Chapter III: Part 3

If I open at hazard the old testament, I every where find proofs of this truth. It is there written how God threatened, his chosen people several times, by the mouths of his prophets, that he would have their chins ignominiously shaved; which was then a disgrace inseparable from slavery.[48] _David_ saw nothing more respectable in a man’s outward appearance than his beard: this is what made this psalmist king speak so honourably of that of the high priest Aaron,[49] and think that nothing less than streams of blood could wash away the insult which had been offered the beards of some of his subjects.

Footnote 48:

See Isaiah, chap. vii. v. 20; _ibid._ chap. xv. v. 2: Jeremiah, chap.
xlviii. v. 37: Revelations xiv: Sam. xix. &c.

Footnote 49:

See the cxxxii Psalm. _Sicut unguentum in capite quod descendit in
barbam, barbam Aaron._ Tertullian, in his book _de Pallio_, has
explained the expressions of this Psalm very favourably for the beard.
See likewise Saint Ambrose, _lib. de initiand. cap._ 6. At the council
of Basil, held in 1433, Henry Kalteisen made a long commentary on this
subject. Sauveur, archbishop of ——, made a speech at the council of
Trent, which ran almost wholly on Aaron’s beard.

We read in the _Paralipomenon_, that this prince sent ambassadors to Hanon, king of the Ammonites, to console him for the death of his father Naas; that this king, having been persuaded that these ambassadors were spies, had them all secured, and sent them back, after having had half their garments and half their beards cut off. On these news, David was greatly enraged; and in order that his envoys might avoid the disagreement of appearing at court in this disgraceful situation, he sent them word to stop at Jericho ’till their beards were grown out to their ordinary length; after which he marched against the Annmonites, and, in two bloody battles, destroyed seven thousand of their chariots, killed Sophach, their general, and forty thousand foot, and thus avenged the insult offered his ambassadors.[50]

Footnote 50:

See the Vatable Bible, _liber Paralipomenon_, cap. xix.

This massacre, though it had no other object than the cutting off of a part of some beards will appear neither unjust nor cruel, if we consider how much this ornament of virility was honoured among the Jews, and especially when it is known that there is a law in Leviticus, which expressly forbids to cut off any part of it.

God himself, before all his chosen people assembled, was pleased, by the means of Moses, to explain his intentions with regard to this decoration of the face of man. This law does not solely forbid shaving the chin, as the vulgar translation of the bible says, which would insinuate that the Hebrews had already made use of this effeminate custom; but, according to all the best versions of this holy book, we read: _Don’t marr the corners of your_ _beards_, that is, let them grow naturally.[51]

Footnote 51:

See the same Vatable Bible, Leviticus chap. xix. verse 27. _Non
attondebitis in circuitum comam capitis vestri, neque dissipabitis
extremitatem barbæ tuæ._

No precept nor other law whatsoever has since altered this. The divine legislator of our religion, far from changing it, respected it so much, that he submitted to it himself; the Apostles, and all the most holy and respectable followers of the Christian worship, have warmly supported the necessity of wearing a beard; but the purity of precepts, the simplicity of manners, and humble poverty, have disappeared with the times. We have rich pluralists, short mantled Chrysostoms, and prig-parsons; but, divines with venerable beards, fathers of the primitive church, where are you?

In the constitution of the Apostles, this precept is again repeated: _The smallest hair of the beard must on no account be clipped_, it is said therein: _Oportet preterea non barbæ pilum corrumpere_.[52] If I trace things on, from the time of the Apostles to the entire establishment of Christianity, I find, that all the fathers, doctors, and saints of the rising church, strongly recommended the custom of wearing the beard, and regarded a bald chin as the mark of infamy and debauchery. Saint Clement the Roman, who lived likewise in the time of the Apostles, after mentioning the Levitican law, which we have already quoted, says, that _God, who created us after his own likeness, will load those with his hatred who violate his law by shaving their chins_.[53]

Footnote 52:

Lib. i. cap. 3.

Footnote 53:

This Saint, who was the disciple of St. Peter, succeeded pope Anaclet,
A. D. 91. See in his book _Constitutionum Sanctorum Apostolorum_, the
chap. entitled _Catholica Doctrina de Laicis_.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, in several parts of his learned works, complains highly of this abuse so disgraceful for mankind; he speaks with great warmth against the rakes of his time, who were not ashamed to appear in public close shaved. This saint, who was still a better philosopher than a theologian, does not think it beneath him, in another part of his work, to write the elogy of the beard: _It contributes_, says he, _to the beauty of man, as a fine head of hair does to that of a woman_.[54] Tertullian, especially, says a great deal about beards, and, with his usual eloquence, forcibly attacks the corrupt manners of his age, which had introduced the shameful custom of shaving; he supports his arguments by St. Jerome and St. Clement of Alexandria, and even goes beyond these two holy fathers.[55]

Footnote 54:

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who is looked upon as the most learned of
all the fathers of the Church, lived at the end of the second and
beginning of the third century. See his book on theatrical
exhibitions, and his Pedagogue, book iii. a work which abbot Fleuri,
in his Ecclesiastical history, calls, _an abridgement of the whole
Christian moral_.

Footnote 55:

Tertullian, in his book _de Cultu feminarum_, and in that _de Pallio_,
speaks very advantageously of beards. This learned man, whom St.
Cyprian called his master, was the first who wrote on the alteration
of a canon of the council of Carthage, which forbade priests to shave
their beards.

