§ 1. Among the ancients there was moderation in titles, until the appellations of greater men, attributed to lesser men, compelled them to decree new flatteries to those more worthy of honor. Emperors were especially delighted by these titles: that they should be called Pious, Clement, Mild, Tranquil, Best, Serene, Fortunate, Lofty, Greatest, Lords, Triumphant, Augusti, Antonini, Flavii; or that they should be named from conquered nations—Germanicus, Dalmaticus, Parthicus—and this either separately or with the crowning addition of flattery: Germanicus Maximus, and so forth.
Now we address no Prince except in superlatives: Most Clement, Most Invincible, Most Illustrious, Most Serene. This also is not without the example of the ancients. St. Leo writes to the Emperor Leo in these words: Τῷ ὑπερενδόξῳ, καὶ γαληνοτάτῳ υἱῷ Λέοντι αὐγούστῳ. εὐσεβέστατε βασιλεῦ, ὑπερενδοξότατε καὶ ἡμερώτατε. ἡ σὴ ἡμερότης, καὶ εὐλάβεια. “To the most glorious and most serene son Leo Augustus. Most sacred, most glorious, most mild; your mildness and prudence.”
They were among the first to claim the title of piety, so that they were called εὐσεβεῖς. Antoninus was the first to be called by the cognomen Pius, although others had been so called before Antoninus. Yet the ancients and the Christians were called Pious for different reasons: the former from superstition or affection toward country and parents, as “pious Aeneas”; our men from zeal for true religion. Later we read in nearly all inscriptions: “Pious, Fortunate, εὐσεβής, εὐτυχής.”
All men, even though they were cruel, loved the title of clemency and mildness, provided that they were not wholly barbarous. Mildness and tranquility pertain to the same thing; the latter was peculiar to the Kings of the Goths. Cassiodorus says in book 6: “They are called Most Tranquil because, themselves unmoved, they rule and compose with the countenance of law the greatest tempests of affairs.” Marcus the Philosopher and Alexander Severus were especially called the Best.
Serenity, or Humanity, which the Greeks call γαληνότης, belongs to the ornament of mildness and clemency. For the countenance of a Prince ought to be like the sun, so that the spirits of his subjects may be gladdened and may hope. The title ὁ ὄγκος, καὶ ὑψηλότης, or Highness, was somewhat more unusual. But it is now exceedingly customary among Christian Princes, and it was taken from the Apostle, Romans 13:1, where they are called ἐξουσίαι ὑπερέχουσαι, supereminent powers. For this is indicated by the word “Highness.”
The proud name “Greatest” has now almost ceased, as has that of “Triumphant”; “Augustus” and “Lord” have endured continually. Titles derived from conquered nations were at first based upon truth, but later upon flattery. Theudebert, King of Francia, judged it intolerable that Justinian the King should call himself in his royal edicts “Francicus, Alemannicus, Gepidicus, Longobardicus,” as though he had reduced those nations to servitude, according to Agathias, book 1. Now, in addition to ordinary and common titles, the King of Gaul is called Most Christian, the King of Spain Catholic, and the King of Britain Defender of the Faith.
Most pleasing of all was that they should be called Fathers of the Fatherland—if they were so called by a free fatherland, not an oppressed one. Rome indeed once so named Cicero, but later forcibly brought monsters of Princes to the same degree of honor. It began with Cicero; but Julius, an oppressor of the fatherland, seized so honored a title while Cicero was still alive. Augustus, who betrayed Cicero, the father of the fatherland, to his enemies, appropriated the same name, book 1 of Deeds. But flattery—servitude—did not remain within moderation:
Long ago, says Naso, you were the father of the world.
Hence in Horace he is “Father of cities,” book 3, Ode 4; and Statius says in book 4 of the Silvae: “Hail, great parent of the world.”
The ancients also appear to have rejoiced in a not dissimilar honor; hence the Kings of Palestine were called “My Father, the King.” For this reason some think that Pharaoh bestowed this title upon Joseph, Genesis 41:42: “And he caused him to ascend upon his second chariot, while the herald proclaimed that all should bend the knee before him.” For many interpret אברך in this way, as if “tender father” were said. The Chaldean has רבא אבא דמלכא, “that father of the King,” for they say that רך in Arabic signifies a King. But more learned men agree with our interpreter that כרע is placed there and that the bending of the knees is indicated.
Otherwise, that Joseph was called Pharaoh’s father is sufficiently indicated by chapter 45, verse 8: “Who made me as a father to Pharaoh.” And that appellation was frequent in the East. Thus the servants of Naaman the Syrian say in 4 Kings 5:13: “Father, if the thing were great,” and so forth. For it is pleasing to peoples and to a household to exchange the name of Prince and Lord for the appellation of father.
§ 2. An eminent form of worship shown to Kings and Princes lay in the honor of statues. In this matter, indeed, honor afterward attributed to a creature was due to God alone. For although love and civil veneration gave rise to statues, it nevertheless declined into idolatry. Wisdom 14:15 says:
For a father, grieving with bitter sorrow, made for himself an image of his son who had quickly been taken from him; and him who had then died as a man, he now began to worship as a God, and he established sacred rites and sacrifices among his servants. Then, as time intervened and the wicked custom became established, this error was kept as a law, and images were worshiped at the command of tyrants.
