We have seen that there was a ceremonial in pre-Christian times on the
accession of an Emperor. The Church very naturally transformed this
inauguration ceremony into a Christian rite in much the same way as the
civil marriage ceremony was made religious by the addition to it of the
benediction of the Church. The accession of an Emperor was by the will
of God. The Church gave him her solemn benediction at the outset of
his career. It is the idea of a benediction rather than a consecration
that the earliest Eastern rites, and even the earlier Western rites,
seem to contemplate. At the same time the Church by her benediction
proclaimed the new Emperor as the chosen of God, thereby affording
a certain stability to his throne and in some degree offering some
assurance of peace to Empire and Church. The idea of a consecration
gradually evolved itself, and rapidly developed when the use of an
unction was introduced. We have seen that there is some uncertainty as to
the date of this introduction. St Gregory the Great not only speaks of
the anointing of rulers as a well-known fact, but certainly regards it
as being in some sort sacramental, just as St Augustine had long before
asserted that the Jewish unction conferred grace on its recipients[172].
Photius evidently regarded the Emperor as being in some way set apart
and solemnly consecrated by the inauguration rite. But there still
remained the practical idea of obtaining general recognition as Emperor
by the performance of the ceremony, for the Emperors were crowned
immediately on their accession. This idea is just as manifest in the
West as in the East. There we see that Pippin in his anxiety to obtain a
definite recognition and acceptance of his dynasty when the Merovingian
_fainéants_ were set aside, was anointed or consecrated on two different
occasions, by St Boniface, and secondly by the Pope himself, who came
across the Alps for the purpose. In the same way we find Richard I of
England being crowned a second time on his return from his captivity,
this second coronation being apparently regarded as necessary in view of
the fact that his brother John had acted at least as king _de facto_.
Henry II was crowned no less than three times. Henry III was crowned
twice. All these cases of repeated coronations were intended to procure
the firm establishment of the king upon his throne rather than for any
other reason. Or again a king might be held to have forfeited his throne
by some grievous crime, as in the case of Lothair II of Lotharingia, but
on amendment might be confirmed upon his throne by a reconsecration, as
was Lothair by Archbishop Hincmar.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account