Saint Cyprian has likewise expressed how much he thought a shaved chin contrary to the Christian institution. In deploring the state of this religion, he exclaims: _There is no longer this religious devotion and entire confidence in the ministers of God to be found in the priests; no more works of mercy, no more order among the lower classes: the men cut off their beards, and the women paint their faces._ And in another part: _And notwithstanding it is written, You shall not cut off your beards, they depilate their chins and colour their cheeks. Thus, to please the world, they are not afraid to displease God._[56]

Footnote 56:

_Divi Cypriani, liber de Lapsis._

It would be too long to cite the number of respectable authorities who have either written in praise of beards or censured shaved faces, who have not only looked upon it as an ornament conformable to Christian gravity, but maintained that it could not be cut away without a sin.[57]

Footnote 57:

All the first fathers of the Church have strongly recommended the
custom of beards, or have spoken of them advantageously: such are St.
Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, St. Theodoret,
St. Sidoin Apollinarius, &c.

This opinion of the first fathers of the Church is supported by two councils: the first is the fourth council of Carthage, the 44th canon of which runs thus: _Clericus nec comam nutriat, nec barbam radat. A clergyman must neither keep up his hair nor shave away his beard._ Tho’ this canon has been entirely altered by the suppression of the word _radat_, as Tertullian remarks, and, after him, a number of commentators, it is certain it ought to be thus, which we will prove by what we are going to say. The second is a council held at Barcelona in 540, in the third canon of which we read: _Ut nullus Clericorum comam nutriat, aut barbam radat. Let no clergyman either keep up his hair, or shave away his beard._

After such sacred laws, and the opinion and example of the apostles, and of all the fathers of the primitive church; after the decisions of two authentic councils, one should not think there had existed men sufficiently deceitful or ignorant to maintain, not only that it is indifferent to shave or not, but likewise that the beard is contrary to the institution of the Church. Lighted by the torch of truth, and guided by the most scrupulous impartiality, we will follow up the chain of the different events which have so often changed the sentiments and beards of one part of Europe.

I find all the popes of the earliest times of Christianity wore long beards, ’till the first division into two Churches, Greek and Latin. Their rivality had already broken out in the excommunication of the iconoclasts. When Charlemain became emperor of the West, the popes then threw off the yoke of the Grecian authority, and seized that occasion to distinguish themselves from their enemies by something particular. It was at this very epoch, according to fathers Henschenius and Papebrock,[58] that Leo III. gave the Latin church, for the first time, the example of a pope shaved. The disputes soon redoubled. Photius, the Greek patriarch, renewed the pretensions of the clergy of the East to precendency over those of the West: he excommunicated, in his turn, pope Nicholas I. who had already excommunicated him. Never had the chins of the Greeks been so bearded, nor those of the Latins so closely shaved. Photius, having taken the title of œcumenical patriarch, declared the Western bishops heretics. Among other things, he reproached them with cutting off their beards. _A strange reason for setting the Western and Eastern empires at variance_, says a great writer of our age. To think this reason so strange, is making very light of beards.[59]

Footnote 58:

See the _Propileum_ of fathers Henschenius and Papebrock for the month
of May, p. 209, vol. i. of the acts of the saints.

Footnote 59:

Let it be always recollected that we have nothing to do here but with
discipline. Some indispensable invectives against the divers opinion
of the popes, ought not to startle tender consciences. The dogma,
which we highly respect, has no part in this discussion.

Nicholas I. does not offer any thing in his own defence against this serious accusation. In his letter to Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, and the other bishops of France, A. D. 867, he only says, speaking of the Greeks: “Moreover, they endeavour to throw blame on us, because the clergy who are under our authority don’t refuse to be shaved.”[60] This phrase, which shews that all the clergy at that time were constrained to appear shaved, presents nothing in excuse for this violent conduct. If the pope could have offered some reasons to palliate this looseness of discipline, he would not have failed to make use of them on this occasion; but he does not give one. Rivalship was the sole cause of these puerile dissensions. What a number of disputes, and troubles has not this ridiculous infatuation of the Latin priests occasioned! Had they but let their beards grow out, they would have avoided all these mischiefs.

Footnote 60:

_Quin & reprehendere satagunt, quia penes os clerici barbas radere
suas non abnuunt, &c._ Acta Conciliorum.

The death of the patriarch, without destroying the schism, calmed people’s minds for some times, and the ignorance of the times (according to some) contributed greatly to extinguish the flames of this violent quarrel. John XII. forgetting, or perhaps not knowing the animosity that had reigned between the two churches, soon appeared again with a long beard according to fathers Henschenius and Papebrock.[61]

Footnote 61:

See _Propileum_, already quoted, page 20.

This irregular and inconsequent conduct of the popes, and indifference for the true discipline of the Church, seems to be justified in a council held at Limoges in 1031. By the determinations of that assembly it is of little moment whether a priest be shaved or not. The reasons of the Greeks and Latins are there weighed, and the latter are said to support their arguments by the example of St. Peter. (This assertion is contrary to all truth, as all the monuments which have preserved us the image of that Saint prove.) They add, in favour of those priests that go shaved, that they ought to be distinguished from the laity by their outward appearance. This reason, were it just, would be good only at a time when it should be the fashion for laymen to wear long beards, and it ought to be an additional incitement to priests to let theirs grow out, among a nation who do not wear this mark of manhood.