Nor was there another reason why the King placed the statue in the plain of Dura—or, as Josephus says, ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ τῆς Βαβυλῶνος πεδίῳ, in the great plain of Babylon—than that he himself might be worshiped in his own image. So Jerome says on Daniel 3:1. For this reason so solemn a dedication of the statue is instituted, and for this reason the furnace is kindled: that all might be compelled to adore the new Divinity.
Nebuchadnezzar followed the earlier King of the same name, concerning whom Judith 3:13 says: “For King Nebuchadnezzar had commanded him to destroy all the Gods of the earth, so that he alone might be called God by those nations which could be subjected by the power of Holofernes.” Tyrants had learned these things from the more ancient Belus and others whom power raised to an opinion of divinity.
That divine honors were sought in the statue was taught by the constancy of Daniel’s companions, who said, “We do not adore the golden statue which you have erected,” and by the miracle through which they were protected in the furnace.
Next, because it was a Colossus, it was sixty cubits in height and six cubits in width, by which he wished to show that he was greater than the human condition. For if the cubits were common ones, this statue contained the height of fifteen men. If they were Babylonian cubits, which exceeded the common cubit by three digits, its length was 67½ cubits, and it had the height of nearly seventeen men.
For no other reason did the statues of the Gods exceed human height by almost three times, while those of Heroes were twice as great as ordinary statues. Therefore the vast statue of the King of the Chaldeans raised him above the Gods. Nero placed his own countenance upon the Colossus of Chares, which was 107 feet high; Vespasian removed it and placed the head of the Sun upon it.
Indeed, the adoration of images of Emperors in cities seems to have passed down from the Chaldeans. Philostratus relates in book 1 of the Life of Apollonius that an image of the Emperor was customarily displayed at the gate of Babylon and adored by those entering.
For because the Romans could not travel throughout the Empire, they used to send images to the cities. Thus the images of Constantine the Great were received at Rome; thus at Aquileia were those of Maximus, Balbinus, and Gordian, according to Herodian, book 8.
Yet this honor and superstition existed especially in the camps. For the images of the Caesars were adored among the eagles and standards, according to Suetonius, Caligula, chapter 14.
Soldiers and provincials alike honored the images of Princes with crowns, flowers, and acclamations; according to Tacitus, book 14, they received them with wax candles and incense. They were called λαυράτα, or laurata, and were also affixed to military standards. See Suetonius, Tiberius, chapter 48; Vegetius, book 2, chapter 6; Tacitus, book 4. They also worshiped them at home. Martial says in book 10:
This portrait of mine, which is worshiped with violets and roses.
There was recourse to them as to an asylum; the overturning, befouling, and insulting of them were referred to the crime of injured majesty.
All these things can be tolerated, and many of them praised, if the adoration of latria is absent; if men do not sacrifice to them with incense and unmixed wine, as Pliny reports was customarily done in his letter to Trajan; if a rayed head is not represented as a symbol of divinity; and if a golden seat is not placed among the Gods.
Amid these things I am pleased to behold and deplore the vanity of human pride, when I ponder within myself at what expense and with what labor so many thousands of statues were erected to Princes, although scarcely any now appear, and those with doubtful countenances. The envy of successors or the most free indignation of peoples has worn most of them away.
§ 3. Now the statues of Princes and magnates in part remain, and in part have been changed into hereditary insignia. Such is now the religious regard given to the statues of Princes that every cult of divinity is absent. For they are placed either in public, profane places or in churches, and in no place do they receive any veneration other than civil.
Following the example of Constantine the Great, statues are set up in this manner. Eusebius says in book 4 that Constantine was depicted standing in the palace at the gates, in images placed in the upper vestibule, with eyes raised to heaven and hands spread in the posture of one praying.
The same Constantine ordered his images to be placed in churches, as Paul the Deacon attests in book 1—namely, in the posture of one praying, which most now imitate, and with laudable piety. For in this way they attest their faith. If Julian endeavored to prove his apostasy by his image, why should orthodox Princes not attest their constancy and true religion in this way? Julian arranged for Jupiter to be depicted in his images as though appearing from heaven and delivering the crown and the purple, the insignia of Empire. In the same panel were Mars and Mercury, looking on and by their gaze approving the Emperor as one preeminent in war and eloquence.
And these things are done publicly. In private, however, images of Princes are customarily given and carried very widely, with coins struck for this purpose—not coins which serve for commerce and contracts, but monuments of a Prince’s friendship.
§ 4. In the place of images there have generally succeeded what they call insignia, or in German arms. For these are impressed upon coinage, are added to all images, and are inscribed as an indication of jurisdiction. Citadels, bridges, tollhouses, and the boundaries of regions are marked with them; and just as formerly, when images were admitted or cast down, it was a sign of men accepting or rejecting governments, so now the same obtains with these insignia.
