century, who have attributed the use of it to S. Peter himself. It seems however to have been introduced about the fifth or sixth century into the Latin church from the East: and Thomassin has not been able to produce any example before the time of Cæsar of Arles about the year 500.10 The form of the pall is thus described by Innocent III. "Pallium fit de candida lana contextum, habet desuper circulum humeros constringentem, et duas lineas sive fascias ex eodem panno ab utraque parte dependentes: quatuor autem cruces purpureas, ante et retro, a dextris et sinistris: sed a sinistris pallium est duplex, simplex a dextris; cui in tres partes conciso tres acus infiguntur (spinas vocant alii) quibus consuitur." " Rupertus Abbas: for example. De div. off. lib. 1. cap. 27. Bibl. Patrum. Auct. tom. 1. p. 863. Catalani, nevertheless, does not fear to support him. In Cærem. Episc. tom. 1. p. 256. And he cites an epistle of Leo the Great, and a passage from Liberatus, to shew that S. Mark received the pall from S. Peter, and with it his patriarchal authority. In the numerous works of that author, we scarcely know which to admire the most; his learning, or his prejudice. 10 Compare Alberti, de sacris utensilibus, tom. 1. p. 6. "De Myst. Miss. lib. 1. cap. 63. The reader who wishes accurately to examine the subject, as to the first adoption of the pall, how it was originally a royal habit, the office of the benediction, 1. p. I quote the following from the third dissertation attached to the Liber Diurnus, before noticed. "Vox pallii apud Latinitatis autores vestem illam longam significat, quæ aliis indumentis impo It will be observed in the notes below, that an archbishop, if translated from one see to another, was obliged to apply to the court of Rome for a new pall: this was on account of the personal character which was attributed to that ornament. Hence Cœlestin III. decided, in his answer to an enquiry on the subject, quod non videatur esse conveniens, ut pallium tuum alicui commodes: cum pallium in personam non transeat, sed quisque debeat cum eo (sicut tua novit discretio) sepeliri."" 12 This is introduced into the rubric of the modern Roman pontifical. There are numerous accounts of the burying of archbishops in their vestments, to be found in their Acts, and in the Bollandists: but I remember only one English example in which the pall is expressly mentioned. Catalani says that we are to conclude that S. Dunstan was buried in his pall, because we are told that at the translation of his body, it was found, upon examination, that the ring was upon his finger and therefore the other vestments proper to his dignity. This seems a somewhat hasty inference.13 However, the following is clear enough: arch veral very ancient formulæ are given in the diurnal, upon occasions when the pall was sent from Rome to archbishops, p. 125. These also should be referred to. nitur, ut subinde assumatur cum prodeundum in publicum; deponatur, quando quisque domi apud se est. In sacris ornamentis vox illa ambiguam habet significationem; sumitur enim, aliquando pro veste sacra, quæ superinduitur, ut quod pluviale dicitur, quodque cappa et casula; aliquando pro insigni quodam dignitatis eximiæ, quod ipsi etiam cappæ casulæque imponitur, sicut pallium re- tom. 1. liquis vestibus, vel est pallii ornap. 368. mentum quoddam et decus." Se- Martene cites the following from 12 Cap. 3. x, de auctoritate et usu pallii. Van Espen. tom. 1. p. 171. See also Castaldus, Praxis Carem. lib. 1. §. x. cap. 12. 13 Comment. in pontif. Rom. p. 248. Martene. tom. 2. bishop Becket, the day after he was murdered, was hastily buried: still with regard had to certain solem vero ordinati cum illis indumentis in quibus fuerunt ordinati debent et sepeliri, et sacerdos cum illis cum quibus assistit altari, monachus vero cum cuculla sua, quod est professionis suæ signum. Super pectus vero sacerdotis debet poni calix loco sigilli, quidquid sit de oblata: quod si non habetur, stanneus saltem Samius, id est fictilis. Episcopus debet habere anulum, quia sponsus est: cæteri sacerdotes non, quia sponsi non sunt, sed amici sponsi vel vicarii. Item capilli debent clerico tonderi, corona fieri, barba radi.” 2. p. 368. Tom. A very detailed and interesting account of the ancient manner of burying and performing the obsequies of the abbots of S. Albans is given in Matt. Paris' lives, attached to his History. Speaking of one he says, after explaining the way in which the corpse had been previously prepared: "Portabatur igitur corpus a camera quæ dicitur abbatis, ubi expiraverat, in infirmariam; et ibidem pontificalibus est indutum: mitra capiti appositum, manibus chirothecæ, cum annulo, et dextro sub brachio baculus consuetus, manibus cancellatis, sandalia in pedibus decenter aptata." P. 1064. In the above, there is a reference to a custom or distinction, upon which I take this opportunity of making a remark, as I am not aware that it has been noticed by writers upon the subject. Matthew Paris says, that the pastoral staff was placed under the abbot's right arm. It is well known, that one distinguishing mark, between the mode of carrying this staff, by a bishop or by an abbot, was, that