“The others,” says the same council, speaking of the Greeks, “have chosen the custom of not shaving; they ground their choice upon the example of the Apostles Paul, and James the brother of the Lord, saying with reason, for nothing should be concealed, that the clergy, as the laity, ought to preserve on their faces this ornament of virility, as a dignity of the human condition, a dignity created by God himself, and with which he has been pleased to honour man alone. As to the clergy, they should be distinguished solely by the tonsure of the head. The Greeks add likewise, that our Lord of Nazareth always wore his beard.” By this session of the council of Limoges, no mention is made of the two councils which expressly forbid priests to cut off their beards, nor of the authority of the fathers and the Levitican law; this was to suit the circumstances: and the council concludes on this matter, _that if the Greeks have nothing to reproach us with, we have nothing to reproach them with_.[62] After this declaration, though it is quite contrary to the fundamental discipline of the Church, the reader will be greatly surprised to learn, that the very same year, 1031, by a canon of the council of Bourges, all the clergy were ordered to get themselves shaved;[63] nor will he be less so to find pope Gregory VII. (formerly friar Hildebrand, a shaved monk, a turbulent, ambitious man, and the declared enemy of emperors and kings,) firmly maintain, that a priest, who wore a long beard, was guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour against Christianity. This pope Gregory was a confounded shearer of beards: he called a council at Gironne in 1073, where the clergy were expressly forbidden to wear this mark of manhood.[64] A few years after, this tyrant of the beards having learned that the archbishop of Cagliary preserved his in all its length, he immediately ordered him to get himself shaved, and at the same time wrote (in 1080) to Orzoc, the podestate of the town, these orders ... “We therefore order your bishop, our brother, to have his beard shaved, _like all the Western clergy, who have preserved this custom ever since the commencement of the Christian faith_:[65] in consequence, we command you likewise to oblige all the clergy that are under your authority, to be shaved, and to confiscate the property of those who shall refuse to obey, to the profit of the Church of Cagliary: make use of severity, for fear lest this abuse should increase.”

Footnote 62:

_Et hac in re neque illi nos, neque nos possumus reprehendere illos,
&c._ Concil. Lemovicense, anno 1031, sessio II, acta Concil. tom. vi.

Footnote 63:

Council of Bourges, canon 7.

Footnote 64:

_Synodus Gerundensis, can. vii. Thæsorus anecdotorum._

Footnote 65:

_Scilicet ut quemadmodum totius occidentalis Ecclesiæ Clerus, ab ipsis
fidei christianæ primordiis, barbam radendi morem tenuit, &c._ Greg.
Papæ vii. Epist. lib. viii. ad Orzoc, judicem Calaritanum.

This letter, wholly founded upon illusion, and which so justly characterises its author, proclaims the approaching destruction of the little beard yet left on the chins of the Latin priests. It was at this time no doubt that those ordinances _de radendis barbis_, which we still read in several communities, were made; and in a little time the laymen were the only ones that could, without a crime, wear long beard; but it did not continue so long.

The German priests soon followed this example, which is proved by a fragment of a letter preserved in the new history of the Benedictines of Black Forest, where Sigefroy of Goetz complains grievously to Papon, the reformer, that the Germans were beginning to imitate the French in several effeminate customs, among others, that of cutting off their beards. In time, the priests saw with pain, that they were separated from other men by a mortifying distinction: what should they do to relieve their offended self-love? Let their beards grow out? The difficulty of ordering it, even sometime after it had been forbidden, did not hinder them; but the quarrel with the Greeks was yet too recent for the Latins to think of looking like those haughty, clearsighted enemies. In order that all might be upon a par, it was decided, that the laity should be shaved: this mean had a very plausible appearance, and it was decided to begin with the princes.

That of Henry I. king of England, was the premier victim of the conjuration. Serlon of Abond, bishop of Seez, undertook the conquest of this royal fleece. Easter-day, 1105, he preached before this prince and all his court: his sermon ran entirely on heads of hair and beards; he exclaimed particularly against the length of the latter, which, he maintained, was contrary to the spirit of the Christian religion: his vehement tone and persuasive eloquence moved all the audience. The king, penetrated with compunction, resolved to be the first to give the example of a sacrifice as holy and new as courageous: then the preacher, approaching Henry, drew out of his sleeve a pair of scissars, and piously sheared the prince’s chin. All the assembly, carried away by this act of religion, would fain imitate him, and the holy bishop became the shearer of the whole congregation. This strange farce, which was not the only one, would appear a fable, if father Mabillon did not very seriously relate the particulars of it in his Annals of the Benedictines.[66]

Footnote 66:

_Moxque Episcopus, extractis è manicâ forficibus, primo Regem, post
cæteros Optimates attondisse, &c._ Annal. Benedict.

Some years after, Lewis the Young’s beard underwent the same fate. This prince having burnt three thousand five hundred Champenese, who had taken refuge in Vitry church,[67] was soon a prey to his stings of conscience. Peter Lombard, bishop of Paris,[68] assured him, that there was no more effectual way to expiate this crime, than to have his long beard cut off forthwith. The king clearly saw there was nothing more reasonable; and this pious bishop executed himself the function of barber to his majesty.

Footnote 67:

In the war which he had with Theobald, count of Champaign. See page 41
of this work.

Footnote 68:

Philip, the king’s brother, being appointed bishop of Paris, thought
the place beneath him; he resigned it to Peter Lombard, who, according
to Zuinger, A. D. 1160, made use of his episcopal authority to have
all the priests and monks of his diocese shaved.

Frederick I. surnamed _Redbeard_, was not exempted from the common law; the colour of his beard, the example of two princes, and the strong solicitations of the clergy, prevailed on him to be shaved; and this emperor, who had courageously refused to hold the stirrup to pope Adrian IV. to kiss his feet, and lead his Spanish genet by the bridle, had not the resolution to withstand the priests on this occasion.

