§ 1. Peter the Pseudo-Martyr, at chapter 19 of book 3 of Kings, is indignant that Christian Kings are anointed:
But since we are now speaking of anointings of this kind, to which the word of God was peculiarly added, I cannot sufficiently wonder why they were transferred to the Kings and Emperors of the Christians. I know that some say that the matter is political and can therefore be retained. But those who answer this way are deceived and deceive others. For it is held to be a religious ceremony; and for that reason it is performed in a temple, and is performed in a temple by none other than Bishops and Cardinals. It pleases me, indeed, that both Kings and Emperors should be publicly inaugurated by the votes and acclamations of the people, and especially with pious prayers interposed. But I do not think anointing should be recalled from the Jewish ceremonies. Much less do I approve that by which sacrificing priests and Bishops are anointed.
Yet he did not persuade even his own adherents that anointing should be neglected; for the Kings of Britain and others, lest they not be anointed—that is, Christs of the Lord—are anointed with oil when they are inaugurated into their kingdoms.
The error of this shadow-boxing Martyr arises from his supposing the anointing of Kings to be a Jewish ceremony and therefore not to be recalled, lest, of course, we should seem to be Jews. Consideration of Scripture could have freed him from this error. For in Judges 9 we read: הלוך הלכו העצים למשח עליהם מלך (Haloch halechu haghazim. Lemischach ghalehem melech): “Going, the trees went to anoint a King over themselves.” Jotham, the son of Gideon, speaks from the common manner of consecrating kings. For why does he say “to anoint,” if no Kings were anointed? Why τὸ χρῖσαι, and not τὸ ποιῆσαι, καταστῆσαι—“to make” or “to establish”?
Accordingly, in the time of the Judges, when there was not yet a King in Israel, the Kings of other nations were anointed. Indeed, in verse 9 the olive tree itself answers: “Can I abandon my fatness, בי יכבדו אלהים ואנשים”—by which both gods and men make use of me—or, as some have it, ἣν ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐδόξασεν ὁ θεὸς, καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι; “by which in me they honor Gods and men”? Junius and Tremellius interpret this as referring to the fact that oil is employed for sacrifices and for anointing Kings, Priests, and Prophets. Yet they did not correctly translate verse 8, for they rendered it, “They went to create a King over themselves”; by that translation they obscured the antiquity of a most beautiful rite.
It is therefore not a Jewish rite, but a rite of the Eastern Kings, although certain barbarous nations, such as the Persians and Medes, seem to have used other ceremonies. For the Kings of the Persians put on the robe of Cyrus, ate a cake of figs, tasted the terebinth, and drank a cup of sour milk, according to Plutarch in his Artaxerxes. Yet Cyrus is called the Christ of the Lord, and so I think that he was peculiarly anointed, and that this was done by the counsel of Daniel and the Israelites.
Second, he complains that Christian Kings are anointed without a word of God. If he had observed that this was a custom of the nations which the Hebrews imitated, he would no more accuse our Kings than the Eastern ones. For just as the Hebrews borrowed from the nations diadems, thrones, scepters, and other insignia, so too did they borrow the rite of anointing; and Christian Kings borrowed it from both. No sane man can judge that no ceremonies or rites are to be admitted into the state unless there is a special command expressed by God in the sacred writings. Next, the signification of anointing suits not only the kings of the Hebrews and Eastern nations, but also our own, who themselves are and are called Christs of the Lord.
My teacher Nicholas Serarius wrote most learnedly on this matter at chapter 10 of book 1 of Kings:
Concerning anointing, note first that it is not established whether among other peoples, and before this time, there was any anointing of Kings—unless in Judges 9:8 there seems to be an allusion to anointing which was already customary in those times, though not among the Jews, since they had never yet had a King, but among other nations; as at 3 Kings 19 and St. Jerome on Isaiah 45. Just as among us the diadem and purple are given only to Emperors, so among the Hebrews those about to reign were bathed in ointment. Hence Saul is also called Christ, and Cyrus at Isaiah 45.