They derive their first origin from Egyptian hieroglyphics; I prefer to derive them from the Prophets of the Hebrews, among whom their use was frequent. Reuben is water poured out; Judah a lion’s whelp; Issachar a strong ass; Dan a serpent in the way, a horned serpent in the path; Naphtali a hart let loose; God the stone of Israel, Genesis 49. Joseph is like the beauty of a firstborn bull; his horns are the horns of a rhinoceros. Gad rests like a lion; Dan is a lion’s whelp, Deuteronomy 33. Later Daniel likens four monarchies to the same number of metals, chapter 3; then the Holy Spirit expresses four kingdoms by four beasts, chapter 7.
Hence, therefore, the Romans had Eagles and Dragons; hence the standards of the legions and the insignia of shields. For Virgil sufficiently shows that shields and bucklers were sculpted when he describes the shield of Aeneas, which Aeneas, ignorant of the events but rejoicing in the image, raised upon his shoulders, and upon it the fame and deeds of his descendants. And in Christian times:
Christ marked the labarum; he had painted Christ as the insignia of the shields.
And hence came the ambitious insignia of nobility. The power to paint upon shields either the image of the Emperor, or one’s own image, or some hieroglyphic by which men displayed their spirit, virtue, or deeds excellently performed in war, was granted by Commanders; otherwise a man served among the common soldiers,
inglorious, with a white shield.
These insignia were also customary among the Carthaginians. Hasdrubal’s silver shield with his own image was found, according to Livy, book 25.
They also sealed letters with these insignia, although this was once a matter of choice. For Augustus varied his seal:
The Divine Augustus, at the beginning, sealed with a Sphinx. He had found two among his mother’s rings, alike in a similarity that could not be distinguished. During the civil wars, while he was absent, his friends sealed letters and edicts—which the circumstances of the times required to be issued in his name—with the other, not without the recipients’ witty jest that the Sphinx brought riddles. Indeed, even the frog of Maecenas was greatly feared because of the levying of money. Augustus afterward, in order to avoid reproaches about the Sphinx, sealed with an image of Alexander the Great.
Later Princes sealed with an image of Augustus, which he had engraved upon a gem. Thus the manner of sealing changed, as Pliny relates in book 37, chapter 1 of the Natural History. In that matter this also is remarkable: the man of Intercatia, whose father Scipio Aemilianus had killed after a challenge, used as his seal an image of that combat. This gave rise to the well-known jest of Stilo Praeconinus: “What, then, would he have done if Scipio had been killed by his father?” But you, reader, what do you think those men did who earned praise through some conspicuous deed, when we see all their stones filled with the insignia of a centurionate, decurionate, or tribunate; of the reception of a naval or mural crown; of a citizen saved; and of other boasts of military affairs—stones which afterward passed to their heirs together with the gems and rings?
And let these things suffice concerning the insignia of Princes, which formerly were not customary in the manner in which they are now. Yet it is established that the Gods had definite insignia: Jupiter his thunderbolt, Pallas her aegis, Hercules his club, Mercury his caduceus, and others theirs.
And Pliny, our faithful authority on antiquity—even when he relates things scarcely credible—prudently intimates this in book 37, chapter 1:
After this ring, there is a royal fame belonging to the gem of that Pyrrhus who waged war against the Romans. For it is related that he possessed an agate upon which the nine Muses and Apollo holding a lyre could be seen—not by art, but because the markings of nature spontaneously ran in such a way that their respective insignia were rendered even to each one of the Muses.
The man who believes this may, with my permission, also believe that Apollo was heard singing with the Muses from the same gem, and that by that harmony Augustus was conducted into heaven by the Appian Way. I note only this: each Muse had her own insignia.
Triumphal arches, trophies, pyramids, and honored inscriptions can be joined to these things; many of them are also now in use. Laevinus Torrentius, a Prelate as learned as he was prudent, indeed records that most monuments of wicked Emperors were formerly erased and altered, and that many marbles can be seen at Rome from which the name of Domitian has been erased. Suetonius attests that this was done, chapter 23.
§ 5. Even in ancient times it had been customary for fire to be carried before Kings. That was a Persian rite, which nevertheless I think was taken from the fire of the Hebrews.
When the camp was moved, they carried before it an image of the sun enclosed in crystal and the sacred fire which they called eternal, and this upon silver altars. Nor was such a man lacking to the Greeks in battle: Pollux and Suidas call him the πυρφόρος, the fire-bearer, who carried laurel and crowns. Indeed, before trumpets were invented, λαμπαδοφόροι, torch-bearers, scattered fire and kindled torches, so that in this way they might at the same time kindle the battle.
Why the Persians carried fire before them is not easy to conjecture. Perhaps it was because fire is ἁγνιστικόν, purificatory, and renders all things pure. But it is more probable either that fire was worshiped by the Persians, as it was by the Chaldeans—this is gathered from the deed of Darius, who, as he went round the battle line, prayed to the Sun, Mars, and the sacred and eternal fire—or that the most likely beginning was this: fire might always be at hand for those wishing to sacrifice. That they did not use any fire whatsoever is sufficiently established from their history. Yet that custom flowed from the laws of the Hebrews. At Leviticus 10:1 and 16:1 it was not lawful to offer strange fire; and in 2 Maccabees 1, from verse 18, we read:
Since we are therefore about to celebrate the purification of the temple on the twenty-fifth day of the month Caslev, we judged it necessary to signify this to you, so that you too may keep the day of the feast of tabernacles and the day of the fire which was given when Nehemiah, after the temple and altar had been built, offered sacrifices.