When the clergy had succeeded to shave the principal princes of Europe, they might justly expect to see a great many imitators among the rest of the people. Far better than violence, the example would have triumphed over the remaining beards; but the priests of those days of ignorance were strangers to all moderate means.

Godfrey, bishop of Amiens, saying mass Christmas-day, 1105, formed the design of unmercifully stripping all the bearded chins; those, who came to the offering with long beards, were turned back. Frighted at this cruel refusal, most of the men were eager to cut off the hair of their chins, hastily laying hold of scissars, and even knives, in order to be able to present themselves immediately before their bishop with a better grace.[69]

Footnote 69:

See _le Mercure de France_ for January, 1732.

Never was reason the motive of such indecencies. It seems as if truth had revenged itself on these silly, superstitious times at the expense of decorum.

Envy, under the imposing cloak of religion, had just scattered its venom; vengeance had its fill; every chin was shaved, and the Church enjoyed its triumph. Time moderates all things, even the anger of votaries; they forgot that beards had been anathematized: the successors of those very popes, who had looked upon a bearded priest as guilty of a shameful sin, were in a little time no longer afraid to sin themselves, and publicly appeared with long beards. Such were Henry III. Alexander IV. Adrian V. John XX. Nicholas III. &c. &c.

This calm was enjoyed but a short time, before a new storm arose against sacerdotal beards, stirred up by envy and ignorance, to destroy the work of peace and reason. The vicissitude of human things respects nothing. Lewis V. in Germany, Peter the Cruel in Spain, and Philip of Valois in France, had let out their beards, and the mode gained ground throughout Europe. Priests are not blessed with a character that shelters them from the influence of fashion; several were slaves to that which brought beards again in vogue. The popes themselves did not disdain it, though a number of provincial councils stood up against the new bearded chins: in 1323, clergymen, by a synodal statute of the church of Orleans, were forbidden to wear long beards, under pain of excommunication. Meanwhile, according to the quality and condition of the persons,[70] other synodal statutes of the church of Beziers ordered the priests of the diocese to cut off their beards and hair of their heads, except just the crown, in order that they might apply themselves with more diligence to their studies and functions.[71] A provincial council of Paris, and another of Sens, ordered the same; a council of the same town of Beziers, under archbishop Peter Narbonne, in 1351, canon xi. forbids wearing long beards; and as a punishment for such temerity, it is there said: We condemn the offender, if a canon, to be deprived of his daily distribution, and if an incumbent, to pay twelve deniers for the use of the church.[72] The custom of wearing beards was condemned likewise by a synodal statute of the church of St. Malo, in 1370, and all sacerdotal beards were shorn off.

Footnote 70:

_Statuta synodalia ecclesiæ Aurelianensis, anno 1323. Amplissima
Collectio veterum Scriptorum, &c._ vol. i. by Martenne and Durand.

Footnote 71:

_Statuta synodali ecclesiæ Bitteris_, 1332. Thæforus Anecd.

Footnote 72:

_Alioquin, canonicum privatum distributionibus illius diei esse
volumus, & Beneficiatum puniri pæna duodecimorum denariorum pro tali
usu temerario statuimus & mandamus Fabricæ illius ecclesiæ
applicandorum._ Thæsorus Anecdotorum.

The beards of the laity, it seems, were spared in this general proscription. The time, no doubt, when the priests could take the liberty of cutting off the beards of both people and kings with impunity, began to decline.

The monks had, a long time before, settled rules for the government of their chins: in 807, at the assembly of Aix-la-chapelle, it was ordered, that the monks should not shave themselves at all during lent, and that the rest of the year, they should do it once a fortnight. We see in the statutes and customs of different monasteries, that the monks were shaved, except the lay-brothers, who were called _Fratres barbati_, bearded brothers.[73] We find in old manuscripts the very prayers that were recited when a monk in full orders had his beard shorn. Humility was the motive of this custom, which was practised with much ceremony. At the taking of the habit, the beard of the candidate was blessed with great ceremony; and when he was made a monk, he dedicated his beard to God. This ceremony was practised likewise by the Heathens. See page 16 of this work.

Footnote 73:

Marbillon’s _Annales Benedictines, lib._ 71.

This new storm was succeeded by another calm, and long beards seemed likely to have a fine time; and truly they appeared again in all their ancient majesty. Julius II. gave the signal, and was followed by all Europe. This pope, by his venerable look, recalled the image of the patriarchs of old. The cardinals, and all the Church, were eager to follow an example so commendable. The age was more enlightened: the ancient disputes were either forgotten, or only thought of to lament the injustice of their cause. The orthodoxy of beards was acknowledged, and truth shined in all its brightness; but gloomy envy at length came to obscure its splendour: some exclaimed that it was a piece of pride, others a scandal; and quarrels that should have been buried for ever in oblivion were again renewed. Jealousy, under a holy pretext, raised itself with more daringness than ever, and occasioned violent animosities. What writings appeared! what outrages and phrenzy!... _Bella horrida, bella ... cerno...._ But let us not entrench upon such precious matters: let us rather endeavour, with the same impartiality, to discover the origin of so many disturbances.