Note second: the anointing was performed, first, with oil. Since there were two kinds of oil, sacred oil or ointment and common oil, and only Pontiffs and priests were anointed with the former, Exodus 29, Kings nevertheless could be anointed with either: with the sacred at 3 Kings 1, and with the common at 3 Kings 9. Some, such as Vatablus, think that Saul was anointed with sacred oil, because Samuel had caused it to be brought to himself from the tabernacle, or because he himself, as Pontiff and Prophet, had now consecrated it. Yet the Hebrews cited by him teach that only Kings from Judah and the house of David were anointed with the oil of anointing, but Saul with common oil because he was to be rejected; and Abulensis approves this opinion more strongly in question 1.
That oil was contained in the small vessel which the interpreter here and in book 4, chapter 9, translates as a “lentil,” not from anointing, as Abulensis wishes, but from its lentil-like shape, concerning which Pliny speaks in book 37, chapter 12. This is clear from the Greek name here, which is very similar to the Hebrew. It is sometimes called a horn, as below at chapter 16, and a lecythus at book 3, chapter 17. That ointment was poured upon the head of the King, as also upon that of the Pontiff, whereas the lesser priests were only sprinkled with it, Exodus 29. He was anointed sometimes by Prophets, when a King of this kind was still concealed and unknown; ordinarily, however, by the Pontiff, 3 Kings 1 and 2 Paralipomenon 23. It seems that it could sometimes also have been done by inferior priests, if the Pontiff was absent through death or illness, since the latter was also accustomed to be anointed by those inferiors. God was said to anoint through his ministers, as here at verse 1, or the people, as at 2 Kings 2.
No ceremonies, indeed, had been prescribed by divine law, but these were observed by certain human laws and customs. First, the future King was placed upon a seat. Second, he was adorned with a diadem, 2 Paralipomenon 23 and 4 Kings 11. Third, he was anointed. Fourth, the book of the law—that is, Deuteronomy—was put into his hands. Fifth, he swore to observe it. Sixth, sacrifices of every kind were made, 3 Kings 1 and here below at chapter 11, just as in Herodian, book 2. Seventh, various signs of joy and approval were displayed, 3 Kings 1, here at verses 25 and 27. I have spoken of the antiquity of the anointing of Kings at chapter 9 on Judges, question 10. But the Kings of the Persians put on the robe of Cyrus; and, after eating a cake of figs, they also tasted the terebinth and drank a cup of sour milk, according to Plutarch in Artaxerxes.
But there was a twofold reason why Kings were anointed in this way. The first was that, just as there was the highest excellence and dignity of the Pontiff among sacred ministers, so the highest excellence of the King among political princes might be signified, as Abulensis says in question 1. The second was to signify that grace and strength were given to them by God for the defense of religion and the Church, the people, and the inheritance of God, as Augustinus Triumphus explains in On Ecclesiastical Power, question 38, article 2. Chrysostom says in homily 4 on Acts:
Elisha received grace through a sheepskin cloak; another again through oil, as David did; but Moses is called through the fire of the bush.
The same author says in oration 3 against the Jews:
Whenever anyone was to be anointed, the spirit of grace flew down and sprang into the ointment.
And in homily 4 on Philippians: “Mercy is καὶ τῆς φιλανθρωπίας σύμβολον, also a symbol of benevolence”; and therefore Priests, Kings, and Prophets were anointed. St. Augustine, as cited by Father Gretser in Anti- page 525, says that Saul, although wicked, possessed the holiness of the sacrament and of anointing, but not that of innocence.
