[ad_1]
By prof. Maria Schnitter
Abstract: This paper examines some specific ritual standards concerning Ruler’s body and their theological, cultural, historical and political reasons. It tracks the transition from pre-Christian to early Christian ritual and its subsequent development in the frames of various Christian systems of standards. The paper is also an attempt to use Kantorowicz’ theory (“The King’s Two Bodies”) to interpret the Slavia Orthodoxa’s «ritual mentality» in terms of his conception about Ruler’s body as a mystic Mediator between Earthy and Heavenly Kingdom.
Despite the considerable variety of stadial and local variants of the ritual in the Orthodox tradition, we could articulate some common features in the Slavia Orthodoxa’s understanding of the ruler and his body.
First of all, let us note that the Slavic world relatively late assimilated the Byzantine model of ritual legitimation of the ruler. Here, Bulgaria is undoubtedly ahead of the rest by almost a century, but the earliest data refer to the beginning of the tenth century (more than a century after the coronation of Charlemagne, which changed the status and meaning of the ritual for the whole of Europe). The reason for this “backwardness” is not only the late Christianization, but perhaps to a greater extent – the stable autochthonous tradition of rulership succession in the proto-Bulgarian political practice, which is based on the indisputable authority of family affiliation and does not need the additional legitimation of the church a ritual.
The adoption of Christianity by Prince Boris forced the new converts to find a way to integrate into the political structure of the European monarchies, and this in the second half of the ninth century was possible only through the legitimation of power through church ritual. The spiritual “adoption” of the prince by the Byzantine emperor made him a member of the “Christian family” of the rulers, but it was not enough to justify claims of equality in relations. On the other hand, family belonging to the ruling family, which was up to that point a sufficient basis for the legitimacy of power, can no longer argue for this equality either. An additional argument in the case of Simeon could be his birth after the accession of Prince Boris, which makes him a “porphyrogenet” according to the Byzantine definition. Succession to the throne after the neglect of the second son, which might be disputed from the standpoint of traditional pagan tradition, would thus find its basis. It is obvious that Prince Simeon had not only general political, but also purely personal reasons to seek an official coronation – this would strengthen his position both in foreign policy and domestically. It is no coincidence that the desire for his heirs to be directly related to the Byzantine emperors – the unfulfilled marriage between his daughter and the minor emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenet would have really added an element of “authenticity” to the Bulgarian royal title. As we know from history, in the following centuries the succession to the Bulgarian throne increasingly happened not along the line of inherited “porphyrogenicity”, but depending on external factors and circumstances. Deprived of the indisputable argument of “ontological rulership”, the Bulgarian kings increasingly needed the legitimation of the church ritual to argue their claims to power.
Since at that time the ritual already had its established form, which we described above, we can assume that the crowning of the Bulgarian rulers was carried out in accordance with this model, at least in the moments when the necessary condition was present – the presence of a patriarch. The Serbian ruling tradition began in the 13th century, when St. Stephen the First received a royal crown from Pope Honorius III (1217) and was then further crowned by St. Sava the Serbian (1219), thus obtaining a convincing legitimation of power, the Serbian rulers continued their efforts to raise the status of their church and achieved in 1346 the elevation of the archbishop of Ras to the rank of patriarchal dignity. It is important to note that an element of the argumentation of the Serbian kings’ claims is also their kinship with princesses from all the reigning dynasties of the Balkans, which gives their title not only a “ritual” but also an “ontological” character. Thus, shortly before the conquest of the Balkans by the Ottoman Empire, there were already three legitimate patriarchies here (Constantinople, Tarnovska and Pečka), therefore – three centers where it was possible to carry out a ruler’s coronation.