Bessarion, the famous Greek, first, archbishop of Nice, afterwards, cardinal, and, at length, patriarch of Constantinople, came into Italy with the archbishop of Russia, to endeavour to bring about an union between the Greek and Latin churches. Bessarion made no difficulty of subscribing to the orthodoxy of the latter; and this was what got him a cardinal’s hat: his long beard, and that of his companion, accustomed the court of Rome to this mode. Bessarion was one of the stoutest men of his time; every one longed to look like this illustrious man, were it only in the fleece on his chin; and his fine Grecian beard soon produced a number of Latin ones.[74]

Footnote 74:

This cardinal’s beard was not so well received in France. This great
man being sent thither as legate, visited, through policy, the duke of
Burgundy before he saw king Lewis XI. This monarch was so offended at
the preference given his enemy, that, at the first audience he gave
this legate, he roughly seized him by his long beard, and gave him a
great deal of abuse. The patriarch took this affront so near to heart,
that he did not survive it above a year.

Some years after, Julius II. was elected pope; his youth, which suited but badly with the majesty of the papacy, determined him to let his beard grow out, in order to inspire more respect: he was the first pope of his time who gave the Church such a holy and rational example. Clement VII. one of his successors, did not imitate him at first; but having been detained five months in prison by the troops of Charles of Bourbon, the general of the emperor’s army, he came out as if regenerated and triumphant, with his face enobled with a large, bushy beard, which he would never part with. This custom was eagerly adopted by those clergy, who, by their revenues or exploits, held a distinguished rank in the Church or State. It was then that the inferior clergy, and especially the chapters, strongly opposed this pretended indecorum. We read, that, in the reign of Lewis XII. one Anthony de Langheac, canon of the church of Paris, abbot and canon of that of Clermont, counsellor-clerk to the parliament, and ambassador to the republic of Venice, could not enter the choir of the church of Our Lady at Paris with his long beard. On account of the commission with which the king had honoured him, he at length obtained permission to hear matins, which were then said at midnight.[75] In a little time, they were not so scrupulous, as all the clergy let out their beards, even the lowest among them, in order to give themselves a pontifical appearance;[76] when, in France, Francis I. (who might justly boast of having worn the first beard of his kingdom,) for œconomical reasons, armed the enemies of clerical beards with destructive weapons, and was the occasion of the war which we are going to speak of.

Footnote 75:

These particulars are inserted in the register of the capitular
resolutions of the year 1505, which may be seen in the archives of the
metropolitical church of Paris.

Footnote 76:

_Beroald de Verville_, in his _Moyen de parvenir_, accounts for the
promptitude with which the priests imitated the popes. “I will tell
you a remark; when the pope has a large beard, the priests will have
the same; if he have a shaved chin, they will likewise, because they
all aim at the papacy.” _Moyen de Parvenir, chap. tom._

This king, in order to get money from the clergy of his kingdom, says doctor Zuinger, a contemporary, obtained a brief from the pope, which ordered all the French clergy to get themselves shaved, or else to pay a certain sum to have permission to wear their beard.[77] A contribution from such a body might be of great service in a time of scarcity. Francis I. experienced it; for all the tufted prelates, court ecclesiastics, incumbents, and expectant clergymen, paid the money, and retained their beards; but all the canons of small revenue, village curates, and poor rectors, freed themselves from the impost by getting themselves shaved, and this was the source of the troubles which disquieted the reign of Henry II. The difference of the chins of the clergy of the same kingdom caused that dark, intestine war which owed its rise solely to jealousy.

Footnote 77:

_Theatrum vitæ humanæ Theodori Zuingeri, lib._ 2.

Now is the time to mention the discussions which, on account of a beard affair, began to trouble the ancient capital of the world. Some seditious, jealous beings secretly fomented their ruin; the alarm increased; and beards were in the utmost danger, when Pierrius Valerianus undertook their defence. This man, one of the most learned and most bearded of his time discussed, in a most able manner, the cause he undertook; his book, intitled _pro Sacerdotum Barbis_, is dedicated to cardinal Medicis. A just reasoning and a strength of elocution are the great qualities of his discourse; we can perceive that the author was impressed with his subject; he quotes a number of authorities, both sacred and profane, which concur to the triumph of his cause. He complains that the respect due to the ministers of God is already but too much diminished, without endeavouring to destroy it by a debasing custom; and adds, that Jesus never made any law that tended to alter the Levitican ones, which we have cited; and that the son of God himself, having given the example of this discipline, all Christians ought to follow it. “What a piece of folly it is,” cries he, “to pretend that the beard, which was given by God, should be unworthy of his creatures.” He demonstrates, that the canon of the council of Carthage, which forbids clergymen to let out their beards, has been absolutely mutilated: he calls to his aid the opinion of all the great men of his time, and several ancient manuscripts, among others, that which is in the elector palatine’s library.[78]

Footnote 78:

“Who,” says he, “will dare maintain, that the beard is not the
ornament of man, the symbol of probity and justice; that it does not
give him a grave, stern look; I mean to speak of those who are
determined by reason rather than opinion? If it be admitted then that
the beard is the ornament of an honest, just man, why should it not be
the most decent ornament for a priest, who ought to be an example of
virtue.” _Apologia Joannis Pierii Valeriani belumen._ I have seen
three editions of this work.

Let us now examine whether this canon of the council of Carthage, on which the antibearded gentry found their anathemas, deserves any confidence. According to them, these are the words of the canon of that council: _Clericus nec comam nutriat nec barbam_; and these, according to the sticklers for beards: _Clericus nec comam nutriat, nec barbam radat._ The former forbids to wear long beards; the latter orders it. So the whole depends on the adding or suppressing of the word _radat_.

It seems at first, in favour of bearded chins, that the termination of the phrase, _nec barbam_, should point out the suppression of a verb, such as _radat_; and indeed it would have been much more simple, and more regular, in the same sense, to write, _Clericus nec comam nec barbam nutriat_.

