9931

It is probable that our kings anciently knelt during the rite of unction, though I do not remember any express order to this effect earlier than the time of Henry VII. "The cardinal sitting, shall anoynte the king, kneeling. So also, in the "devyse" for the coronation of Henry VIII." which I shall have frequent occasion to quote: "The seid cardynall sittyng shall annoynte the king knelyng on quysshyns." On the other hand, it is to be remarked, that in the magnificent MS. of the coronation service of Charles V. of France," the illuminations represent the king, standing, at the anointing of the breast: whilst he kneels, with his vestment unlaced, during the prayers which immediately precede, and kneels again to be anointed on the hands.

After the anointing of the head, a linen coif or

was taken from his finger by the Confessor, says the Golden Legend, on an occasion when he had no other alms to bestow, "ne hys amener was not present," and given to a poor man, who afterwards proved to be S. John the Evangelist, and who returned the ring. This is gravely related by Ailred, Script. x. Tom. 1. p. 398, and by Hoveden in his Annals, edit. Savile. p. 256. Some writers make this ring to have been the one anciently used at coronations: but I do not see upon what grounds. For not only is it certain that such a ring was not always used, if ever; but also that the coronation ring was sometimes afterwards but little

regarded. Thus, a royal order of Henry VI., concerning some jewels, mentions, "A ryng of gold, garnyshed with a fayr rubie, sometyme geven unto us by our bel oncle the cardinal of Englande, with the whiche we were sacred in the day of our coronacion at Parys, delivered unto Matthew Phelip, to breke, and thereof to make an other ryng for the Quene's wedding ring." Rymer, Federa, Tom. 5. pars. 1. p. 139.

31 Ives' Select Papers.

32 Cotton MS. Tiberius. E.

viij.

33 Cotton MS. Tiberius. B. viij.

chrismale was put on and, as the reader will see in the notes to the Service below, this was ordered to be worn for seven days, and on the eighth to be removed by a bishop, or the abbot of Westminster, with the celebration of a proper mass. Ducange does not seem to have been aware of this use of the chrismale, as he explains its purpose only as another name for ampullæ, or coverings for relics, besides its more common acceptation with respect to the newly confirmed: of which I have already spoken in another part of this work." In the old account of the coronation of Henry VI. we find, after the anointing: "And then they leyd a certeyn softe thynge to all the places so annoynted. And on his hede dyd a white coyfe of silk, and so he went and lay viij dayes. And the viijth daye they shuld wasshe it of hym." Also in the "Devyse" for Henry VIII. "He shall put vpon the kyng's hed a coyfe, the same to be broughte to the grete chamberlayne whiche shall contynuelly abyde on the kings hed to the viijte daye next folowing, at whiche viij. dayes, after a solempne masse seyd by a Bisshop before the king, the seid Bishop shall take the coyf from the kyng's hed."

The consecration of chrism having, since the reformation, been discontinued, holy oil only has been used in succeeding coronations. I am quite unable to say by whom, or according to what office, the benediction of this oil has been performed, on late occasions.

34 Vol. 1. p. 36. Mr. Taylor cites an early example of the chrismale from the Saxon chronicle: (an. 878.) "Guthrum the Dane was baptized at Alre, and

hir chirm-lyring pæsær pedmor,' that is, his chrismal was taken off at Wedmore." Glory of regality. p. 193.

35

Sandford asserts in his account of James II.'s coronation, that the dean of Westminster, "early in the morning, with the assistance of the prebendaries, consecrated the holy oil for their majesties anointing: " but he supplies no particulars. Mr. Taylor 36 gives his decision, unsupported by any proof, that "it is of course set apart for the purpose to which it is designed with suitable acts of reverential solemnity:" and somewhat quaintly adds, "The formulary of its consecration hath not I believe been published." I do not feel obliged to offer any guesses upon what has hitherto, since the sixteenth century, been the practice: nor to state whether I believe or not, with Mr. Taylor, that the holy oil has been always beforehand set apart with "suitable acts of solemnity." I hope such has been the case. But I would express a wish, that when any future occasion demands a revision of our coronation order,-(from the necessity of which I earnestly trust and pray that God, of His goodness, may long preserve us)—a prayer of benediction of the oil may be inserted, to be said by the archbishop, or some bishop, after the service itself has commenced. It is not seemly, nor according to any ancient precedent, that it should be entrusted to the dean of Westminster, being an episcopal prerogative and duty.37

33

p. 91. And with this agrees another account, printed in 4to. 1760. p. 6.