As for Russia, events there developed even later. The idea of Moscow as a “third Rome” was confirmed only after the fall of Constantinople. Until then, the Russian Church was in a relationship of subordination to the Patriarch of Constantinople, all its metropolitans were appointed by his decision and professed their allegiance to him when receiving their credentials. The Grand Prince of Russia himself held the modest rank of “chairman of the Byzantine emperors,” and the ceremony of his enthronement (“voknyazenia”) is usually described by the expression “sitting on a chair” [cf. in detail for this period Barsov 1883, XI-XIV, as well as the text of the act of blessing a prince in a transcript from the XIV century, 25-31]. Naturally, things changed significantly after the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans and after the victory of the Russian army in the Battle of Kulikovo (1380). But another century was to pass, in which such key events as the Ferraro-Florentine Council (1437-39) and the fall of Constantinople (1453) took place, and in which there was a period of serious strain in relations between Moscow and Constantinople, before the first official coronation of a Russian ruler took place – in 1498, Prince Dmitry Ioanovich was declared heir and crowned by his grandfather, Grand Duke John III Vasilievich [cf. the text of the order for placement under Barsov 1883, 32-38]. Let’s pay attention to the fact that this happens only after, along with the ecclesiastical and political reasons for such an event, there are also dynastic ones – John III is the husband of Sophia Paleologus, i.e. the grandson Dmitriy has an unquestionably “porphyrogenic” origin. And yet he still bears only the title of “grand prince” and does not actually inherit the Russian throne.
Only Ivan IV the Terrible had a real claim to be crowned Tsar of Russia in 1547. An interesting detail of the surviving versions of the succession of his enthronement is that they are all written in “Bulgarian spelling” (Barsov 1883, 68); could this mean that old south slavic redactions of the byzantine text were used in russia ie. texts that were previously in use at the coronation of Slavic rulers in the Balkans? We have already spoken of the complications and controversies that arose in connection with this, and the subsequent final legitimization of the title under his successors. In the following centuries of Russian history, one can clearly trace the interesting combination of the Byzantine coronation tradition (of which the Moscow Patriarchate is considered the only legitimate successor) and Western European influences (especially during and after the reign of Peter I). The end result is a very specific mixture of rituals, finally established by the time of Tsar Feodor Ivanovich (crowned in 1584) and undergoing occasional modifications at each subsequent ceremony.
The main feature of this ceremony, which distinguishes the Orthodox tradition from the Western models that were formed at the same time, is the perception of the ruler as similar to Christ, while in the West the anointing of rulers resembles the Old Testament kings of Israel. Here we see one of the watershed differences in the political theology of East and West, which has its significant cultural-historical implications. The anointing of Orthodox kings is done with holy myrrh (not with oil), i.e. they receive the “Seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit” [unlike Western rulers, whose anointing represents a “slightly elevated exorcism” and regarding whom canonists “still ponder whether the emperor is persona ecclesiastica” – Kantorovitz 2004, 281] and – like the apostles after Pentecost – acquired special characteristics, placing them above the level of other Christians, although they all received the same initiation through the sacrament of anointing, performed in the Orthodox tradition immediately after holy baptism.
In fact, we must realize that the “Kingdom Wedding” ritual is a combination of elements included in three main Christian sacraments – marriage, episcopal ordination and anointing. The ruler “gets married” to the people and his state (symbolized by laying on the crown, and sometimes by putting on a special ring – a common element with the wedding rank), he is placed on the throne after he has professed his faith (a connecting link with the rank of ordination of a bishop) and is anointed with the holy ointment (similar to the usual anointing) on the head, chest, eyes, ears, nostrils.
Ultimately, as a result of the ritual, a new – “invisible” body of the king “emerges”. It has the characteristics of a wedding. Once done, it is irreversible, even the dethroned king retains his kingship; the custom after abdication of Orthodox rulers to accept monasticism is actually the only possible ritual method of “cancellation” of royal dignity, just as after widowhood monasticism is the possible continuation of the ritual consecration of an ordinary Christian, understood as raising “in an angelic image”, i.e. rising above the level of everyday existence. Moreover, the royal body has the properties of the episcopal (i.e., the body of the high priest) and thus is immediately likened to Christ in his human nature. The king has the right to enter the holy altar and receive communion together with the bishops, to participate in the burning of incense and to bless. For a detailed analysis of the debate over the “episcopal” characteristics of the ruler in the Byzantine tradition, with an emphasis on Valsamon’s interpretation, see Dagron 2006, 283-304. Here, attention is explicitly drawn to the fact that the very act of “material anointing” was unknown in the Orthodox world until the end of the twelfth century and was first applied apparently after 1204 “in imitation of the Western custom”. Emphasizing this aspect, Emperor Paul I entered Moscow for his coronation on Palm Sunday 1797 and was crowned on Easter of the same year, taking his clerical powers quite literally. His desire to perform the holy sacraments was hindered only by his second-married status. The anointing of the king does not differ in outward signs from the original anointing associated with baptism. Liturgists debate whether it should be spoken of as a sacrament (which would duplicate the first) or as a separate succession without a sacramental character. An understanding of it as a sacrament producing a qualitative change in the monarch’s bit depth seems to prevail, however. To this day, it is believed to be the most essential part of the entire ceremony, and it is after it that the (Orthodox) ruler already has the right to enter the altar and participate in the sacrament. Once anointed, the ruler retains this quality (through his carnal, human body) and until his death combines the two “natures” – of an ordinary mortal and of God’s Anointed One. It is no coincidence that at the coronation of the last two British rulers this was the only part of the ritual that was not to be photographed (in 1937) or filmed (in 1953).