This objection, which begins to throw light on the wiles of the enemies of beards, would be but weak, were it not confirmed by a number of triumphant proofs, and especially by the opinion of the most celebrated and most laborious commentators, such as fathers Labbe and Hardouin, &c. Savaron, in his commentary on the epistles of St. Sidoin Apollinarius, warmly maintains, that the word _radat_ has been suppressed from the 44th canon of this council of Carthage, and that the custom of wearing long beards was there precisely ordered. Father Sirmond, who published some time after a commentary on the same epistles, is of the same opinion as Savaron with respect to the suppression of this word _radat_. Charles Dumoulin, in his notes to the 5th chapter of the 1st record of the 3d book of the Decretals, assures us that the text of this canon has been mutilated, and that we ought to read _nec barbam radat_.

Let us see on what authority the opinion of these learned men is founded. The greatest part of the manuscripts of the councils have the word _radat_. Pierrius Valerianus, in his book _pro Sacerdotum Barbis_, quotes several, and those are the least suspected. Father Labbe has added a note to the canon in question, in which he numbers the manuscripts wherein the word _radat_ is found. Father Hardouin assures us that this important _radat_ exists in the most authentic manuscripts, such as those in the libraries of Corbie, Giblou, Barberin, Paris, &c.

From these modern proofs, let us pass to those which antiquity or the contemporaries of this council ought to furnish us with. St. Sidoin Apollinarius says very clearly, speaking of the time of this council of Carthage: _Tum coma brevis & barba prolixa; At that time people wore short hair and long beards._ Tertullian says a great deal about this same council; he maintains that the word _radat_ has been suppressed in the 44th canon; he cries out upon the licentiousness of his age, too fertile in like impositions, and says, in plain terms! _Corrigendum est reponendumque, juxta fidem veterum exemplarium, Clericus nec comam nutriat, nec barbam radat. This canon ought to be corrected, and, conformably to the fidelity of the old copies, it should be written, that no clergyman should wear his hair, or shave his beard._[79] We see what a distance our short cloke clergy keep from this edifying regulation.

Footnote 79:

It may not be amiss perhaps to correct a chronological error that is
in the epochs of this council of Carthage and the life of Tertullian.
All the commentators and chroniclers place this council in the year
398, and the death of this learned man about the year 220 of our æra.
According to them, he should have lived about a century and half
before this council. After that, one is greatly surprised to find, in
the works of this same Tertullian, his observations on this council of
Carthage, and still more so, to find him speak of it as an epoch much
earlier than that in which he was writing; for, when he condemns the
supression of the word _radat_, he says it ought to be restored
conformably to the fidelity of the old copies, _juxta fidem veterum
exemplarium, &c._ The anachronism is more than two centuries.

Saint Epiphanius lived in the time of this council of Carthage: this was a very learned Saint. Let us see in his writings if the fathers of those days proclaim the proscription of long beards. With respect to the heretic Massalians he speaks thus. “Is there any thing more contrary to good morals than their customs? They cut off their beards, the mark of manhood, and wear very long hair. Nevertheless, the sacred expressions of the constitutions of the apostles dogmatically prescribe the rules that are to be observed with respect to the beard: it is forbidden to cut off any part of it, for fear lest men should at length get themselves quite shaved, and lay hold of the effeminate manners and luxury of abandoned rakes.”[80]

Footnote 80:

_Sed deterius quiddam, ac contrarium ab illis geritur: siquidem isti
barbam, hoc est, propriam viri formam, resecant; capillos vero, ut
plurimum, prolixiores habent. Atqui quod ad barbam attinet in
Apostolorum constitutionbus divino sermone, à degmate præscribitur, ne
ea corrumpatur: hoc est, ne barba ponatur neve meretricius cultus &
ornatus usurpetur, &c._ St. Epiphanius against the heretic Massalians,
sect. viii.

These reproaches, very conclusive in favour of the partisans of long beards, will be much more so, and silence the adversaries of that mark of manhood, if it be observed, that this same council of Carthage condemns as heretics those same Massalians whose shaved chins St. Epiphanius represents to be a crime. Is it likely that the Massalians should be condemned as heretics, and that at the same time the orthodox clergy should be required to imitate them, and follow a custom that is looked upon as the most scandalous of debauchery; such a law would be the height of inconsequence. It is much more reasonable to suppose, that, instead of the priests’ being ordered to have their chins shaved, they were forbidden to do it, that they might not look like the heretic Massalians. Besides, what could be opposed to the council of Barcelona, which was held some time after that of Carthage, a council that has never experienced any contradiction, and in which shaving the beard is again forbidden? We read in the third canon, _Ut nullus Clericorum comam nutriat aut barbam radat. Let no clergyman keep up his hair or shave his beard._

We have demonstrated then the fraud of the antibearded priests, and proved that the word _radat_ has been suppressed in the 44th canon. Clergymen therefore, by this council of Carthage, at which two hundred and fourteen bishops attended, are forbidden to cut off their beards, and the general opinion of the primitive church, on this point, is established.

If we did not know, that private interests can persuade men to contradict the best founded maxims, we should be greatly surprised no doubt to find learned men of distinction presume to write, that the general opinion of the primitive Church condemned long beards. At the head is cardinal Baronius (tom. i. ad. ann. 48). Let us refer the proselytes of this credulous writer of legends to _le Mercure_ for April 1765; they will there find that a learned Jesuit, father Oudin in his inquiries concerning beards, proves, that this cardinal was a bad man, or that he would not read his St. Epiphanius.