There could also have been a third cause: that they might signify the true King of the whole world, namely, the Messiah or Christ, concerning whose kingdom see St. Thomas, Bellarmine, Suárez, and others. “That stone,” says Augustine in chapter 6 of book 2 of On the Trinity, “which Jacob placed at his head, Genesis 28, also received anointing to signify the Lord, who is called the Rock.” How much more, then, did those Kings receive it? And if priests signified him by their anointing, why not Kings also? For he is Priest, King, and Prophet. By this anointing Kings were also made sacrosanct and were called Christs or Messiahs, below at chapters 24 and 26; book 2, chapter 1; 1 Paralipomenon 16; Psalm 104.
Note third. Hence the rite of anointing also began to be employed long ago among Christian Emperors and Kings, as is clear from chapter Venerabilem, Extra, title On Election; chapter Cum venisset, Extra, title On Sacred Anointing; Augustinus Triumphus; Aimoin, book 1, chapter 15, and book 5, chapter 49; Hincmar; and Forcatulus, book 6, On the Empire of the Gauls. And God approved the rite of this anointing by, as it were, a twofold miracle. First, by the heavenly gift and preservation of the ampulla which is kept at Reims, as Faye, Senator and President of Paris, writes in his Energumenicus that he himself had inspected it most diligently. Second, by the power which anointed Kings in Gaul possess to cure scrofula, as the same man writes in the same place, and as the Granatensis writes in book 2 of his Catechism, chapter 27; and, among the heretics, Caspar Peucer admits it in On Incantations, folio 156. Those who were present and saw it in the year 1607 affirm it.
Consult Polydore Vergil’s English History, book 8, on King Edward, and Peter of Blois, epistle 150, where he calls them scrofulas, because swine are liable to that disease; Pliny, book 11, chapter 17; Celsus, book 5, chapter 38.
On Emperors, see Bellarmine, book 1 of On the Transfer of the Empire, chapter 4, and book 2, chapter 2; Thomas Bozius, book 17, sign 76. “Formerly,” says Krantz in book 1 of his Metropolis, “Emperors did not permit Pontiffs to live; now he is not held to be Emperor whom the Roman Pontiff has not confirmed and consecrated. The earth is the Lord’s; he transfers kingdoms, and most worthily delegated this sacred mystery to his vicar on earth.” See also Castaldus, treatise On the Emperor, question 21 and following; Irenicus, book 2 of Germany, chapter 30. On the coronation of Charlemagne, see Constantine Manasses and Baronius, volume 9, from Thegan. Many things pertaining to this matter are found in the same Baronius, volume 8. Add Onuphrius, On the Assemblies and Insignia of the Ancient Emperors. “At Constantinople,” he says, “either under Justinian or after his death, this was added to the election of the Emperor: as soon as he had been declared Emperor, he was anointed with oil by the Patriarch of Constantinople in the great basilica of Byzantium and was crowned with a golden diadem. They called this rite coronation, taking the example from the ancient kings of the Hebrews.” And again on anointing, folios 395, 396, and following. See Stevanus, chapter 7, folio 36 verso.
There is therefore no reason why we should reject an ancient and approved rite or render it suspect.
§ 2. There is, I say, no reason why we should begrudge our Kings the symbol when we grant them the reality beyond it. Martyr himself concedes that it is a symbol:
The anointing of Kings was an external symbol by which was signified the spiritual faculty which, through his favor and kindness, was conferred by God upon a new King. It was a symbol of the power and grace by which he was to exercise his power, and of that which was chiefly sought in a King: victory and peace.
Thus at 2 Kings 1:21: “Because there the shield of the mighty was cast away, the shield of Saul, as though it had not been anointed with oil.” It is as if he were saying that he ought not to have been conquered and killed, since he had been anointed with oil. Anointing, therefore, was a symbol that Kings, as men consecrated to God and judging in the place of God, were sacrosanct and inviolable.
Hence David ordered the Amalekite to be killed, 2 Kings 1:14: “Why were you not afraid to put forth your hand to kill the CHRIST OF THE LORD?” And at verse 16: “Your blood be upon your own head; for your mouth has spoken against you, saying: I killed the CHRIST OF THE LORD.”