Unlike the Western tradition, where this duality is invariably realized [Cf. the classical legal formulation “The king has a double capacity, because he has two bodies, one of which is the physical body, which consists of physical members… and in that capacity he is subject to passions and death, like other men; the other is the body politic…and this body is not subject to the passions like the other, nor to death…” – Kantorovitz 2004, 28] and emphasized through church ritual, the Orthodox world to a significant extent shifts the emphasis in the direction of absolutizing ” the “divine” essence of the ruler [Detailed analysis of this phenomenon in Ouspensky and Zhivov 1994]. This tendency sometimes manifests itself in paradoxical forms of eliminating his “human” features. A special case is e.g. the ritual of anointing a female ruler.
This ritual should not be confused with the other one in which the ruler’s wife is crowned and anointed. It is known from the Byzantine era (attested in the 14th century and in Slavic manuscripts) and implies the simultaneous coronation and anointing of the ruler and his wife. In this ceremony a distinction is expressly made in the liturgical directions concerning the “female sex”; the prescription is for the ruler’s wife to step down from the pulpit to receive the crown, which is placed on a previously placed veil, not by the patriarch but by the ruler himself, emphasizing that her royal dignity is a function of her subordination as a wife and subject. The anointing of the queen is also different – it is only on the head; the next communion after that is performed before the royal doors. In a similar way, the ritual is performed in the Russian tradition, which most likely continues the practice of Byzantium and the southern Slavs. Since the 17th century, it has been the practice to perform a separate coronation of the spouse of a ruler, and the first joint coronation of Paul I and Maria Feodorovna in 1797 was an exact copy of the Byzantine order.
For us, in this case, the ritual for the enthronement of a female ruler, which was performed for the first time under Anna Ioanovna in 1730, is more interesting. The remarkable thing about it is that she was anointed not only on the head (as was the previous and later custom for queens), but entirely (like kings) – on the forehead, chest, hands, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. This is followed by her introduction to the altar, where she partakes of the holy mysteries. I.e. through the anointing, Anna loses her characteristics of a woman (who is forbidden to enter the altar) and remains only a ruler and priest. This conviction was even more categorically stated in the ceremony of the enthronement of Catherine II in 1762. She not only placed the crown on her head herself (in the post-Peter era, in the absence of a patriarch, this was usually done by the Metropolitan of Novgorod), but also after the anointing herself entered the the altar and takes communion with his own hand. Contemporaries and witnesses of this event have long debated the legality of this action. Even more than a century later, A. Tuvorov had to prove in a special study that the rules of the church were not violated. According to him, a sufficient “excuse” for disregarding rule 44 of the Council of Laodicea, as well as rule 69 of the Council of Trulles, is the absence of an explicit instruction regarding queens. “…I found in the articles of the 6th Ecumenical Council in Laodicea rule 69, which allows kings to enter the altar, they acquired the right for queens to use this privilege, but nowhere did I find permission not only for queens, but also for kings to take a chalice with the throne in his hands, and personally himself to partake of those Holy Mysteries according to the royal custom, they were perplexed, leaning towards the conviction that the event mentioned in the correspondence could not be justified by anything”. [Tuvorov 1893, 489] In this case, according to his not very convincing reasoning, a sufficient reason for what happened is the existence of a special document entitled “The rite of the church, which during the coronation of Her Highest Imperial Majesty until Her Own Imperial Majesty’s knowledge belongs”, compiled by The Holy Synod received from Catherine herself a resolution “Do it accordingly”. [Tuvorov 1893, 490] Thus, a synodic decision legitimized by a (not yet anointed) ruler turns out to be enough to invalidate the centuries-old tradition of the Orthodox canon…
Although it is rather an exception in Orthodox liturgical practice, this striking case illustrates the notion that the ruler does not simply reconcile the two natures – the human, of the mortal sinner, and the divine, of the vicar of Christ (as they are convinced in Western Europe). In the “ritual mentality” of late Orthodoxy, the king is deified to the extent that his human nature is completely obliterated and displaced by his function as God’s vicar, which he sometimes does not even share with the representatives of the clergy. As for the relationship between “porphyrogenicity” and “ritually produced” kingship, it seems that the (convincing) presence of the first component in a specific way makes possible any loose interpretations in the field of ritual. Thus the clash between “ritual” and “reality” [cf. on this in detail in Seligman 2008, 17-42, 103-131] (“sincerity”, “reality”) once again ends in compromise.