The ordinances of the provincial synods and councils which have made use of this council of Carthage to justify their forbidding the clergy to wear long beards, should therefore be void of course: the edifice falls of itself when the foundation is undermined.

But let us return to the defenders of beards of the sixteenth century: Pierrius was not the only champion that appeared on this occasion. Adrian Junius, an ingenious physician, and distinguished for his learning, in his commentary on the hair of the head, says a great deal about clerical beards, with as much eloquence and more erudition than his predecessor; he relates every thing that had not been advantageously said before on the subject, and is not afraid to take a review of the opinions and examples of all the ancients; he establishes, that even when there should be neither law, constitution, nor council which ordered the priests to preserve their beards, they ought to do it, because it gives the wearer a grave, stern, respectable look, which becomes the ministers of the altar, and that their thus changing the nature of God’s work, in order to please mankind, is, for them, a very criminal piece of luxury.[81]

Footnote 81:

_De comâ Commentarium Adriani Junii Honani, Medici, cap. ii. de rasurâ
capillorum pariter & barbæ._

These works produced their effect: nevertheless pope Paul III. being displeased with the severe tone of Pierrius and the sharp reproaches which he threw out against the manners of the clergy of the age, would not seem to comply thereto; but without issuing a formal decree against beards, as was talked of, he contented himself with commanding a cardinal briefly to order the priests to get themselves shaved.[82]

Footnote 82:

Beroalde ridicules the shaved priests of those days. He says it was
ordered so, _in order that the regret which they have at not daring
nor being willing to partake of the pleasures of this world, may in no
wise appear; to which you may add that they ought to be merry_ (venite
exultemus), _and that theirs is a state of perpetual joy, which must
be made appear so, though it were not; and this is the reason why they
wear their chins shaved, because a man thus polished up about the
gills is always laughing ... from thence came this canon of the
council of Quarante_: THE PRIESTS SHALL SHAVE WITH HOG’S SWARD, _in
order that they may always appear laughing, dainty-mouthed, airy, &c._
Moyen de parvenir, chap. _Allegation._

The major part paid but little attention to this ordinance; some, more scrupulous, obeyed, but not without repugnancy: there were a few of the latter however, according to Gentian Hervet, who had reason to repent of their exactness: among others, he speaks of one Leonicus Thomeus, an old man of ninety, who was no sooner shaved, according to the decree of the pontiff, than he was seized with such a confounded tooth-ach, that he was obliged to solicit the pope’s clemency. Cardinal Bembe sent him forthwith a permission to wear his beard a reasonable length.

Let us now proceed to France, where the pope’s brief, obtained by Francis I. gave beginning to the envy which the shaved priests bore the bearded ones. Their jealousy had been brewing a long time, and only waited, to show itself, for the death of that prince, whose orders seemed still to be respected. Their animosity, already too much increased by this obstacle, broke out at length on the person of William Duprat, the son of the famous chancellor of that name: he was returning from the council of Trent, where his eloquence had made him conspicuous, and was going to take possession of the bishopric of Clermont, which he had been given some time before. The reader should take along with him that he had one of the finest beards in the kingdom. One Easter-day, when he came to his cathedral church to perform divine service, he found the gates of the choir shut; three dignitaries of the chapter were waiting for him at the entrance: one of them held a razor in his hand, the other a pair of scissars, and the third the book of the ancient statutes of that church, and pointing with his finger to these words; _barbis rasis_.

At the sight of this frightful preparation, the prelate clearly perceived that they aimed at his beard, the dearest object of his attention; two of these fatal enemies seemed to threaten it with the instruments with which they were armed; and the third kept crying: Reverend father in God, _barbis rasis_. The impatient dean had already laid hold of this episcopal fleece, when our bearded bishop stopped him, and being a little recovered from his fright, he endeavoured to convince him of the impropriety of working on such a great holy-day, and that it was better to defer this operation ’till the next day; but the temporizing prelate’s eloquence made no impression on the minds of these intractable men; the unmerciful dean kept his hold: full of indignation at this mortifying insult, and terrified for the fate of his cherished beard, William Duprat suddenly took to his heels, crying: _I save my beard, and quit my bishopric_.[83] He immediately repaired to his country-house at Beauregard, three leagues from Clermont, and swore he would never more live in that capital.

Footnote 83:

William Major, a doctor of the Sorbone and canon of the church of
Clermont, in a work intituled _defence de feu M. Savaron, &c._
maintains, against abbot Faydit, that this anecdote is a story of his
invention. In order to free his old brethren from the imputation of
having designed to shear their bishop, in the warmth of his zeal, he
breaks out into invectives against his adversary; but he proves it
least, in his long refutation, that the canons saw with grief a long
beard on the chin of their bishop, and that when the latter wished to
be present at some synod, he was obliged to ask permission of his
chapter to come without being shaved. He quotes several resolutions of
the chapter, by which he was granted this permission.

It was in this place of retirement, that, being violently moved at the affront which his beard had received, he fell ill, and died of grief.[84]

Footnote 84:

See the 8th vol. of the _Causes célébres, a canon refused for being
too little_.