For when our fathers were being led into Persia, the Priests who were then worshipers of God secretly took fire from the altar and hid it in a valley where there was a deep and dry well; and there they made it secure, so that the place was unknown to all.
But when many years had passed and it pleased God that Nehemiah should be sent by the King of Persia, he sent the descendants of those Priests who had hidden it to seek the fire. As they related to us, they did not find fire but thick water. He ordered them to draw it and bring it to him; and Nehemiah the Priest ordered the sacrifices which had been laid upon the altar, and the wood and the things placed upon it, to be sprinkled with that water. When this had been done and the time arrived at which the sun, which before had been in a cloud, shone forth, a great fire was kindled, so that all marveled.
All the Priests were making prayer while the sacrifice was consumed, Jonathan beginning and the others responding. Nehemiah’s prayer had this form: Lord God, creator of all, terrible and strong, just and merciful, who alone are the good King, alone excellent, alone just and omnipotent and eternal; who free Israel from every evil; who chose the fathers and sanctified them: receive the sacrifice for all your people Israel, and guard your portion and sanctify it. Gather our dispersion; free those of us who serve the nations; look upon those who are despised and abominated, that the nations may know that you are our God. Afflict those who oppress us and act against us with pride. Establish your people in your holy place, as Moses said.
The Priests sang hymns until the sacrifice had been consumed. But when the sacrifice had been consumed, Nehemiah ordered the larger stones to be drenched with the remaining water. When this had been done, a flame was kindled from them, but it was consumed by the light which shone forth from the altar. When the matter was made manifest, it was reported to the King of the Persians that water had appeared in the place where the Priests who had been carried away had hidden the fire, and that with it Nehemiah and those who were with him had purified the sacrifices.
The King, considering the matter and examining it diligently, made a temple for it, so that he might prove what had happened; and when he had proved it, he gave many good things and various gifts to the Priests, taking them with his own hand and distributing them to them. Nehemiah called that place Nephtar, which is interpreted “purification.”
This history, known to the Kings of the Persians, could therefore have been a reason why they wished to preserve, carry about, and in some manner honor fire. Our Serarius, most learned in divine and human matters, weighed the matter accurately in his Harmony of the Maccabees, on chapters 1 and 2 of book 2, minor question 14.
First, the King of the Persians diligently examined the matter. Then “he made a temple,” says Lyranus—either he made a temple properly so called, as Darius did at Ezra 6, or improperly, namely, he adorned one already made, as Artaxerxes did. But Genebrardus says in his notes that some sacred building, such as the sheep-pool at John 5 and in Bede on 2 Ezra, was then erected.
In the same sense the Greek ἱερόν could be taken adjectivally: he made that place sacred, so that what had previously been a profane well might now contain some veneration and worship of God, as the commentator on the new translation also says. It contributes not a little to this exposition that the King is said to have enclosed and consecrated that place—Greek περιφράξας. Hence in the Latin at verse 34 there appears to have been, not “considering,” but “consecrating,” “enclosing,” or certainly “shutting up.”
For otherwise this act of enclosure would be omitted in that text, and the Greek δοκιμάσας would be translated by more words than is fair when “examining the matter diligently” is added. Furthermore, places of this kind, being religious—such as groves, asylums, and the like—admit even the name of temples, which our interpreter uses. Thus Virgil too said in book 8 of the Aeneid: “The craggy rocks, temples of Bacchus.”
Third, he treated the Priests well and gave them with his own hand many diverse things which he received from his treasures. But τὰ διάφορα could also be taken as though it were τὰ διαφέροντα, that is, excellent and distinguished things, or better and more excellent things, as at Romans 2 and Hebrews 1:4: “By how much he inherited a name more excellent than theirs.”
But did the King do these things because of Persian opinions concerning fire? So great is the goodness of God that, as St. Augustine says, he elicits good even from evils.
Since fire had descended from heaven, as has already been noted above and is recorded in the Scriptures, the Gentiles fabricated stories that fire had sometimes fallen or been kindled among them also by divine power: in Pliny, book 2, chapter 110; Servius on book 12 of the Aeneid; and most of all among the Persians in Ammianus, book 23. They too possessed a sacred and perpetual fire, and many fire-temples and τὰ πυρεῖα, as Cedrenus calls them in his life of Chosroes. God now converted this opinion—or rather this superstition—of the Persian King to good, and caused his true work and benefaction to be praised and honored even by a barbarian.
This custom therefore appears to have flowed from the Hebrews, although we read that others also had a regard for fire; see Rhodiginus, book 15, chapter 15. We likewise read among the Greeks that barbaric honors were rendered to this element by the Medes and Assyrians—not, surely, through religion, but rather through fear of a most destructive thing which consumes everything. Porphyry writes—as I think I have related elsewhere—that fire can suitably be consecrated to the Gods who are within heaven, whether they wander in a certain course or do not wander, whose leader must be regarded as first the Sun and then the Moon, because it is, as it were, a kindred thing. But, to insert something concerning our religion into these labors of ours: throughout all the Churches of the East, when the Gospel is to be read, they light lamps even while the sun is shining—not, certainly, to drive away darkness, but to demonstrate a sign of joy.