the first turned the crook outwards to denote his jurisdiction over a diocese, the other inwards, towards himself, to denote that his jurisdiction reached over the members only of his own House. But the first moreover carried his staff in his left hand, the latter in his right. And according to this rule, we find many effigies. For example, there is an early monument of an abbot of Westminster, in the cloisters, with his staff in the right hand: (the crook, by the way, outwards.) Again, there is a very interesting account, with a plate, in the Archæologia, of the discovery lately of the body of an abbot of Evesham, who died in 1263: it was found vested, with a nities: "amotis distributisque ejus quotidianis vestibus superioribus, sepultus est in ipso, in quo inventus est cilicio, et famularibus interius cilicinis, exterius lineis, et in eisdem caligis, et in ipso quo erat habitu monachali. Et supra hæc, in ipso eodem in quo ordinatus fuit vestimento, alba quæ Græce poderis dicitur, superhumerali simplici, chrismatica, mitra, stola, mappula: supra quæ habuit archiepiscopaliter tunicam, dalmaticam, casulam, pallium cum spinulis, calicem, chirothecas, Vol. chalice and paten; and reaching across the body, with the crook turned inwards, over the right shoulder and clasped by the right arm, lay the pastoral staff. 20. p. 566. See also the figure of Adam Islip, in Strutt's Regal Antiq. and another, in pl. LX. On the contrary, the seals and effigies of bishops represent them carrying the staff in the left hand: as, in Salisbury cathedral, the boy-bishop, and bishop Jocelyn. Or compare those in Stothard's monumental effigies. Before I close this note, I would remark that it has been said by some, that an abbot, ad differentiam, had a veil round his staff: this may have been true in some churches abroad, and Gavantus, tom. 1. p. 122, cites some acts of the church of Milan to that purpose: but I cannot say whether it was observed, as a distinction, in England. One thing is certain, that if it was, it was not confined to abbots: because the splendid effigy of bishop John de Sheppy, in Rochester cathedral, has the staff surrounded with a veil. Archaologia, vol. 25, p. 122. Neither probably was it the case with exempt abbots. Matthew Paris relates also the funeral solemnities of S. Hugh, bishop of Lincoln, in the year 1200. The kings of England and Scotland, three archbishops, and thirteen bishops, with a multitude of clergy, met the corpse. “Quod ipsi reges, cum comitibus et cæteris principibus portaverunt in humeris suis, usque ad atrium cathedralis ecclesiæ. Ad ostium autem ecclesiæ susciperunt illud archiepiscopi præfati et episcopi; et sic per ministerium prælatorum perlatum est usque in chorum, ubi est honorifice pernoctatum.Dum ipse more pontificum discooperta facie jaceret, mitram habens in capite, chirothecas in manibus, annulum in digito, cum cæteris pontificalibus ornamentis, etc." Hist. p. 172. annulum, sandalia, pastoralem baculum; quo consuetum est more, quo dignum est honore." 14 William of Malmesbury's account of the reception of his pall by archbishop Anselm is important: "Data ei publice potestate, ut per totum regnum primatus sui jus exerceret libere, dies præfixa, qua Albanensis episcopus cum pallio Cantuariam veniret, venienti, et sacrum insigne in vase argenteo deferenti vulgo applausum, ab archiepiscopo nudipede, sed sacerdotalibus vestimentis indutus occursum. Inde super altare Domini salvatoris pallium assumptum sacratus pontifex beatis humeris composuit, et ad divina celebranda processit.15" 14 Vita, a W. Stephanide. apud into it, proving how eagerly in Sparkes. p. 89. 15 De gestis Pontif. Ang. Edit. Savile, p. 125. The historian adds; "Erat tunc dies Dominica, 4. Idus Junii, fuitque nonnullis ingenti miraculo, quod idem evangelium illa die occurrit, quod ante prognosticon ejus fuerat." See below, p. 257, note 25. And compare the account in Eadmer, Hist. lib. 2. cap. 5. who adds; "Pater etiam ipse episcopis, qui ob hoc Cantuariam venerant, dextra lævaque stipatus ac sustentatus, sacro beati Petri muneri nudis pedibus devotus occurrit. Tali devotionis cultu, pallium assumptum est, atque ab omnibus suppliciter deosculatum." Although, as I have already said above, the origin of the pall, and its first adoption, as an ecclesiastical ornament, cannot be discovered, yet there is ample evidence, if it was necessary to go the middle ages, the bishops of Rome employed it, as an instrument to extend and support their usurpations, and to obtain revenues. Having steadily, as time went on, added now a little and then a little to the unjust claims which they made over the originally independent metropolitans of the English Church, among which the privileges which they pretended to convey or withhold with the pall, were not the least flagrant and unfounded; our histories, as Dr. Inett has said, "from the reign of Innocent III. downward, are very full of the oppressions and most horrible abuses and exactions, which were the consequences of such doctrines.” And he rightly characterizes them as "bold insults (to say no worse) on the rights and authority of the whole catholick church." Origines Anglic. vol. 1. p. 165. |