For this reason David is afraid to kill the King who is his enemy, because he is the Christ of the Lord, 1 Kings 24:7 and 11, and 26:9: “For who shall put forth his hand against the Christ of the Lord and be innocent?” and verse 23. Indeed, David even grieved that he had inflicted the least injury upon the Christ of the Lord, 1 Kings 24:5:
David therefore arose and silently cut off the edge of Saul’s cloak. After these things David’s heart struck him because he had cut off the edge of Saul’s cloak. And he said to his men: May the Lord be gracious to me, lest I do this thing to my lord, the Christ of the Lord, that I should put forth my hand against him, because he is the Christ of the Lord.
Hence arose the custom that suppliants should carry olive branches before them; for to a branch of leafy olive they joined fillets and the words of petitioners, so that they might show that they sought peace and were inviolable. Nations were rarely so barbarous that they violated ambassadors of peace. And if they were unwilling to pardon the suppliants, they nevertheless by no means killed those who carried olive branches, but sent them back into the city with their object unaccomplished, there to undergo the same fortune as their fellow citizens.
For this reason Kings should now be anointed especially, after new heresies have brought forth so many plotters against Kings.
§ 3. The use of anointing was also ancient in the Christian state. Clovis was anointed in Gaul, and from this the King of France possesses preeminence among Christian kingdoms. Charlemagne was anointed by Leo, as the Deacon writes in book 24, and indeed from his head all the way to his feet. Manasses also describes it:
ἔνθεν ἀμειβόμενος δὲ τὸν Κάρολον ὁ Λέων ἀναγορεύει κράτορα τῆς πάλαι πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης, ὃς δὲ τὸν στέφει περιτίθησιν νόμοις Ῥωμαίων, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ χρησάμενος καὶ νόμοις Ἰουδαίων, ἐκ κεφαλῆς μέχρι ποδῶν ἐλαίῳ τοῦτον χρίει, οὐκ οἶδα τίσι λογισμοῖς, ἢ ποίαις ἐπινοίαις, οὕτω δ’ ἡ τῶν δυοῖν σεβασμίων πόλεων ἐρράγη.
Then Leo, repaying the favor, declares Charles Emperor of ancient Rome and surrounds him with a diadem in accordance with Roman laws. Indeed, employing even the laws of the Jews, he anoints him with oil from his head all the way to his feet. For what reasons or according to what thoughts I do not know. Thus for the first time the bond between the cities—namely, Constantinople and Rome—was broken. So says the Greek scoffer.
They are customarily anointed by Bishops, just as the ancient Kings were by Priests or Prophets. Gregoras writes in book 2 that Justinian established that that city should live by its own laws, but on condition that it should not anoint the Kings of the Romans, for this was granted by the laws to another.
Theodore Angelus assumed for himself the name of Emperor, and Gregoras adds: χρίεται βασιλικῶς παρὰ τοῦ τηνικαῦτα τὴν τῆς Βουλγαρίας ἐπισκοπὴν διιθύνοντος. And he is anointed in royal fashion by the man who at that time administered the Bishopric of Bulgaria.
Royal anointing is a distinction of great honor. For that reason, in title 4 of the Golden Bull, the King of Bohemia has the first place of sitting among the Secular Electors after the Emperor, since he is a crowned and anointed Prince. So the Latin text reads; but the German text has: Wann er ein gesalbter vnd gekrönter König ist—“if he is an anointed and crowned King.”
Indeed, at Constantinople a man was not regarded as Emperor until after anointing, and he was consecrated in the church. Nicetas says in book 1: Ταινίᾳ αὐτὸν ἐν νεῷ χρίει τῷ αὐτοκρατορικῷ στεφώματι πατριάρχης, ὃς καὶ χρίει ἱερὰ εἰσερχόμενον μέλαθρα. The Patriarch crowns him—Manuel—with the imperial diadem and also anoints him as he enters the sacred edifice.