These fatal news made all the bearded clergy tremble. The standard of the revolt was set up, and the destruction of all clerical beards determined on; but Henry II. always took their part. Every new bishop put his beard under this king’s protection. The letter which he was obliged to write, the 27th December, 1551, to the clergy of the city of Troyes, who refused Anthony Caraciole for bishop on account of his long beard, is a proof of the interest he took in the beards of the clergy of his kingdom; “Dear and well beloved, it is said, but which we doubt, that you make a difficulty of receiving into your church our well beloved and trusty cousin Anthony Caraciole, your bishop, without his being shaved first, in consequence of some statutes which you have been used to observe in such cases: therefore, we have thought fit to write you these presents to request you will not stand upon this matter, but, to oblige us, excuse his compliance, as we mean to send him for a short time to some place out of the kingdom on business that concerns us, where we would not have him go without his said beard. Assuring ourselves that you will do so, we shall say no more, but that, by complying with our request, you will greatly oblige us, and may God continue his protection towards you. Given at Fontainbleau, &c.”[85]

Footnote 85:

This letter is taken _de veterum Scriptorum & amplissima collectio_,
vol. i. by Martenne and Durand.

The pacific tone which Henry II. made use of had but little effect on the inferior clergy; the war was too much kindled; every day produced new scenes and new attacks by the mutineers, and new attempts by the king to quiet them. The canons of Mans refused to receive cardinal Angennes for their bishop, on account of his long beard. The cardinal wrote to them to prepossess them in his favour, and the king wrote to them likewise to calm them, but they would listen to nothing, and the prince was obliged to send an absolute order to the chapter of Mans, requiring them to receive the said bishop without insisting on his being shaved. Some years after, the canons of Orleans made a difficulty of receiving Morvillier for their bishop: the king was again obliged to write to the canons, to desire them to receive him with his beard. The canons of Amiens likewise refused their bishop, and he was obliged to have a famous law-suit with them to sustain the cause of his long beard.

About the same time, there was the greatest difficulty to get Peter Lescot de Clagny received canon of Our Lady at Paris with his long beard: he had need to join to his personal merit the qualities of counsellor to the court, almoner to the king, &c.

Soon after, the Sorbone gravely decided, that a long beard was contrary to sacerdotal modesty.[86] At the same time the clergy, by an edict of the parliament of Toulouse, were forbidden to wear their beards.[87] But persecution strengthens what it is eager to destroy: the beards triumphed in their turn; people even went so far as to give them a more agreeable form; they wore them frizzled, as appears by the order of the clergy of Burgundy against frizzled beards. Anthony Hotman wrote at that time his _Pogonias_, or dialogue on heads of hair and beards; he concludes with the elogy of the latter. In 1576 there was a poem in quatrains printed, intitled: _Eloges des barbes rousses_. In 1539, there was a book published, intitled _la Pogonologie_, by R. D. P. printed at Rennes, in 8vo. and Gentian Hervet wrote three essays on beards. We see, by these different writings, that, in those days, people were more taken up with their beards, than now.

Footnote 86:

The 1st of July 1561, this celebrated assembly ordered all the members
of their university, doctors, bachelors, &c. to wear their beards
shaved, &c. _Non deferant barbas & veniant tonsi._

Footnote 87:

The author of a book intituled Pogonologia, says on this occasion,
that those, who wished to take advantage of the equivocation in this
edict of the French verb _porter_ (which signifies to _carry_ as well
as to _wear_) had their beards _carried_ by their servants.

As the best things have their traducers, the beard met with one in this Gentian Hervet, a learned Orleanese. He wrote a Latin discourse against beards; but in a little time, being staggered by the forcible reasons of his adversaries, he wrote a second, in which he advanced, that it was indifferent whether a priest wore his beard or not; in short, carried away by the force of truth, he at length wrote a third, in which he ably maintains that a priest absolutely ought to have a long beard on his chin.[88]

Footnote 88:

The first of these discourses is intitled, _de radendâ barbâ Oratio_;
the second, _de vel alendâ vel radendâ barbâ_; and the third, _de
alendâ barbâ_.

Notwithstanding its success, its numerous apologists, and powerful partisans, the beard had still enemies; the provinces especially were the theatre of secret cabals, where, far from the court and the bearded powers, plots of vengeance were easily contrived, and their effects often broke out in provincial councils; and most of these councils, actuated by contrary sentiments, contradicted each other in their decisions.

Two provincial councils, held at Narbonne the same year, 1551, ordered all the priests of the diocese to shave themselves at least once a month; another council, held at Rheims in 1583, only recommended the hair of the upper lip to be cut off, in order to be able to receive the communion without any obstacle. A council of Bagneres, of the same year, gives the same orders. A council of Rouen, in 1581, orders the priests to shave off their beards entirely, which it is looked upon (says the council) as debasing for a minister of the altar to wear. A council of Malines, in 1579, absolutely condemns the custom of wearing beards, whilst another council, held in the same town, eight years after, declares nearly the contrary, ordering only a little of the hair of the upper lip to be cut away.[89] All that one can conclude from all these provincial councils is, that the rage of party was gotten into the very sanctuary of truth to propagate disorder and irresolution.

Footnote 89:

See, for all these provincial councils, _Acta Conciliorum_ of father
Hardouin.

All these ephemeral ordinances had no other effect than to prolong the reign of the beards of priests; they still flourished on their chins, when the laity no longer wore them. Fashion brought about, in a short time, what all these redoubled efforts had been unable to effect during more than a century. The popes retained their beards a good while, and the first, who appeared entirely shaved, was Clement XI. who lived at the beginning of this century. Most of the clergy left it off insensibly.

The Augustins, who still wore their beards, were ashamed of not being in the fashion as usual; they sent the famous father Eustace, of the Petty Augustins of Paris, to Rome, to obtain leave to shave their chins. They say, this father Eustace made use of great address on the occasion.