabellis, Cencio de, 107, 108

 Sacramentary of Gregory the Great, 55

 Sagavard, 177, 188, 189

 =Sakkos=, 176, 188, 191, 234

 Salisbury missal quoted, 68

 Sampson, Thomas, quoted, 199

 Samuel, Book of, quoted, 8

 —— wears ephod, 8

 Sandals, 64

 —— development and description of, 90, 91, 95

 —— by whom worn, 91, 214

 —— symbolism of, 92 _et seqq._, 96

 —— ornamentation of, 91, 152

 —— Armenian, 189

 Saul, 8

 Scapular, 235, 245

 Scarf of honour, 38

 —— of English church, 203

 —— of Presbyterian church, 207

 Scarlet days, 255

 Scipio, 33

 Scotland, vestments in, 203

 —— Act of Assembly of church of, 209

 Senchus Mór cited, 128

 Septuagint cited, 18

 Severus, edict concerning paenula, 43

 Shaesha, 234

 Shapich, 176, 180

 Shoes, Malabar, 177

 Shoochar, 177, 189

 Shorshippa, 190

 Simples, 220

 Simplicity of early vestments, 11

 Sinker, Dr., quoted, 113

 Spain, vestments in, 204

 Staff. _See_ Pastoral Staff

 Stockings, 64

 —— by whom worn, 105, 214

 —— symbolism of, 105

 —— ornamentation of, 152

 =Stoicharion=, 176, 178, 191, 233

 Stola in Gallican church, 29, 135
    _See also_ Orarium, Stole

 Stole, 64, 182

 —— origin of, 72

 —— description of, 73, 75

 —— how worn, 74, 214

 —— symbolism of, 75

 —— ornamentation of, 151

 —— Spanish, 204

 —— worn by kings, 230

 —— baptismal, 222

 =Stolê=, 18

 Stolone, 215

 Subcingulum, 64, 214

 —— history of, 106 _et seqq._

 Subdeacons, insignia of, 28, 132, 214

 Subiaco, fresco at, 108

 Succinctorium. _See_ Subcingulum

 Sudarium, 50

 Superpellicea, 140.
   _See also_ Surplice

 Surplice, origin of, 140

 —— development and description of, 141

 —— varieties of, 141

 —— in England, 201

 —— in Scotland, 204

 —— when worn, 140, 217, 255

 Sweden, vestments in, 194

 Sylvester, Pope, decree respecting dress, 34-36, 47, 52, 81

 Symbolism, 56, 57, 68, 69, 70, 72, 75, 77, 79, 81, 85, 89,
   92-96, 102-105, 121, 123, 129, 131, 176, 180, 184, 187

 Symmachus grants a pallium, 51

 Synagogue models followed by Early Christians, 13

 Synod of Dublin, 169

 —— Fife, 210


 Tabard, 256

 Talith, 14

 Talmud quoted, 10

 Temple worship, 13

 Teraphim, 9

 Tertullian quoted, 114

 Theodore, Archbishop of Laureacus, 51

 Theodoret quoted, 17, 18

 Thomas of Canterbury, St, his chasuble, 86

 Tiara, 112

 —— papal, 119, 121

 Tippet, 254, 255

 Toga, 42, 45, 48

 —— university, 254

 Toledo, Council of. _See_ Council

 Transitional period of vestments, chap. ii

 Trebellius Pollio quoted, 29

 Trèves, Pope bears pastoral staff in, 132

 Tunic of linen, 4, 30

 —— of blue, 6

 —— monastic, 235

 Tunica Alba. _See_ Alba

 —— Dalmatica. _See_ Dalmatica

 —— Manicata, 32

 Tunicle, 64

 —— description of, 132

 —— by whom worn, 132, 214

 —— ornamentation of, 133, 153

 —— illegal in English church, 201


 University costume, 253

 Urban V. adds crown to tiara, 121


 Vakass, 176, 188

 Valerian quoted, 30

 Value of vestments, 164

 Vartabeds, insignia of, 189

 Velum, 245

 —— quadrigesimale, 228

 Verona, Bishops of, their privileges, 102

 Vestimentum parvolum in Gallican church, 29, 135

 Vesting, order of, 217, 231

 Vienne, Bishop of, rebuked, 26

 Vigilius, grant of a pallium by, 51

 Virgilius, Archbishop of Arles, 51

 Vopiscus, Flavius, quoted, 38


 Walafrid Strabo quoted, 62, 81

 Waldenses, vestments among, 206


 Zando, 177, 182

 =Zônê=, 176, 186, 191, 234

 Zosimio, Procurator of Syria, 30

 Zunnara, 190

 Zunro, 177, 186


THE END.


_Elliot Stock, Paternoster Row, London._






End of Project Gutenberg's Ecclesiastical Vestments, by R. A. S. Macalister

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS ***

***** This file should be named 56494-0.txt or 56494-0.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
        http://www.gutenberg.org/5/6/4/9/56494/

Produced by deaurider, Chris Pinfield, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)

Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive
specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook
for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports,
performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given
away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks
not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the
trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
1.E.8.

1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country outside the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
  most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
  restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
  under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
  eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
  United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you
  are located before using this ebook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
provided that

* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
  Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
  Literary Archive Foundation."

* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
  works.

* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
  receipt of the work.

* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The
Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org



Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the
mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its
volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous
locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt
Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to
date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

For additional contact information:

    Dr. Gregory B. Newby
    Chief Executive and Director
    gbnewby@pglaf.org

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.