Inauguration is the public and solemn transmission of a kingdom. See Alexander, Days of Various Knowledge, book 1, chapter 28; Olaus Magnus, History of the Northern Peoples, book 14, chapter 5.
§ 4. The diadem has been customary for all Kings, so much so that even now kingdoms and empires are called crowns. Crowns have been various; but the most ancient were ribbons or white bands. “Accursed band,” a Queen said after she had made a noose from it and it broke when she attempted to hang herself, “not even now are you of any use.”
Hence Favonius stirred up ill will against Pompey, according to Varro, book 6, chapter 2. For when Pompey had a leg bound with a white bandage, Favonius said that it made no difference on what part of the body he wore the diadem. Lucian calls Alexander διαδεδεμένον ταινίᾳ λευκῇ τὴν κεφαλήν, having his head bound with a white band. Silius calls it a fillet in book 16.
Later purple was added. Curtius in book 6 attributes to Alexander a purple diadem distinguished with white. Among the Constantinopolitans in later centuries it was made of purple alone; Nicetas in his Alexius calls it πορφυρᾶν.
Later gems and gold were added. Hence Cedrenus calls it ταινίαν χρυσοπόρφυρον, a purple-and-gold band. Suger, in the life of Louis the Fat, calls it Phrygian ornament.
Afterward the diadem itself was made of gold, as Claudius did according to Dio, and as Cedrenus relates concerning Theodosius. Constantine added brighter gems. Cedrenus says: Πρῶτος ταινίῳ διαδήματι ἐχρήσατο, καὶ μαργάροις, καὶ λίθοις περιεργότερον—he was the first to use a diadem and adorned it more elaborately with pearls and gems. Now the crowns of all kingdoms are heavy with gold and gems and often contain the revenue of provinces.
§ 5. Sometimes Kings wore only the diadem or band; sometimes a diadem bound around a cap. And this is what Philo writes in his Life of Moses: Eastern Kings use the cidaris as a diadem. The cidaris is a cap, straight, high, and as it were turreted; it had cheek-pieces in front and fillets behind; around its middle ran a white band bright with little stars.
They therefore did not wear the cidaris in place of a diadem, but wore the diadem upon the cidaris. Xenophon states it plainly in book 8 of the Cyropaedia: ὁ Κῦρος εἶχε διάδημα περὶ τῇ τιάρᾳ. Cyrus had a diadem around his tiara. Zonaras, in his Basil, relates that it was commonly called a tupha. Ambition afterward added rays. Statius says in book 7 of the Thebaid:
May he himself impress high upon your hair the radiant arc.
And Virgil:
Twice six golden rays encircle his gleaming temples.
Such were those which were called καμηλαύκια. Such was the Macedonian causia bound with a crown.
§ 6. Just as the name of King was hateful to the Romans, so also the diadem was assumed late. Julius, to be sure, refused it; but in ancient times a great part of dignity lay in it.
The King of the Ammonites had a diadem weighing a talent of gold and bearing very precious gems, and it was placed upon the head of David, 2 Kings 12:30. That diadem could not be borne by the King, but had to be placed upon his head in such a way that it was supported by attendants.
§ 7. Let these things have been said concerning a band that is noble rather than happy. Meanwhile pious Kings perceive what one man said—whether it was Seleucus, as Plutarch says in his book On the Delays of Divine Vengeance, or Antigonus, as Stobaeus says in discourse 47, or perhaps both agreed in so manifest a truth.
Seleucus, contemplating the diadem, said: “O band, noble rather than happy! If anyone knew thoroughly how full of cares it is, he would not lift it from the ground even if it lay there silently.” And Antigonus said to an old woman who admired royal felicity: “O mother, if you knew in how many evils that little band is wrapped, you would not even take it from a dungheap.” The matter of the robe and purple is too well known for it to need treatment; let us therefore gird ourselves for other matters.