Dino, in Clement, says that the Persians possessed no image of their Gods, because they considered fire and water alone to be images of the Gods.
That honor was transferred to the Roman Emperors. Τοῦ λαμπαδαρίου, that of the lamp-bearer, was an ordinary office of the court of Constantinople; for not a brazier, but a lamp or lantern, was carried before them. Codinus says: τοῦ δὲ λαμπαδαρίου κατέχοντος τοῦ μεγάλου δομεστίκου τὸ ἀξίωμα, τὸ θεῖον μύρον μεθ᾽ ἡμμένης λαμπάδος φέροντος—the lamp-bearer bearing the divine ampulla together with a lighted lamp. The Imperial lamp was encircled by two little crowns, and that of the Augusta and Patriarch by one. I think that the earlier Emperors had braziers, and that what Herodian says concerning Pertinax in book 1 is to be understood in this way: “He did not permit fire to be carried before him or any other insignia of Empire to be raised.” Commodus granted this to his sister; to his concubine Marcia he gave all the privileges of an Augusta except the fire, according to Herodian, book 1. Now that ceremony has entirely ceased, except that they are sometimes received with torches. That this was customary formerly is clear from Judith 3:10, for they received Holofernes with crowns and lamps. Festive thunderings of cannon have succeeded to their place. But the insignia of Empire are carried before the ruler as prescribed in title 22 of the Golden Bull:
To declare the order of the Princes Electors in procession in the presence of the Emperor or King of the Romans while he walks—a matter of which we made mention above—we decree that whenever, in the celebration of an Imperial court, the Princes Electors happen to walk in procession with the Emperor or King of the Romans in any acts or solemnities whatsoever, and the Imperial or Royal insignia must be carried, the Duke of Saxony, bearing the Imperial or Royal sword, shall immediately precede the Emperor or King and shall be placed between him and the Archbishop of Trier. The Count Palatine, bearing the Imperial orb on the right side, and the Margrave of Brandenburg, bearing the scepter on the left side of the Duke of Saxony, shall proceed in a straight line. But the King of Bohemia shall immediately follow the Emperor or King himself, with no one intervening.
§ 6. It was also rendered to the honor of Princes that no one should approach or receive them without a gift. But that belonged to the Persians; in the Roman state, and now in the Christian state, the custom has become obsolete. In the same way New Year’s gifts were given to Emperors. Gifts were sent to Augustus even in his absence at the Capitol, according to Suetonius, chapter 57; they were brought to Caligula at his seat, according to Dio, book 56. He both issued an edict and stood to receive them, Suetonius, chapter 42. Tiberius acted better: he was accustomed to repay them fourfold, a custom which Princes now commonly imitate.
§ 7. The birthdays of Princes are also publicly celebrated, a custom which has now so ceased that their birthdays are scarcely known. Martial prefers Domitian’s birthday to that of Jupiter in his cradle:
Kindly day of Caesar, more sacred than that light
Which Ida, knowing what she bore, brought forth Dictaean Jove.
There is something similar in Plato’s Alcibiades. But after the firstborn who succeeds to the kingdom is born, at first all who are under the kingdom celebrate that day; and thereafter all Asia annually observes the King’s birthday with sacred rites and festivities. But when someone is born among us, not even his neighbors, as the comic poet says, perceive it.
Yet formerly that honor was severely commanded. When the consuls forgot to issue an edict concerning Caligula’s birthday, he abolished their magistracy, and the state was without supreme power for three days. Thus, in 2 Maccabees 6, the Jews were led by bitter necessity to sacrifices on the King’s birthday. Not only the birthday, but also the day on which the Principate began was celebrated. Pliny says to Trajan:
Lord, we celebrated with the great joy which you deserve the day on which you preserved the Empire by undertaking it, and prayed to the Gods that they would preserve you safe and flourishing for the human race, whose guardianship and security were entrusted to your safety. We led the way, while our fellow soldiers rendered the oath in solemn form and the provincials strove to show the same devotion by swearing.
And Suetonius says in Vespasian, chapter 6: “Tiberius Alexander, Prefect of Egypt, was the first to bind the legions to the oath in Vespasian’s words, on the Kalends of July; this was afterward observed as the day of his Principate.”
Or a day was celebrated on which he had affected the peoples with some great benefit. Thus Augustus, in Dio, book 54: “Because of his return and because of those things which he had accomplished while absent, many and various honors were decreed to him. Of these he accepted nothing except that he permitted an altar to be consecrated to Fortuna Redux, and the day of his return to be enrolled among the festivals and called the Augustalia.”
Indeed, peoples devised new birthdays in favor of Princes. Suetonius says in Augustus, chapter 59: “Certain cities of Italy made the day on which he first came to them the beginning of the year.” These were indications either of true love or of feigned flattery. That affection of the peoples toward Augustus was already present when he was an old man:
Whether the people wish you safe more, or you the people,
May Jupiter, who watches over both you and the city, preserve in doubt.
You may recognize the praises of Augustus.
Christians marked their prelates with the same ceremony, for they held as a festival the day on which they had been elected to the episcopate. Thus on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of February the Roman Chair is celebrated, and on the eighth day before the Kalends of March the Antiochene Chair.