36 Glory of regality. p. 352.

37 I would observe that the whole of the above paragraph, is founded upon the supposition that the consecration of the oil is not performed by the archbishop when

he says the prayer "O Lord, holy Father," and "lays his hand upon the ampulla." I do not mean to say that a designation of the oil to its particular purpose does not then take place, but that there is scarcely, what both theologians and ritualists would call, a consecration of it. The oil is

Here seems to be the proper place to remark upon a ceremony, which, in the late coronations of Queen Adelaide, and her present Majesty, has not been observed. I mean the anointing of the breast. This rite had been practised for nearly 800 years, for it does not appear to have been introduced until after the Conquest. The Roman pontifical did not adopt it and for this reason, if for no other, it is to be regretted that it has been, for a season, omitted; namely, because it appears to have been a solemnity peculiar to the Queens of England and France. I have been informed that it was not observed from a feeling of delicacy.

I would describe the mode of its ancient performance, from the illuminations in the coronation book of Charles V. of France. The second represents the Queen kneeling, with her robe laced; in the third, she is standing, surrounded and concealed by her ladies, whilst they unlace it; in the fourth, she kneels, her robe unlaced, before the archbishop; who anoints her, not with his finger, but with a golden reed or pencil; and in the mean-time, the ladies hold a thin veil before her.

It was from this anointing, whether upon the head or breast, or upon both, that our queens-consort are said, no less than kings, to be consecrated. As for example, Bromton in his chronicle, says of the queen of Henry I. quam Anselmus die sancti Martini coronavit, et in

afterwards called "holy oil," so that I do not correct my observations and argument in Vol. 1. p. celv. It is a strong evidence against this prayer being to be considered the Form of Conse

cration of the oil, that it occurs in the same place in the order for K. James II. when, as Sandford expressly states, the solemnity of the consecration had previously been completed.

reginam Angliæ consecravit." 38 This was so, from the earliest times of which we have any record: for, although it is well-known that for some period the Anglo-saxon queens were deprived of their dignity, in consequence of the crimes of Eadburga, in the beginning of the ninth century, yet there is reason to suppose that before that date they were crowned and anointed, as it is quite certain that from the time of Judith, the queen of Ethelwulf, and of the Order of K. Ethelred, they always have been.39

We find frequent allusion made in the old chronicles to the anointing of the queens of England, as well as of our kings, upon the breast: which evidently shews that it has been, since its adoption, looked upon as a very significant and solemn part of the ceremony. Thus, Grafton, in his account of Richard III. and queen Anne; "After diverse songes solemply song, they both discended to the high altare, and were shifted

38 Script. X. tom. 1. p. 998. Also Hoveden, edit. Savile. p. 268. "Quam Anselmus Dorobernensis archiepiscopus reginam consecravit."

39 Mr. Taylor, in his appendix, disputes the fact of the Anglosaxon queens having been crowned, before the time of queen Judith arguing from the circumstance, that no mention of their "coronation" is to be found, and that all the writers who relate the guilt of Eadburga, and the consequent abhorrence of the people, speak only of the royal dignity, and the title of Queen in general But I would rather take

terms.

the same view with the very learned writers Spelman, and Selden who both understand the actual coronation of the Saxon queens to have been an established ceremony, and for a season interrupted. The strongest argument in favour of Mr. Taylor's view, is one which he has not stated; viz. that the pontifical of Egbert does not give the Order for a Queen. I own this to be a difficulty, and leave the question to the judgment of the reader. He must consult the original passages in Asser, Florence of Worcester, Matthew of Westminster, and the Polychronicon, &c.