[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.
The belief that the ruler’s body has properties and qualities that make it different from the bodies of ordinary people has its roots in the deepest antiquity. We do not have to go back far in time to trace the diverse manifestations of this concept that have found expression in customs, rituals, superstitions and local beliefs within different cultures and religious traditions. In general, the idea of the “different” body of the ruler can be formulated in two ways. According to the first, the ruler’s body is special per se, due to its very quality of being “born of a ruler” – this is the basis for inexhaustible debates on the topic of eugenics, degrees of pure blood, routes of inheritance of “ruler” characteristics, etc. Classic examples of this way of interpretation are the “porphyrogenic” birth of the Byzantine heirs, analyzed in detail by J. Dagron (Dagron 1994) or the custom, preserved until the time of Louis XVI, according to which every Frenchman has the right to attend the birth of the queen, for to be convinced of the “authenticity” of his future king.
The second variant of interpretation exists in parallel and suggests that – regardless of how, whether and to what extent the “distinction” is inherited, the “true ruling essence” is achieved only through specific rituals performed by relevant, authorized persons within the framework of (obligatory public) ceremonies. Of course, these two models of problem interpretation rarely function in their ultimate, pure forms; usually the predominance of one or the other concept in a given context has its foundations in traditions, culture and specific historical circumstances.
The aim of the present work is to trace how these two interpretive schemes coexist and interact in the tradition of Orthodox Slavism. My hypothesis is that – like other European cultures – the culture of Slavia Orthodoxa mastered the ritual as a tool for the legitimation of the ruler’s identity and thus “compensated” for the deficits of “porphyrogeneity”, and imposed at least partially the ecclesiastical sanction as a necessary condition for the legitimacy of the secular power and thus re-argued the “symphony” between State and Church specific to Orthodoxy. A basic element of the ritual is the consecration of the ruler’s body and the construction of a “secondary corporeality” with the characteristics of divinity (in accordance with Ps. 81).
If we return to the Old Testament precedents of the phenomenon under study, we should recall the emblematic figure of the king-priest Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20) [Analysis on the differences between priests “in the order of Melchizedek” and those “in the order of Aaron”], as well as the anointing of Samuel as a prophet (1 Kings 2-3) and of Saul as king (1 Kings 10), as well as the anointing of kings David (2 Kings 2:4), Absalom (2 Kings 19:10), Jehu (2 Kings 9:6-12), etc. Divine election is marked by this special ritual act, and this turns the “anointed one” into something different from ordinary people, provides him with a special corporeality, which also implies a physical inviolability (“how shall I not be afraid that thou shouldest lift up thy hand to slay the Lord’s anointed?” – 2 Kings 1:14), and the ability to prophesy and work miracles.
The idea of anointing was inherited and further developed in the New Testament, where Christ is perceived as the Anointed-Messiah (“how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went out into Judea, doing good and healing all those oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him” - Acts 10:38) and the humiliations to which he was subjected are a parody of his role as “King of the Jews” – (“and they wove a crown of thorns, put it on His head and gave Him a staff in His right hand; and standing before Him on their knees, they mocked Him and said: Rejoice, King of the Jews!” – Mt 27:29). This interpretation remained key in the later understanding of the royal ministry, and the ritual of the “Wedding of Kingship” in the Christian tradition painstakingly re-actualized it, thus arguing for the claims of the married and anointed rulers to occupy the position of mediators between the human and the transcendent and God’s vicars of The Earth. A basis for this interpretation is also found in the formula “I said: you are gods, you are all sons of the Most High” (Ps. 81:6), which makes it possible to generalize the idea of divinity, in its New Testament update: “Jesus them answer: is it not written in your Law, “I said: Ye are gods”? If He called those to whom the word was addressed gods…, is it Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, you say: you blaspheme, because I said: I am the Son of God?” (Jn 10:34-36)
Of course, the pagan world also knew other variants of ruler deification, which found their continuation in the Middle Ages. Here we should recall the practices connected with the enthronement of the Roman emperors (involving their elevation on a shield after being crowned with a diadem and clothed in ivy in the presence of the legions), as well as the traditions of the ancient Persian court, to one degree or another assimilated into the Roman and then the Byzantine ritual norm. A common element in them is the connection of the political power of the ruler with his role as high priest (pontifex maximus), which was preserved as an idea significantly after the collapse of the Roman Empire and had its serious consequences in the history of medieval Europe.
Scholars agree that the early Christian rulers continued the inherited ritual practice, with the role of the ecclesiastical institution changing from accompanying the main ritual, the sanction of the Christian church gradually becoming the conditio sine qua non for the ruler’s legitimacy. The first Christian emperors were already enthroned in their state of promulgation and therefore could not claim full ecclesiastical communion.