Concerning this custom the most learned Baronius writes in the Martyrology at the fifteenth day before the Kalends of February:
As regards the present solemnity, there flourished in the Church a praiseworthy ancient usage: the anniversary was kept on which someone had been appointed Bishop over a particular see. Almost innumerable examples teach that this was observed both in the Western Church and also in the Eastern. St. Paulinus writes about the custom of the Roman Church in epistle 16 to Severus; and sermons of St. Leo the Pope delivered on that day remain. For Bishops from all parts of Italy were then accustomed to assemble at Rome to celebrate the birthday of the Roman Pontiff, as the epistle of Pope Hilary to Ascanius and the other Bishops of the province of Tarragona beautifully demonstrates, when these words are read in it: “When your letters were therefore read in the assembly of the brethren whom the festival of my birthday had gathered,” and so forth. The synodical records recited above indicate who these men were and from which cities of Italy they had assembled at Rome. Receive also examples concerning the usage of other Churches, such as what St. Ambrose writes concerning Felix, Bishop of Como, in book 8, epistle 60 of the Roman edition; likewise what St. Augustine has concerning the birthday of Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, in sermon 32 On the Words of the Lord, at the end, and concerning the anniversary day of his own ordination in homilies 24 and 25. The menologies of the Greeks sufficiently admonish us concerning the custom of the Eastern Church, for in them the birthday of the see of St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, and others is observed. By the same usage and reasoning the Roman Church was accustomed solemnly to observe the day on which the Roman Chair was born, because, I say, by divine counsel St. Peter first began to sit at Rome when the see which he had held at Antioch for seven years was transferred there. Moreover, this solemnity is so much more celebrated than that on which he sat at Antioch, because the latter was movable, or established only for a time and as though in passing; but at Rome God established and confirmed that same see to remain forever for Peter’s successors. As Irenaeus relates in book 3, chapter 3, the same Apostle, together with Paul, consecrated it even by his blood, after it had been fortified by doctrine, enriched with traditions, illustrated by merits, and increased by gifts.
§ 8. It was customary to receive Princes with joyful acclamations and applause. This has now almost ceased, except when at a coronation men acclaim, “May the King live!” Formerly that applause was especially sought; but after it was rendered more lavishly to every most wicked tyrant, it fell into contempt and disuse.
First, they recounted their praises. They acclaimed Pertinax: “To the pious father, the father of the Senate, the father of all good men! Under the Emperor Pertinax we feared no one; we lived secure!” They repeated this until their voices failed, according to the Deacon, book 8. There were also these words: “O happy you! O happy we!” Pliny to Trajan. Second, they prayed and made vows: “May Jupiter add years to you from our years,” in Tertullian; “May you conquer, Justin,” they sing in Corippus. Third, this applause was performed by modulation of the voice, clapping of the hands, their casting about, and the movement of garments. The voice was modulated either simply or with instruments added. The common people resounded in fixed modes and with composed applause, according to Tacitus, book 16. Cassiodorus says in book 1 of the Variae: “Voices sweeter than an organ; not shouts, but tones.” Pliny calls it harmony. Nero, delighted by the praises of the Alexandrians, caused young equestrians and five thousand men from the common people to be trained to learn that method of applauding. They called the forms bombs, roof tiles, and potsherds, from a certain resemblance of sound. Aurelian gave oraria to the people for acclamation.
But what were oraria? Lipsius wishes them to have been resonant coverings by which modulated acclamations were produced; Casaubon, straps and bands which were tossed about in applause. Nor can the matter be sufficiently gathered from Eustathius, who says on book 4 of the Iliad: μίτραι, he says, οἱ ἐκ φασκίων καὶ ὡραρίων στέφανοι—“mitres are crowns made from oraria and bands.” If, therefore, it is established what the parts of mitres are, it will also be established what oraria are. But a mitre or cidaris was various in form; and therefore whatever was in the mitre besides the bands is called an orarium by Eustathius—namely, those parts which were bound together by the bands. Accordingly, since the cidaris was tower-shaped and was also called a τιάρα, according to Pollux, book 8, chapter 13, a tiara also was of this sort. Suger says concerning Louis the Fat: “Surrounding his head, they place upon it the Phrygian Imperial ornament, shaped like a helmet and fashioned with a golden circlet.” But Isidore calls the Phrygian ornament a mitre. An orarium, therefore, was some such thing that a mitre might be made out of several oraria, if we believe Eustathius; and thus it served to strengthen the sound and booming, not merely for tossing, since it was small and would not be very conspicuous when tossed. Therefore they produced a smacking sound with an orarium, just as they now do with sheets or other things. Vopiscus wished to say this concerning Aurelian. But if Aurelian’s orarium was not unlike the ecclesiastical orarium, and either that profane one was named from the sacred or the sacred one from the profane, it must be said that there was some analogy between them.
The ecclesiastical orarium is treated in canon 28 of the Fourth Council of Toledo, celebrated in the time of Pope Honorius I:
If a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon who has been unjustly cast down from his rank is found innocent in a second Synod, he cannot be what he was unless he receives back before the altar, from the hand of the Bishop, the things belonging to the rank which he lost: if a Bishop, the orarium, ring, and staff; if a Priest, the orarium and chasuble; if a Deacon, the orarium and alb; if a Subdeacon, the paten and chalice. In this way the other ranks also receive that restoration of themselves which they received when they were ordained.
