Coronation Rites

by Reginald Maxwell Woolley

The question now arises, where did the French rite, and the rite used in England originate? We have no definite evidence and can only surmise. The fact that Boniface the anointer of Pippin was an Englishman, together with the fact that it has generally been taken for granted that the so-called Pontifical of Egbert is really Egbert’s, and therefore belongs to the middle of the eighth century, has led to the tempting theory that the French rite was imported from England by St Boniface on the occasion of Pippin’s consecration as king of the Franks. But there is no evidence in support of this theory, and above all there is no evidence of the existence of an Anglo-Saxon rite of this period for St Boniface to import into France.

The consecration of Pippin is referred to, not as a coronation but as an unction. Of it we are told that ‘Pippin was elected as king according to the custom of the Franks, and was anointed by the hand of Boniface, archbishop of Mayence of holy memory, and was raised by the Franks to the kingdom in the city of Soissons[155].’ Here no formal act of coronation is mentioned. Pippin was elected ‘according to the custom of the Franks,’ and it is possible that this same ‘custom’ covers the unction, and refers the ceremony of inauguration back to pre-Carolingian times, but it is not probable, for everything points to the importation of an inauguration rite to give recognition to the new dynasty of Pippin. Possibly again in the expression ‘was raised to the kingdom’ we may see some reminiscence of an enthronization. But the central feature of the rite is clearly the anointing, and this is the only feature mentioned in the account of the second consecration of Pippin by Pope Stephen, where we are told ‘Pope Stephen confirmed Pippin as king with holy unction, and together with him anointed his two sons, Charles and Carloman, to the royal dignity[156].’

And so we find the same feature, the unction, the central point of the rite both in Spain and France. It is natural to draw the conclusion that the French rite was brought from Spain and was of the same type as the Spanish, just as the other liturgical books of France and Spain are of the same type, commonly called the ‘Gallican.’ The rite, when it was introduced into England, most probably was brought over from France, for there was considerable intercourse between the Saxon and Frankish kingdoms, and some intermarriages between the Frankish and Saxon reigning families.

To a Frankish origin may also probably be assigned the early German rites, such for example as that by which Otto of Saxony was crowned in the tenth century.

In the year 800 Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope at Rome as Roman Emperor. For this purpose it was necessary to have a coronation rite, and hitherto no Roman Emperor had ever been crowned at Rome, though a Pope had travelled into France to consecrate a Frankish king.

But this was the case of a Roman Emperor. We are told little of the details of the rite by contemporary writers. None of the Western contemporary historians mention any anointing, though they all speak of the crowning. On the other hand a contemporary Greek writer, Theophanes, does definitely speak of the unction, but it has been suggested that he is here confusing the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor with the anointing of his son Charles as king of the Franks, which took place on the same occasion.

The central feature of the coronation rite was his crowning, and this is a feature that seems to have been lacking in the Western rites for the consecration of a king, while on the other hand it is in strict agreement with the Byzantine procedure. Charlemagne always pretended that the whole affair was unexpected by him, and that the Pope alone arranged the coronation and took him by surprise. But there can be little doubt that the whole business, except perhaps as to the details of the rite, was premeditated and arranged beforehand. Charlemagne was crowned as Roman Emperor, and therefore in theory was the colleague and the equal of the Emperor at Constantinople. Hence it would seem natural that the ceremony by which Charlemagne was crowned should follow in essential details the rite used on such an occasion at Constantinople. It may be added that there is no mention of any anointing in the earliest forms for the coronation of an Emperor at Rome. It would seem, then, that the rite by which Charlemagne was crowned, was, so far as the West was concerned, an entirely new rite, following in outline the rite used at Constantinople.

Thus then, in the West, in the ninth century, we find two groups of rites, quite independent of each other, (1) The Spanish-Frankish rite, (2) The Roman Imperial rite. In later days these two groups speedily reacted on each other, and produced a definite type of Western rite.

The forms of the first group, French and English (no early Spanish forms are extant), probably do not represent their earliest state. There is not only an unction but a coronation, and also a formal delivery of kingly insignia, in the English rite, of Sceptre, Verge, and Crown; in the French rite, of Crown and Sceptre. It will be noticed that if the act of crowning was first observed in the West at the coronation of Charlemagne, it was very speedily introduced into the Western rite for the consecration of a king.

There is no Roman coronation rite for a king at this date, but there is a Milanese rite of the ninth century, and with some such rite probably Berengar Margrave of Friuli was crowned at Milan in 887. It is noticeable that this Milanese rite for the coronation of a king is more or less identical with the imperial rite of the same date. It is very simple, the king being crowned and invested with a sword. This Milanese rite may perhaps be taken as representing the Roman rite of the coronation of a king in its earliest form.