Emperor Constantine the Great was proclaimed Augustus by the pagan Horcus, a general of Alemanni origin, during his campaign in
Britain (306), and the ceremony hardly differed from the usual acclamation of the troops, which was considered a sufficient initial ground for entering into the struggle for legitimate authority. After some hesitation, Galerius confirmed the election, though only as Caesar, and sent Constantine the purple cloak customary for Roman emperors.
Later early Christian emperors gradually expanded the role of the church in the ceremony. At first, the coronation took place outdoors – in the field or on the hippodrome, and it was customary for the newly crowned emperor to worship in one or more churches and attend mass after the acclamation. In 457, Emperor Leo the Great was crowned once in front of the army, and then again by Patriarch Anatoly in the Great Church, after the liturgy [See on this occasion Dagron’s interesting analysis of the emperor’s ceremonial procession and the individual moments of “transition”, making him from a warrior (conqueror/usurper of power) into a legitimate ruler. “With this metamorphosis, the emperor receives not the power he already has, but the legitimacy he still lacks.”] (Dagron 2006, 93)
At the end of the 5th century, the ecclesiastical sanction of coronation was already so irrevocable that Patriarch Euthymius could afford to condition Emperor Anastasius to take an oath of allegiance to Orthodoxy before being crowned and clothed with the chlamys. This tradition became one of the essential elements in the later ritual, where the crowning ruler recited the Creed at the beginning of the ceremony.
Thus, gradually, “the state rank of the elected and crowned emperors of the Kingdom turned into a church rank, and the supreme power did not rely only on military power, but began to need the sanctified faith of the people. The royal crown began to be received in churches and from churches.” [Detailed data and analysis regarding the early reports of anointing in Byzantium, see Ulyanov 2008, 136; let’s still add that the description of Constantine Porphyrogenet speaks only of crowning, but without anointing – cf. Reiske 1879, Polyakovskaya 2008]
After the emergence of the Holy Roman Empire in the west, Byzantium was forced to seek additional arguments for the exceptional position of its rulers. It is hardly a coincidence that it is precisely in the 9th century that we increasingly come across reports of the inauguration anointing of emperors7, with a detailed reproduction of the Old Testament ritual, including horns for the anointing of King David. The patriarch anoints the head of the ruler three times in the form of a cross, exclaiming “holy” three times (the exclamation is repeated by the clergy and the people), and then places the royal crown (crown) on the anointed one with the exclamation “worthy” three times (which is also raised by the clergy and the people). Thus, the consecration of the emperor takes place through the ritual and becomes a publicly recognized and indisputable fact through the co-participation of those present. He also acquires the status of a priest with all the resulting powers, one of which is to enter the altar and receive communion together with the other priests. Let us note that this form of consecration (apparently comparable to that obtained by ordination) is different from the position of the early emperors. When Constantine the Great participated in the Council of Nicaea as an “external bishop” and benefactor of the Church, he had not yet definitively accepted Christianity and could not claim to participate in the divine service. In later times, different emperors “mastered” the right given to them to act as priests to varying degrees, the differences being due both to the individual characteristics of their character and to the specifics of the cultural and political context.
What happens to the ruling body during the “royal wedding” ritual?
The structure of succession developed and enriched over the centuries, but its main elements remained stable – the place of coronation was a temple associated with certain significant historical precedents, and it remained unchanged regardless of the political changes taking place [cf. for example, the tradition of Russian emperors traveling to Moscow’s Dormition Council to be crowned there, despite the capital being moved to St. Petersburg, as well as the coronation of French kings in Reims after 496]. The ritual itself gradually acquired a sustainable form, including:
o solemn entry of the ruler into the temple and profession of faith; o presentation of the royal regalia (cross, ivy, crown, scepter, state, sword, sometimes necklace), after the corresponding prayer texts for their consecration; placing the crown on the ruler’s head could be done by the pope/patriarch or (in post-Peterian Russia) by himself; the crowning of the queen or co-ruler is usually done by him personally;
o liturgy during which areperformed:
– anointing – in the different versions, different parts of the ruler’s body are anointed; different types of myrrh are also used (in Western Europe – oil, in France – myrrh from the “Holy Ampoule”);
– communion of the ruler [in front of the royal doors or in the altar – depending on the circumstances and the specific local tradition; an analysis of the disputes concerning the admission of the ruler to the altar during the Entrance (to present his gifts “according to the age-old tradition”) see Dagron 2006, 288 ff.];
– instruction from the pope/patriarch/metropolitan to the ruler;
– address of the ruler to the clergy and the people;
– acclamations.
We will pay special attention to the elements of the ritual affecting the body of the ruler, which in various configurations are found in the practice of medieval states. We will try to look for data regarding the special “doubling” of the ruling body that is achieved through the coronation. Our hypothesis is that the understanding regarding the “two bodies of the king”, so convincingly analyzed in Kantorovitz’s classic work [Kantorowitz, 2004], has its specifics and essential differences in the traditions of the Orthodox Slavs.