This orarium was a kind of garment, for in book 6 of Burchard it is called an “orarial stole,” chapter Presbyter. This is because canon 40 of the Fourth Council of Toledo says:
It is not lawful even for a Bishop or Priest to use two oraria, much less for a Deacon, who is their minister. A Levite must therefore wear one orarium upon the left shoulder because he prays, that is, preaches; but he must have the right side free, so that he may move about unimpeded in the priestly ministry. Therefore henceforth let the Levite take care not to use a double orarium, but only one, and one that is pure and adorned with no colors or gold.
It was therefore a garment which impeded the minister, and it appears to have been granted to Bishops that they might adorn it with gold or colors. Third, the manner of wearing it is handed down in chapter 9 of the Council of Braga: “Let the Subdeacon and Deacon have an orarium; but let the Deacon have the orarium concealed beneath his tunic, while the Subdeacon shall use the orarium laid over his shoulder.” Bede, in his collection, chapter On the Seven Orders, says: “An orarium properly belongs to prayers, a garment suited to its office.” Therefore, just as those applauding an earthly King were furnished with oraria for acclamation and applause, so those who proclaimed the praises of the eternal Emperor and the law of the King of Kings used oraria.
They also applauded with their hands, or gave a κρότον. And now, as the state perished through its own vices, they moved their hands in circuses and theaters rather than in fields and vineyards, as Varro complained. They also applauded artfully, as Aristaenetus says in book 1, epistle 10: ἡ δεξιὰ τοῖς δακτύλοις ὑπεσταλμένοις ὑποκειμένην τὴν ἀριστερὰν ἔπληττεν εἰς τὸ κοῖλον, ἵν᾽ ὥσπερ αἱ χεῖρες εὔφωνοι
συμβάλλοιεν τρόπον κυμβάλων. With the fingers contracted, they struck the left hand placed beneath with the right in its hollow, so that the hands, when struck together, might sound well after the manner of cymbals. They also demonstrated their favor by tossing their hands and garments:
And everywhere to give signs with tossed togas.
Public records teach that they were accustomed to value greatly that applause, or the breezes of popular favor; for they sent the Emperor not only the acclamations themselves, but also their number and their words. Nor was that testimony of the public will to be neglected, since there is a firm bond of friendship between people and Prince: namely, that the Prince should benefit the people, while the people should pour themselves forth in praises of the Prince.
Hence, according to the manner and custom of those times, the people applauded Bishops in the Church with great fervor, showing their agreement in sacred doctrine and their desire for a purer life. A splendid example is found in the proceedings by which Augustine designated Eradius as his successor, epistle 110. I shall append the whole passage so that the ancient custom may be understood:
Therefore, says Augustine, lest anyone complain about me, I present to the knowledge of all of you my will, which I believe to be the will of God: I desire the Priest Eradius to be my successor.
The people acclaimed: “Thanks be to God; praises to Christ!” This was said twenty-three times. “Hear us, O Christ; life to Augustine!” This was said sixteen times. “You our father; you our Bishop!” This was said eight times.
When silence had been restored, Bishop Augustine said: There is no need for me to say anything in his praise; I favor his wisdom and spare his modesty. It is enough that you know him. I say that I desire what I know you desire; and if I had not known it before, I would have proved it today. This, therefore, I desire; this I now ask from the Lord our God with fervent prayers even in my cold old age. I exhort, admonish, and ask you to pray for this with me: that God may confirm what he has wrought in us, when all minds have been joined and fused together in the peace of Christ. May he who sent him to me preserve him—preserve him unharmed, preserve him without blame—so that he who causes joy while I live may fill my place when I die. As you see, what we say and what you say are received by the notaries of the Church; both my speech and your acclamations do not fall to the ground. To speak more openly, we are now making ecclesiastical records. I wish this matter, insofar as it pertains to men, to be confirmed in this way.
The people acclaimed thirty-six times: “Thanks be to God; praises to Christ!” “Hear us, O Christ; life to Augustine!” was said thirteen times. “You our father; you our Bishop!” was said eight times. “He is worthy and just!” was said twenty times. “Well-deserving, well-worthy!” was said five times.
When silence had been restored, Bishop Augustine said: I wish, as I was saying, my will and your will, insofar as it pertains to men, to be confirmed in the ecclesiastical records. But as regards the hidden will of the Omnipotent, let us all pray, as I said, that God may confirm what he has wrought in us.
The people acclaimed: “We give thanks for your judgment!” This was said sixteen times. “Let it be; let it be!” was said twelve times. “You our father; Eradius our Bishop!” was said six times.
When silence had been restored, Bishop Augustine said: I know that you too know, but I do not wish what was done concerning me to be done concerning him. Many of you know what was done; only those do not know who had not yet been born at that time or were not yet of an age to know. While my father and Bishop Valerius of blessed memory, now an old man, was still present in the body, I was ordained Bishop and sat with him. I did not know that this had been prohibited by the Council of Nicaea; nor did he know it. Therefore, what was censured in me I do not wish to be censured in my son.