Sources and literature:
Barsov, E.V. Ancient Russian monuments of the sacred coronation of the kings of the kingdom. Moscow, 1883.
Belozerskaya N. The Tsar’s Wedding in Russia (Historical Sketch). – Russian thought, 1883. – Vol. 4., 1-40; Book 5., pp. 1-48.
Dagron, J. The Emperor and the Priest. – S., 2006 (Dagron, G. Empereur et prêtre. Étude sur le “césaropapisme” byzantine. 1996).
Kantorowitz, Ernst H. The King’s Two Bodies. A Study of Medieval Political Theology. S., 2004 (Ernst H. Kantorowicz. The King’s Two Bodies. A Study in Medieval Political Theology. Princeton, 1957).
Polyakovskaya, M.A. Transformation of the Byzantine tradition in the rank of weddings of Russian tsars (одельные сюжеты). – Rus and Byzantium. The place of the Byzantine circle in the relations between the East and the West. Abstracts of reports XVIII Vserossiyskoi nauchnoi sessii byzantinistov Moscow October 20-21, 2008, Moscow, 2008, 103-106
Sokolov, D. (court archpriest). The act of anointing Russian tsars at their coronation. St. Petersburg, 1908 (http://rozhintsev.narod.ru/czar/venez/chin.htm).
Truvorov A. Coronation of Empress Ekaterina the Second. Description of coronations, anointings and communions of Empress Catherine II. – Russian antiquity, 1893, T. 80., No. 12. pp. 487-496.
Ulyanov, O.G. About the time of the inauguration of the anointing in Byzantium, in the West and in Ancient Russia. – Rus and Byzantium. The place of the Byzantine circle in the relations between the East and the West. Abstracts of reports of the XVIII All-Russian scientific session of Byzantines, Moscow, October 20–21, 2008, Moscow, 2008, pp. 133-140.
Uspensky, B.A., Zhivov, V.M. Tsar and God. Semiotic aspects of the sacralization of the monarch in Russia. – Selected Works, Volume I, Semiotics of Stories. Semiotics of culture. Moscow, 1994, pp. 110-219.
Chesnokova, N.P. The idea of the Byzantine heritage in Russia in the mid-17th century: images and symbols – Russia and Byzantium. The place of the Byzantine circle in the relations between the East and the West. Abstracts of reports of the XVIII All-Russian scientific session of Byzantines, Moscow, October 20–21, 2008, Moscow, 2008, pp. 158-161.
Dagron, G. Nés dans la pourpre. – Travaux et mémoires 12, 1994, pp. 105-142
Reiske, J.J. (ed.) Constantini Pophyrogeniti imperatoris de ceremoniis byzantini, libri duo, CSHB, 2 vols, Bonn, 1879, I, 191-6; transl. by Paul Stephenson, 2007, http://homepage.mac.com/paulstephenson/trans/decer0.html (accessed 2012-04-24).
Seligman, A., R. Weller et al. Ritual and its Consequences. An Essay on the Limits of Sincerity. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Published in: Драгиша Боjовић (съст., ред.) Св. цар Константин и хришћанство, т. I = Meђународни научни скуп поводом 1700. Годишњице Миланског едикта 31. маj – 2. jун 2013 – Ниш, 2013, pp. 407-421.
[ad_2]
Source link