It is known that the first ruler of a Slavic state to acquire the title “king” was Simeon I; the event dates from 913. Regardless of the many ambiguities and disputed circumstances in the descriptions of what happened in the Blacherna Palace, it seems certain that Patriarch Nicholas the Mystic placed his own epiriptarium on the head of the Bulgarian ruler, i.e. the veil that usually covers the patriarch’s head. Nothing is mentioned about crowning, nor about anointing [However, Ulyanov takes this way of covering the head as an argument in favor of an anointing performed, looking for parallels with the ceremony of Manuel Palaeologus, see Ulyanov 2008, 138]. In this sense, it seems that the compromise imposed on the Byzantine Church nevertheless remained partial; this is probably also one of the reasons that shortly afterwards the head of the Bulgarian church was elevated to the rank of patriarch (927), who from then on would have the canonical right to crown and anoint the Bulgarian kings [Even in the 14th century Nicephorus Grigora reprimanded the Bulgarian archbishop Demetrius for usurping the right to anoint the ruler, cf. Barsov 1883, XIII]. Analogous are the events that took place six centuries later in Russia, when the coronation of Tsar Ivan the Terrible by Metropolitan Macarius caused disagreements on the part of the Eastern Patriarchs, who in a special message insisted that the coronation of a ruler was the right of only the Roman and the Constantinople bishop (respectively pope and patriarch) and although they recognize the reality of Ivan IV’s royal dignity, they insist that the metropolitan be punished for his willfulness.
The lack of a patriarch authorized to perform coronations and anointing forced the Bulgarian ruler Kaloyan to seek contact with Pope Innocent III at the very beginning of the 13th century, who had to legitimize his claims for the restoration of the royal institution in Bulgaria. According to some scholars, the ritual proposed by Innocent III in this case is a realization of his views on the rite of royal anointing, set forth in the decretal On Holy Anointing, in which a clear distinction is made between anointing with oil (which drives out the devil) and with myrrh (with which the grace of the Holy Spirit is taught). In addition, the Pope makes explicit the difference between the ritual of the episcopal and the royal wedding and thereby emphasizes the “degradation of the liturgical ceremonial” – e.g. the bishops are also anointed with ointment on the head, while this is denied to the rulers [Analysis of this moment in Kantorovitz 2004, 280 ff.; commentary in Dagron 2006, 291 ff., where the opposition between “a purely juridical and a charismatic conception of imperial power” is outlined]. In fact, the development of the ritual in the Orthodox world continues apart from the processes whose dogmatic interpretation was proposed by Pope Innocent III, so for now we will leave the “Western tradition” without comment.
As for the southern Slavs, the sources are not particularly verbose when describing the coronation ceremonies of the Balkan rulers. It seems, however, that as generally accepted and indisputably legitimizing, the rite for a royal wedding was applied, which we find described by Georgi Kodin in the 14th century, and which represents the final version of the Byzantine ceremony [For the text of this rite, see Barsov 1883, 1-18]. An interesting element in this version, which is relevant to the problem at hand, is the selection of a tombstone for the ruler. It was described by a Russian traveler who was present at the coronation of Imp. Manuel Paleologus and his wife in 1392 [Text in Barsov 1883, 23-24]. Immediately after the anointing and communion of the rulers and as a continuation of the instruction from the patriarch to the emperor, in which he is reminded that “from your land and to the earth you will return”, the master “marblers and tomb builders” arrive and offer the newlyweds to choose the tombstone is with the words “you are a mortal and corruptible man, you will walk in the white world for a short time … therefore, as great as you are, so humble yourself, because the strong will be severely punished…” This custom, described as “ancient” in the 14th century, never finds application in the Slavic tradition. In its place, the ceremony included the obligatory worship of the ruler before the tombs of his ancestors and predecessors, having the function of reminding him (although not in such an immediate form) of his impermanence.
But although it disappears from the later tradition of coronations, this custom brings us to the essential point in the whole ritual: the question of the dual nature of the ruler.
The idea that the ruler represents the earthly correspondence of Christ is common to all medieval political thought. The juxtaposition between the God-man with his two natures and the ruler with the dual aspects of his existence is a favorite topic of commentary in the age after Augustine’s dichotomous model of the world. This duality is interpreted and applied in different ways depending on the particular socio-political context, but ultimately can be summed up in the notion that the ruler exists as a being with “two bodies” – one ordinary, human, carnal body to which they refer all the characteristics of human bodies (it has different ages, it has sex, it can be sick, weak, sinful, it can die), and second – imaginary, which has divine features; it does not age, it does not get sick, it is in some sense sexless, it cannot have defects and it cannot die. It is this “second body” that is created through the ritual of crowning and anointing with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
In his seminal study, The Two Bodies of the King, Kantowitz analyzes the theological and political implications of this idea, but only marginally touches on the question of the Royal Wedding ritual. His interest is primarily in the Western tradition, so the Orthodox world remains largely out of his sight.
(to be continued)
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