The people acclaimed: “Thanks be to God; praises to Christ!” This was said thirteen times.
When silence had been restored, Bishop Augustine said: He shall be a Priest as he is; when God wills, he shall become Bishop. But now, with the mercy of Christ assisting, I am plainly going to do what I have not yet done. You know what I wished to do some years ago and did not permit. It pleased me and you, on account of the care of the Scriptures which my brothers and fathers, my fellow Bishops, at the two Councils of Numidia and Carthage deigned to impose upon me, that for five days no one should trouble me. The proceedings were drawn up; it pleased you; you acclaimed it. Your decree and acclamation are being recited. For a short time it was observed toward me; afterward it was violently broken through, and I am not permitted to be free for what I desire. Before noon and after noon I am held by the occupations of men. I beseech and bind you through Christ to permit me to pour the burdens of my occupations upon this young man, this Priest Eradius, whom today in the name of Christ I designate as Bishop and my successor.
The people acclaimed: “We give thanks for your judgment!” This was said twenty-six times.
When silence had been restored, Bishop Augustine said: I give thanks to your charity and goodwill before the Lord our God—indeed, I give thanks to God for it. Therefore, brothers, whatever used to be brought to me shall be brought to him. Wherever he needs counsel, I shall not deny my assistance. Far be it from me to withdraw myself. Nevertheless, whatever used to be brought to me shall be brought to him. But let him consult me if perhaps he does not find what he ought to do, or let him seek as helper the man whom he knows as father, so that nothing may be lacking to you and I at last, if God grants me however little space of this life, may not give over my life, however little remains, to idleness or donate it to inactivity, but may exercise it in the Holy Scriptures so far as he permits and grants. This will benefit both him and, through him, you also. Therefore let no one begrudge my leisure, because my leisure contains great business. I see that concerning this matter, for which I invited you, I have done with you everything that I ought. I ask this finally: let those of you who can deign to subscribe these proceedings. Here I need your response; let me retain your response. Acclaim something concerning this assent.
The people acclaimed: “Let it be; let it be!” This was said twenty-five times. “It is worthy; it is just!” was said twenty-eight times. “Let it be; let it be!” was said fourteen times. “Long since worthy, long since deserving!” was said twenty-five times. “We give thanks for your judgment!” was said thirteen times. “Hear us, O Christ; preserve Eradius!” was said eighteen times.
When silence had been restored, Bishop Augustine said: It is well. Let us now be able to perform the things of God concerning his sacrifice. At the hour of our supplication I especially commend to your charity that you set aside all your causes and business and pour forth prayer to the Lord for this Church, for me, and for the Priest Eradius.
Indeed, even preachers are attended with applause, for eagerness is necessary to a speaker. Hence arose the madness of Paul of Samosata, concerning which the Bishops write in Eusebius, book 7 of the History, chapter 24. There is no need to relate in speech the tricks which he employed in ecclesiastical councils, cleverly devising them by pursuing shadows of false glory, hunting after various forms of folly, and thereby leading the minds of the more ignorant into admiration of himself; nor in what manner he prepared a lofty seat and throne for himself, kept it private and separate—not as befits a disciple of Christ, but as Princes of the world are accustomed to do—and called it by his own name; nor how, while sitting upon it, he struck his thigh with his hand and sometimes beat upon it with his heels; nor how he gravely rebuked and received with insulting words those who, when they heard him preaching, did not extol him with praises, did not turn themselves about in circles with agitations to applaud him, as is customary in theaters, and did not acclaim him discordantly and rejoice as though at the beat of an oar, after the manner of the gladiators and little women whom he kept about himself, but listened modestly and moderately, as is proper in the house of God; nor how, when openly preaching amid a crowd of men, he raged wantonly and immoderately against the interpreters of the word of God who had departed this life; nor how, not as a Bishop but as a sophist and impostor, he vaunted magnificent words concerning himself.
From these things theatrical gestures and manners may also be noted.
§ 9. Imperial majesty, and before it royal majesty, was especially recognized on journeys. Various honors were exhibited. Sacrifices were offered; the roads were filled with fragrances; candles were lit; flowers, crowns, gates, private houses, and temples were adorned; public banquets were celebrated; cloaks were spread out; all men came to meet them, escorted them, carried them, praised them, and sang with instruments arranged along the road—so that Princes then at last recognized themselves to be Princes when they traversed their kingdoms. Examples are found in Curtius, book 5; Dio on Severus; Livy, book 32; Pliny’s Panegyric to Trajan; Appian, book 8 of the Gallic War; Suetonius, Nero, chapter 30; Theodoret, book 5, chapter 34; Socrates, book 6, final chapter; Claudian, On the Sixth Consulship of Honorius, and book 3; Sozomen, book 8; Paul, book 30; and Herodian, books 4 and 8.
I think that this was done by the ancestors with the highest prudence—indeed, plainly by divine counsel. For since it is of the greatest importance to the state that a Prince should not reside in one place, but should exhibit the benefits of his presence to all the peoples by whom he is supported and honored, they endeavored by every enticement to incite him to journeys.
Another honor consists in titles taken from kingdoms which they do not possess. For magnates retain titles, not to soothe their minds with empty delight, but to await an opportunity to obtain those kingdoms.